3 ms·

It does seem slow, but they did manage the proof-of-stake transition pretty smoothly despite delays and widespread skepticism, so I give them some credit for th

It does seem slow, but they did manage the proof-of-stake transition pretty smoothly despite delays and widespread skepticism, so I give them some credit for that. I have no idea what Vitalik is funding. Do you?

wslh 3y ago
He was talking about proof-of-stake since the beginning and every year was talking about the next year. Not blaming Vitalik himself but the whole thing, it is bad to give false expectations. Another thing, no pun intended, is that the proof-of-stake upgrade maintains prohibitive the network fees for transactions while other technologies have low fees. > I have no idea what Vitalik is funding. Do you? The funding of projects is through the foundation but if I remember well the original people and contributors received the ~50% of the total ethers until now.
- rglullis 3y ago
  > proof-of-stake upgrade maintains prohibitive Consensus algorithms have nothing to do with transaction fees. > while other technologies have low fees. Any "Ethereum killer" that showed up turned out to have the same if not worse problems as Ethereum in the moment they started dealing with minimal real-world traction. > contributors received the ~50% of the total ethers until now. First: source? Second: "50% of total ETH until now" is doing a lot of work here. How much was during the pre-mine and how much was due to the sale? The pre-mine sale raised < 20 million USD. Are you counting the people who bought ETH in the pre-mine as "original contributors"?
  - wslh 3y ago
    > Consensus algorithms have nothing to do with transaction fees. Please don't tell bullshit. Look at Algorand and other protocols, consensus has a relationship with fees because it is linked with the cost of reaching consensus! You can even read that in the Ethereum subreddit [0]. > Source? It is repeated ad nauseam in Internet [1] and you can analyze the blockchain genesis to check it. > Ethereum killer? It is not about the protocol but the community you create. Algorand has solved the PoS before Cardano and Ethereum but they are #58 now and the creator is one of the parents of modern cryptography, Turing Prize, etc. Solana is #5. Beyond comparing the Solana protocol with Algorand it is a matter of "business" execution, technology is a smaller part. Probably if Livra from Meta was accepted it would be in the top 10. Even when you think about Solidity as a programming language, it was not well designed (e.g. security) but that doesn't matter. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/ru9dsq/the_proof_of_stake_merge_will_not_do_a_single/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/ru9dsq/the_proof_... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+the+original+contributors+of+ethereum+received&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+the+original+contri...
    - rglullis 3y ago
      I asked for "source" because I know that this is "repeated ad nauseam in the Internet" while being provably false. The very first result on your google query is a bitcoin.com page that is 404, but archive.org has this: The Ethereum network started off with a supply of 72 million Ether (ETH). Eighty-three percent of that (60 million) was distributed to people who had purchased ETH in a crowd sale that was conducted in July and August of 2014. (...) Of the remaining 12 million ETH distributed at the launch of the network in 2015, half was split amongst 83 early contributors to the protocol based mostly on time contributed. The other half were set aside for the Ethereum Foundation. So, the "50% to contributors" is actually 8.33%. > consensus has a relationship with fees because it is linked with the cost of reaching consensus! Wrong. Fees are determined by network activity and the amount of transactions competing to get into the block being "mined". The cost to validate a full block is not really different than the cost to validate a block that is not completely full. If Algorand or Cardano ever got close to the transaction volume from Ethereum, you can bet that their average transaction fees would go up accordingly.
      - pcthrowaway 3y ago
        > If Algorand or Cardano ever got close to the transaction volume from Ethereum, you can bet that their average transaction fees would go up accordingly. I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't know about Algorand or Cardano transaction volume, but many EVM-based blockchains process a similar number of transactions to ethereum (or more), with lower fees. They do all have different (proof of stake still) consensus models though For comparison: https://etherscan.io/chart/tx https://etherscan.io/chart/tx Polygon: https://polygonscan.com/chart/tx https://polygonscan.com/chart/tx Polygon is an L2, so arguably not as decentralized. But then there's Avalanche: https://avascan.info/stats/network-activity https://avascan.info/stats/network-activity Or Fantom: https://ftmscan.com/chart/tx https://ftmscan.com/chart/tx
        rglullis 3y ago
        Let's get Polygon out, because they are not a base-layer blockchain. > a similar number of transactions to ethereum (or more), with lower fees. Are we talking about the base currency (Wei) or the dollar-equivalent amount? If Wei, the only way that the transaction fees can be lower is if the chain has a different set of costs for the operations. If you are talking about the dollar-equivalent amount, then yes, transactions are going to be "more expensive". But even then, it is not related to the consensus algorithm and just the "price of the base token".

wslh 3y ago

He was talking about proof-of-stake since the beginning and every year was talking about the next year. Not blaming Vitalik himself but the whole thing, it is bad to give false expectations. Another thing, no pun intended, is that the proof-of-stake upgrade maintains prohibitive the network fees for transactions while other technologies have low fees. > I have no idea what Vitalik is funding. Do you? The funding of projects is through the foundation but if I remember well the original people and contributors received the ~50% of the total ethers until now.

rglullis 3y ago
> proof-of-stake upgrade maintains prohibitive Consensus algorithms have nothing to do with transaction fees. > while other technologies have low fees. Any "Ethereum killer" that showed up turned out to have the same if not worse problems as Ethereum in the moment they started dealing with minimal real-world traction. > contributors received the ~50% of the total ethers until now. First: source? Second: "50% of total ETH until now" is doing a lot of work here. How much was during the pre-mine and how much was due to the sale? The pre-mine sale raised < 20 million USD. Are you counting the people who bought ETH in the pre-mine as "original contributors"?
- wslh 3y ago
  > Consensus algorithms have nothing to do with transaction fees. Please don't tell bullshit. Look at Algorand and other protocols, consensus has a relationship with fees because it is linked with the cost of reaching consensus! You can even read that in the Ethereum subreddit [0]. > Source? It is repeated ad nauseam in Internet [1] and you can analyze the blockchain genesis to check it. > Ethereum killer? It is not about the protocol but the community you create. Algorand has solved the PoS before Cardano and Ethereum but they are #58 now and the creator is one of the parents of modern cryptography, Turing Prize, etc. Solana is #5. Beyond comparing the Solana protocol with Algorand it is a matter of "business" execution, technology is a smaller part. Probably if Livra from Meta was accepted it would be in the top 10. Even when you think about Solidity as a programming language, it was not well designed (e.g. security) but that doesn't matter. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/ru9dsq/the_proof_of_stake_merge_will_not_do_a_single/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/ru9dsq/the_proof_... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+the+original+contributors+of+ethereum+received&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+the+original+contri...
  - rglullis 3y ago
    I asked for "source" because I know that this is "repeated ad nauseam in the Internet" while being provably false. The very first result on your google query is a bitcoin.com page that is 404, but archive.org has this: The Ethereum network started off with a supply of 72 million Ether (ETH). Eighty-three percent of that (60 million) was distributed to people who had purchased ETH in a crowd sale that was conducted in July and August of 2014. (...) Of the remaining 12 million ETH distributed at the launch of the network in 2015, half was split amongst 83 early contributors to the protocol based mostly on time contributed. The other half were set aside for the Ethereum Foundation. So, the "50% to contributors" is actually 8.33%. > consensus has a relationship with fees because it is linked with the cost of reaching consensus! Wrong. Fees are determined by network activity and the amount of transactions competing to get into the block being "mined". The cost to validate a full block is not really different than the cost to validate a block that is not completely full. If Algorand or Cardano ever got close to the transaction volume from Ethereum, you can bet that their average transaction fees would go up accordingly.
    - pcthrowaway 3y ago
      > If Algorand or Cardano ever got close to the transaction volume from Ethereum, you can bet that their average transaction fees would go up accordingly. I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't know about Algorand or Cardano transaction volume, but many EVM-based blockchains process a similar number of transactions to ethereum (or more), with lower fees. They do all have different (proof of stake still) consensus models though For comparison: https://etherscan.io/chart/tx https://etherscan.io/chart/tx Polygon: https://polygonscan.com/chart/tx https://polygonscan.com/chart/tx Polygon is an L2, so arguably not as decentralized. But then there's Avalanche: https://avascan.info/stats/network-activity https://avascan.info/stats/network-activity Or Fantom: https://ftmscan.com/chart/tx https://ftmscan.com/chart/tx
      - rglullis 3y ago
        Let's get Polygon out, because they are not a base-layer blockchain. > a similar number of transactions to ethereum (or more), with lower fees. Are we talking about the base currency (Wei) or the dollar-equivalent amount? If Wei, the only way that the transaction fees can be lower is if the chain has a different set of costs for the operations. If you are talking about the dollar-equivalent amount, then yes, transactions are going to be "more expensive". But even then, it is not related to the consensus algorithm and just the "price of the base token".