4 ms·

State of Ethereum: August Edition

72 points by panarky 12y ago

rthomas6 12y ago
>Currently, the biggest threat to our approach is likely some kind of rapidly switching FPGA. Finally, a project for my area of focus. Man that would be fun.
- jamoes 12y ago
  It's interesting how much work they're putting in to making their mining process ASIC resistant. Their approach to implement a turing-complete scripting system into their blockchain which miner's must be able to execute is definitely interesting. But it's also very complicated. I'll be interested to see if they can successfully implement it. In my opinion, a much more viable approach to ASIC-resistance - which is already implemented and live today - is proof-of-capacity hard-drive based mining. This is an approach to mining which Microsoft proposed in a research paper last year [1]. It's recently been implemented by an altcoin called Burstcoin [2]. I should disclose that I've been mining BURST, and therefore am financially interested in seeing it succeed. However I also genuinely believe it is interesting technology, and I'd like to see some sort of proof-of-capacity mining succeed purely because of the technical merits. The proof-of-capacity mining process basically works by pre-generating as many "plots" as possible to your hard-drive. Every plot is like a lottery ticket for a lottery that takes place once per block. If you have the luckiest plot for a block, then you get to claim the next block. After initial plot generation, the mining process is very energy efficient since it only requires a small amount of hard-drive reads per block. It's also ASIC-resistant and likely to remain very decentralized because the of the wide distribution of hard-drive storage capacity. [1] https://research.microsoft.com/pubs/217984/permacoin.pdf https://research.microsoft.com/pubs/217984/permacoin.pdf [2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.0
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
mabbo 12y ago
"The block time is decreased from 60 seconds to 12 seconds" Now this, I like. I went to a ethereum meeting in Toronto a few months back, and the block time was the only question I had for the speaker. Reducing the block time to something reasonably quick will allow for usable user applications.
- 0x0 12y ago
  I thought the risk of a split chain was tied mostly to the wall clock, not the block count? Would you not still need the equivalent of 6 BTC block confirmations aka 60 minutes of confirmations?
  - vbuterin 12y ago
    No, the block count is the only thing that matters. If an attacker has X hashpower, the probability that they will succeed in a 51% attack after N confirmations is (X / (1 - X))^N ; you can derive this formula yourself via generating functions. The block time appears nowhere in that analysis.
    - 0x0 12y ago
      But with a shorter block time, they can make more attempts in the same time span... Even if each attempt has a low probability of success on its own, wouldn't the higher number of attempts make it more likely to succeed at least once? I was led to believe the purpose of slow (long) confirmations was to reduce the risk of an attacker mining an alternative chain in secret (to be revealed later as a hijack and a double spend), by making it unlikely to be able to sustain a high hashrate (multiplied by "luck"?)
      - Bubbles99 12y ago
        Above and beyond that, the effect of high block times is that centralized miners gain a significant advantage over decentralized ones. The current block latency of the Bitcoin network is in the order of a number of seconds. As we know that current mining pools are indicative of the best connected (many of them have private peering and significant numbers of edge router nodes), we can assume that the majority of the network will be even poorer than this. In some testing the difference between a Stratum socket on the top 4 pools announcing a block was often up to 3 seconds. For a 12 second block time in Bitcoin, the network would likely collapse down to just the biggest pool, as everybody else would have a disproportionately high number of orphan blocks. Sensible miners would need to move to the biggest pool in order to avoid a significant double-digit percentage losses. > I thought the risk of a split chain was tied mostly to the wall clock, not the block count? This is a correct statement to make. The number of blocks considered to be safe is completely irrelevant, and only has the effect of denoting the time on the wall. An hour for 6 confirmations in Bitcoin wasn't chosen so much because it was 6 blocks long, but because it is a reasonable tradeoff between convenience and security. If the block time had been 5 minutes you would need 12 to get the same level of confidence in a transaction. I don't understand why the Ethereum developers appear to think otherwise.
nl 12y ago
The biggest unaddressed problem I see with Ethereum is the potential of the blockchain growing very large. There has been some discussion of this (on the Ethereum blog and elsewhere), but these discussions focus on showing that the blockchain will remain secure at very large sizes. I'm more interested in the operational mechanics of having to deal with a very large block chain. The figure of 100 TB was used in one blog post, and that is a challenging amount of data to deal with for anyone. What I haven't seen is any progress on any proposals to either provide incentives to limit the size, or ideas around splitting the chain.
- vbuterin 12y ago
  I briefly mentioned Ethereum 1.5 at the end of my blog post; I'll soon cover some clever ways of creating quasi-scalable dapps using the ETH blockchain as a usually-inexpensive security backend. Believe me, consensus and scalability are the two largest problems on my mind. We don't have nice solutions (yet :) ) because the problems are fundamentally hard.
qnr 12y ago
I'm reasonably sure that ethereum will be a failure because of a fundamental incompatibility between speculators (enticed by "get rich by being early adopter just like those bitcoin folks from 2010") and developers (who actually increase the value of the platform) I have a novel idea for a decentralized application which I think might take off. There is no way in hell I will build this with Ethereum where it will disproportionally benefit "early adopters" doing nothing and sitting on their butts. (Instead I will likely fork an existing codebase such as NXT or one of the lighter altcoins) I believe many developers interesting in building actual apps (not 10-line code snippets shown as examples on the website) feel the same. To build on the analogy from an earlier Ethereum thread, that's like Google selling developer versions of Google Glass but because of speculators buying them in bulk, the price is $100,000 per item. As a result, no one actually develops for the platform.
- abrkn 12y ago
  The early speculators in the cryptocurrency space are developers.

72 points by panarky 12y ago

>Currently, the biggest threat to our approach is likely some kind of rapidly switching FPGA. Finally, a project for my area of focus. Man that would be fun.

jamoes 12y ago
It's interesting how much work they're putting in to making their mining process ASIC resistant. Their approach to implement a turing-complete scripting system into their blockchain which miner's must be able to execute is definitely interesting. But it's also very complicated. I'll be interested to see if they can successfully implement it. In my opinion, a much more viable approach to ASIC-resistance - which is already implemented and live today - is proof-of-capacity hard-drive based mining. This is an approach to mining which Microsoft proposed in a research paper last year [1]. It's recently been implemented by an altcoin called Burstcoin [2]. I should disclose that I've been mining BURST, and therefore am financially interested in seeing it succeed. However I also genuinely believe it is interesting technology, and I'd like to see some sort of proof-of-capacity mining succeed purely because of the technical merits. The proof-of-capacity mining process basically works by pre-generating as many "plots" as possible to your hard-drive. Every plot is like a lottery ticket for a lottery that takes place once per block. If you have the luckiest plot for a block, then you get to claim the next block. After initial plot generation, the mining process is very energy efficient since it only requires a small amount of hard-drive reads per block. It's also ASIC-resistant and likely to remain very decentralized because the of the wide distribution of hard-drive storage capacity. [1] https://research.microsoft.com/pubs/217984/permacoin.pdf https://research.microsoft.com/pubs/217984/permacoin.pdf [2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=731923.0
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

mabbo 12y ago

"The block time is decreased from 60 seconds to 12 seconds" Now this, I like. I went to a ethereum meeting in Toronto a few months back, and the block time was the only question I had for the speaker. Reducing the block time to something reasonably quick will allow for usable user applications.

0x0 12y ago
I thought the risk of a split chain was tied mostly to the wall clock, not the block count? Would you not still need the equivalent of 6 BTC block confirmations aka 60 minutes of confirmations?
- vbuterin 12y ago
  No, the block count is the only thing that matters. If an attacker has X hashpower, the probability that they will succeed in a 51% attack after N confirmations is (X / (1 - X))^N ; you can derive this formula yourself via generating functions. The block time appears nowhere in that analysis.
  - 0x0 12y ago
    But with a shorter block time, they can make more attempts in the same time span... Even if each attempt has a low probability of success on its own, wouldn't the higher number of attempts make it more likely to succeed at least once? I was led to believe the purpose of slow (long) confirmations was to reduce the risk of an attacker mining an alternative chain in secret (to be revealed later as a hijack and a double spend), by making it unlikely to be able to sustain a high hashrate (multiplied by "luck"?)
    - Bubbles99 12y ago
      Above and beyond that, the effect of high block times is that centralized miners gain a significant advantage over decentralized ones. The current block latency of the Bitcoin network is in the order of a number of seconds. As we know that current mining pools are indicative of the best connected (many of them have private peering and significant numbers of edge router nodes), we can assume that the majority of the network will be even poorer than this. In some testing the difference between a Stratum socket on the top 4 pools announcing a block was often up to 3 seconds. For a 12 second block time in Bitcoin, the network would likely collapse down to just the biggest pool, as everybody else would have a disproportionately high number of orphan blocks. Sensible miners would need to move to the biggest pool in order to avoid a significant double-digit percentage losses. > I thought the risk of a split chain was tied mostly to the wall clock, not the block count? This is a correct statement to make. The number of blocks considered to be safe is completely irrelevant, and only has the effect of denoting the time on the wall. An hour for 6 confirmations in Bitcoin wasn't chosen so much because it was 6 blocks long, but because it is a reasonable tradeoff between convenience and security. If the block time had been 5 minutes you would need 12 to get the same level of confidence in a transaction. I don't understand why the Ethereum developers appear to think otherwise.

nl 12y ago

The biggest unaddressed problem I see with Ethereum is the potential of the blockchain growing very large. There has been some discussion of this (on the Ethereum blog and elsewhere), but these discussions focus on showing that the blockchain will remain secure at very large sizes. I'm more interested in the operational mechanics of having to deal with a very large block chain. The figure of 100 TB was used in one blog post, and that is a challenging amount of data to deal with for anyone. What I haven't seen is any progress on any proposals to either provide incentives to limit the size, or ideas around splitting the chain.

vbuterin 12y ago
I briefly mentioned Ethereum 1.5 at the end of my blog post; I'll soon cover some clever ways of creating quasi-scalable dapps using the ETH blockchain as a usually-inexpensive security backend. Believe me, consensus and scalability are the two largest problems on my mind. We don't have nice solutions (yet :) ) because the problems are fundamentally hard.

qnr 12y ago

I'm reasonably sure that ethereum will be a failure because of a fundamental incompatibility between speculators (enticed by "get rich by being early adopter just like those bitcoin folks from 2010") and developers (who actually increase the value of the platform) I have a novel idea for a decentralized application which I think might take off. There is no way in hell I will build this with Ethereum where it will disproportionally benefit "early adopters" doing nothing and sitting on their butts. (Instead I will likely fork an existing codebase such as NXT or one of the lighter altcoins) I believe many developers interesting in building actual apps (not 10-line code snippets shown as examples on the website) feel the same. To build on the analogy from an earlier Ethereum thread, that's like Google selling developer versions of Google Glass but because of speculators buying them in bulk, the price is $100,000 per item. As a result, no one actually develops for the platform.

abrkn 12y ago
The early speculators in the cryptocurrency space are developers.