everfree

88 ms·

721.
by everfree 5y ago
Ethereum has set aside sharding temporarily to focus on PoS. The plan to scale in the short-term is to use technology called "rollups" which put a transaction's signature data off-chain while keeping its data on-chain, effect
722.
by everfree 5y ago
>but comes at the great cost that people who aren't already in the game won't be able to acquire Ether without basically paying cash for it. That's a weird dependence on fiat currencies for a 'decentralized ledger&#x2
723.
by everfree 5y ago
Worked? All he did was raise a number in the code. Bitcoin could have raised that number too, but they chose not to, because the higher the number is raised, the harder it is to verify the Bitcoin blockchain on consumer hardware.
724.
by everfree 5y ago
Original PoS cryptocurrency, I think you mean.
725.
by everfree 5y ago
PoS-based cryptocurrencies use thousands of times less electricity than PoW-based ones, so all PoW cryptos would be above all PoS cryptos in the ranking. It wouldn't be an interesting chart.
726.
by everfree 5y ago
My advice is this: Think about your unique domain knowledge. Ask yourself: * What do I know that gives me an advantage over the average joe? * What other resources do I have that give me an advantage over the average joe? Generally spea
727.
by everfree 5y ago
This would have been a good comment if it hadn't said "risk free".
728.
by everfree 6y ago
The cost of transactions is not directly related to hashrate in the way you imply.
729.
by everfree 6y ago
> Who shares a bitcoin wallet or operates one like a bank? Almost every bitcoin exchange. It's typical to pool user funds into a relatively small number of addresses.
730.
by everfree 6y ago
"Master Branch" does not imply a hierarchy any more than a master key does. It's simply an original from which copies can be made.
731.
by everfree 6y ago
Both didn't start with PoS because it's much more difficult to come up with a practical PoS design than a practical PoW design. I consider Casper CBC to be the first robust PoS design, and it took many years of research for it to
732.
by everfree 6y ago
They may not require turing completeness in the strictest sense, but they do require branching logic and loops.
733.
by everfree 6y ago
Vitalik announced the eventual switch to PoS before he was even finished writing Ethereum, before it was released.
734.
by everfree 6y ago
The Ethereum dev team has been publicly committed to a PoS transition since the day Ethereum was launched. Anybody not aligned with this switch shouldn't have become a stakeholder in the protocol.
735.
by everfree 6y ago
I can't think of a single Ethereum dapp that could be implemented without an expressive scripting language.
736.
by everfree 6y ago
Ethereum gets around the halting problem by using a "gas" model, where it halts your execution if you run out of gas before the program returns. If Ethereum is actually the PHP of cryptocurrencies, that puts it in a great spot for
737.
by everfree 6y ago
There's an implicit social contract that the tweet owner (the "artist") wouldn't create a second NFT of the same tweet on a competing platform. There's nothing to enforce that social contract, though.
738.
by everfree 6y ago
The court, in making their ruling, could forcibly transfer the NFT, as it would make sense that they would give themselves admin status in the smart contract. So there's no reason the blockchain would need to diverge. Regarding liens,
739.
by everfree 6y ago
* Web browsers that all use a standardized name resolution and data transfer protocol to transmit hyperlinked documents * Email
740.
by everfree 6y ago
Interesting. If you don't mind, what's an example of a practical application where it would be useful to validate a bitcoin transaction without the ability for a smart contract to custody it? Just asking because, again, the value
741.
by everfree 6y ago
Personally, I'd rather trust an established blockchain plus a decentralized custodian system than trust a fledgling blockchain.
742.
by everfree 6y ago
Compared to Solidity, yes. But compared to Vyper, the other big Ethereum language (and also a decidable language), I don't personally see any advantage. I could be wrong, though.
743.
by everfree 6y ago
How useful is it to have a read-only glass window into Bitcoin that your smart contracts can look through? The only practical application I can think of is atomic swaps, which can be accomplished any number of other, easier ways.
744.
by everfree 6y ago
Check out Vyper if you haven't already. It's a newer alternative to Solidity that removes a lot of Solidity's cruft while still targeting the EVM.
745.
by everfree 6y ago
Thanks for joining this thread. What exactly do you mean by "xBTC is secured by Bitcoin itself?" Do you mean that Stacks writes out its own block hashes to the Bitcoin blockchain, or something?
746.
by everfree 6y ago
In essence, yes, it's a sidechain. From their site: > Like Bitcoin, Stacks is a layer-1 blockchain. Proof of Transfer connects it to Bitcoin with a 1:1 block ratio.
747.
by everfree 6y ago
Native smart contracts would be cool, but Stacks is not native smart contracts. It's a separate blockchain that integrates with the Bitcoin blockchain. In other words, you are trusting the Stacks blockchain to custody your bitcoins, ju
748.
by everfree 6y ago
This is a very broad and general sentiment. Do you have the source where they talk about this, so that things can be put into context?
749.
by everfree 6y ago
Antitrust cases are a good example of this type of thinking working well in practice.
750.
by everfree 6y ago
In theory you only end up in court if parties don't agree on the intent of the contract, not when they just change their mind about the contract. If one party no longer likes what they agreed to, yet the contract is clear and unambig

More ›