zeroclip

11 ms·

61.
by zeroclip 4y ago
It's a distributed ledger, that you can deploy a computer program to. Use cases extend outward from there.
62.
by zeroclip 4y ago
ERC721 is an EVM spec, how do you even propose achieving this kind of restriction in Solidity? tokenURI aims to be flexible and unopinionated. It can be an inline SVG string generated by the Solidity contract itself, an IPFS link to a JPG,
63.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Who said Ethereum aims to be as fast as a regular computer, or even a raspberry pi?
64.
by zeroclip 4y ago
There is no single company driving the PR and marketing for Web3, so the term is whatever somebody wants it to be. But the vague way to describe it is an approach to building web apps with decentralized public blockchains and smart contract
65.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Web3 is just "web with a sprinkle of crypto and blockchains." The problem space is narrow, and different than what DNS and HTTPS tries to solve. But its not useless, and probably will continue to grow as part of the web.
66.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Down from peak but $500M monthly volume across 200K users is not bad really. This dashboard isn't tracking other chains and L2s, like Reddit's avatars that just crossed $10M sales volume. https://dune.com/polygon_a
67.
by zeroclip 4y ago
It’s not the majority of stake that controls the chain, it’s the majority of honest users. Rich validators can collude to have 51% staking power and start to exert unwanted force, like censoring blocks for their own profit or doing somethin
68.
by zeroclip 4y ago
See [1]. $14B in illicit activity in a year sounds like a lot, but it's about a single percent of $1T, and Chainalysis is tracking $1T worth of transactions per month in crypto.[2] [1] https://blog.chainalysis.com/repor
69.
by zeroclip 4y ago
“Richest get richer” could describe any form of capital investment in a risk-on asset that appreciates over time: buying gold, stocks, real estate, art, VC. If you have capital to place at risk in an investment that gives you a return*, you
70.
by zeroclip 4y ago
I assume you are not talking about the minority fee that goes to the validators for their services, but the majority fee that is burned in ETH after EIP1559. When a limited supply token is burned, the total supply is reduced, and assuming t
71.
by zeroclip 4y ago
0.01 ETH or less, through decentralized staking pools. But your main argument is wrong: validators do not control the network. Users running node software do. Running a node is free. If a single validator began to exert unwanted control, th
72.
by zeroclip 4y ago
um, no? How is it one? Validators are paid mostly from protocol reward by placing their capital at risk and performing the necessary work to validate the network.
73.
by zeroclip 4y ago
That’s not how PoS works.
74.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Not the case with proof of stake.
75.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Seems like you are saying that anything primarily relying on a permissionless and distributed consensus mechanism will not get a pass.
76.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Yikes, I hope that people on HN would not defend such a decision this way.
77.
by zeroclip 4y ago
That's not how the argument and poem[1] goes. If a devops team for a pro-choice campaign was being censored on SourceHut because it does not align with Drew's moral compass, nobody would defend this with "well, they can just
78.
by zeroclip 4y ago
"Lots of stuff is bad and so all of it must be bad" is a weak argument. Look at email: 85% of mail is spam and scam. If you read beyond the hype the use cases are very clear, even if they are very narrow: disintermediation, decent
79.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Lol, hilarious. I guess Endaoment and any EVM-based project would also not be permitted, then. Now I wonder what would pass this nebulous Drew-review.
80.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Seems extremely arbitrary. Would ENS get a pass? What about Ethereum itself?
81.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Is this real person also named Drew?
82.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Take PayPal or Wise. User A sends $100 USD to User B, and the payment network takes a $1 fee. User A now has -$100 USD and User B has $99 USD. If you add -100 + 99 it might seem like money disappears, but that remaining $1 of value has gone
83.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Seems like virtue signalling from an over-controlling project maintainer with a grudge against blockchains. Can you make a coherent case for why a legitimate and licit application of crypto should not be allowed on your source hosting platf
84.
by zeroclip 4y ago
How is proof of stake a net negative on the environment?
85.
by zeroclip 4y ago
I don’t understand your logic. Users pay 0.01 ETH for gas fees to perform some action like transfer USDC from A to B. Majority of that fee is burned but some small percentage goes toward a validator for their services. The price of Eth may
86.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Users get value out of sending tokens, holding stablecoins, and interacting with smart contracts. The price can go up or down but who cares, if they are using stable tokens or just using ETH to pay gas fees. They might be happy to part with
87.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Yes this idea is interesting. Short of US-government sanctions, there is very little that can be done to tear down a permanent contract. Even Tornado Cash still works and can be accessed and analyzed[1][2], the US government could not remov
88.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Sorry but the statement "Not 'crypto' which is by and large a scam" is a common statement from Bitcoin maximalists who refuse to engage with the rest of the crypto currency system. "Crypto" is a broad umbrella
89.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Aztec is live on mainnet: https://aztec.network/
90.
by zeroclip 4y ago
Parent is a Bitcoin maximalist, just to be mindful. Currently it's about $0.85 USD to send ETH or $2.50 USD to send ERC20[1]. Most people will suggest not using a L1 as a payment system, but instead something application-specific like

More ›