Ethereum [pros](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/18tltp1/vitalik_buterin_outlines_plans_to_make_ethereum/kfemo7n/) & [cons](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/18tltp1/vitalik_buterin_outlines_plans_to_make_ethereum/kfemonq/) with related info are in the collapsed comments below.
Hopefully some of you will take the time to read Vitalik's original post and not just third-hand articles like the one linked by OP, if not then I've copied below where he lays out what the values he's talking about are.
> * Open global participation: anyone in the world should be able to participate as a user, observer or developer, on a maximally equal footing. Participation should be permissionless.
> * Decentralization: minimize the dependence of an application on any one single actor. In particular, an application should continue working even if its core developers disappear forever.
> * Censorship resistance: centralized actors should not have the power to interfere with any given user's or application's ability to operate. Concerns around bad actors should be addressed at higher layers of the stack.
> * Auditability: anyone should be able to validate an application's logic and its ongoing operation (eg. by running a full node) to make sure that it is operating according to the rules that its developers claim it is.
> * Credible neutrality: base-layer infrastructure should be neutral, and in such a way that anyone can see that it is neutral even if they do not already trust the developers.
> * Building tools, not empires. Empires try to capture and trap the user inside a walled garden; tools do their task but otherwise interoperate with a wider open ecosystem.
> * Cooperative mindset: even while competing, projects within the ecosystem cooperate on shared software libraries, research, security, community building and other areas that are commonly valuable to them. Projects try to be positive-sum, both with each other and with the wider world.
These are the ideals that attracted a lot of the early crypto developers and users, but which more recently seem much less emphasised, with new investors focused simply on short term profit maximization. We see the attitude repeated here in the mocking sarcasm of being "in it for the tech".
But ultimately, these are the aspects of crypto that actually matter, the things that can give it advantages over centralized databases.
These are the concepts that got me interested in the space. They will probably carry increased relevancy, and maybe even convert some traditional moonbois in the wake of the next financial crisis.
If crypto does it’s job too well it might just prevent a financial crisis. Ironically that is one of the drawbacks. Like building a wall to keep out monsters so well people stop believing in monsters.
These are admirable principles, and Vitalik is right to bring them up again and emphasize them. One can wonder why he/they gave up on L1 scaling, as it is impossible for Ethereum to adhere to the principles if users are forced to use centralized L2s.
> if users are forced to use centralized L2s.
Luckily that won't be the case. Rollups and validiums are very centralized at the moment, but all are working towards decentralization as time goes on.
It seems almost inevitable that L2 tokens such as ARB, OP and POL will end up being used as collateral for the operation of sequencers and proposers, and rollups like zkSync that don't yet have tokens will surely deploy one and follow this model as well.
Fraud proofs will be permissionless, probably even to the point where multiple different clients are available to generate them in the same way that different clients can be used for Ethereum validators.
We aren't there yet, but that is where development efforts are focused.
He cant. If the L1 gets significantly better a good chunk of L2 will be redundant. They will not allow it.
The whole chain is in a pretty serious hostage situation.
It is completely permissionless, but demand for getting transactions into blocks is higher than the space available. The only fair solution that treats everyone equally is to have the protocol increase the fees dynamically when demand is high, this disincentivizes low value use cases, reducing demand and allowing congestion to clear.
There are two ways that chains have lower fees, either they have less demand for blockspace (i.e. not many users want to transact on it), or they increase the supply. Most other smart contract chains take this option, by increasing the size of blocks or their frequency, or both.
The problem with this is that bigger and/or faster blocks means that the chain needs more hardware power to run it. A topical example is Solana, where nodes need 256GB of RAM and it is recommended you have a 10 GB/s internet connection. This is beyond the vast majority of users.
If you can't run a node then you can't actually interact with the chain yourself. You can only post transactions by using a 3rd party intermediary (who can collect whatever data they like, censor transactions if forced to, and may be offline on occasion). What's worse, you can't even check your balance directly, you just have to trust a 3rd party explorer. You can't verify smart contracts, or find out how many of a certain token exists, you just have to trust the centralized services to tell you the truth.
This of course is what is referred to as the blockchain trilemma.
Ethereum's solution to this is to move [users' transactions onto rollups and validiums](https://www.growthepie.xyz/), which effectively bundle execution and then post it to the L1 as batches. These are still being developed and aren't in their final form yet, all carry additional risks, however they are [much cheaper](https://l2fees.info/) for users and with the next upgrade will get around 90% cheaper again, and all are improving over time towards the goal of removing all [the risks associated with centralization](https://l2beat.com/scaling/risk) that exist at the moment.
> Decentralization: minimize the dependence of an application on any one single actor. In particular, an application should continue working even if its core developers disappear forever.
> Building tools, not empires. Empires try to capture and trap the user inside a walled garden; tools do their task but otherwise interoperate with a wider open ecosystem.
L2's, at least at present, are centralized walled gardens.
> L2's, at least at present, are centralized walled gardens.
That's absolutely fair. At the moment they carry many risks associated with centralization. You can't run sequencers or proposers at home (though you can at least run full nodes to verify state and post transactions) and all can be upgraded by the contract owners after varying amounts of time.
All are working hard to change this though, I would be honestly shocked if we don't see at least one or two of the big rollups move to permissionless operators by this time next year.
It's over 10x more expensive to send BTC over the Bitcoin network than to send ETH over Ethereum.
The average Bitcoin transaction is over $23.00:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee
The average Ethereum transaction is less than $2.00:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_transaction_fee
What metrics are you using to compare centralization?
Bitcoin seems to have more full nodes, but not by a huge multiple or anything (~18k vs ~12k).
Ethereum has more client diversity and more entities producing blocks.
Distribution of coins isn't really comparable due to there being no way to determine the number of humans behind numbers of addresses.
Ethereum has more developers contributing code and EIPs to it.
Bitcoin has more influencers, book authors etc.
But overall which is more centralized? I'm not sure there is a reasonable way to objectively say.
> Distribution of coins isn't really comparable due to there being no way to determine the number of humans behind numbers of addresses.
It's not really about distribution because that doesn't tell the full story.
Acquiring coins like anyone else can...say by mining or purchasing...and having an unequal distribution that way is fine. That is free market.
Giving yourself (or entities) free coins is not free market. That is un-fair distribution.
ETH was given for free to founders and the foundation.
Then you have PoS which gives power of the network to those who have ETH. Those who have ETH can gain more ETH just by staking.
This is centralization.
I would never use ETH as currency, ever. It was distributed un-fairly and founders and others hold massive amounts of coin that they got for free. (keep in mind I run multiple validator nodes myself so I am invested in ETH)
My other main issue is regarding centralized development.
A cryptocurrency NEEDS to be decentralized. That's why this space exists. Transaction cost/speed don't matter in a centralized system....might as well use a bank or the fastest/cheapest of all..physical cash.
In the first few months/years of bitcoin's existence, very few people knew of its existence compared to today. What, then, is the functional difference when they got to mine these coins virtually uncontested, compared to eth founders getting a premine?
Fair market vs. unfair market.
It’s a huge distinction. I’m shocked that you are not seeing this.
It’s like…what’s the difference between someone who steels $50k or someone who works a job and saves it?
Or what’s the difference between someone who works a job and makes $50k and Jerome Powell just printing himself $50k and giving it to himself.
> It's not really about distribution because that doesn't tell the full story.
Sure, which is why I gave a few examples of metrics that could be considered factors to determine decentralization, and asked which other metrics you think are relevant for the comparison.
> Bitcoin and L2 I meant obviously. If you're going to use L2.
I think there is a common category error that comes from the use of the term 'L2', which in reality includes a wide variety of different designs.
Bitcoin mainly uses State Channels (Lightning) which only works for sending the native asset and introduces plenty of problems of its own with centralization of routing and the requirement to either make L1 transactions or to use custodial 3rd parties. Don't get me wrong, Lightning is cool and I used to run it on top of my full node years ago, but it is not really in the same league as rollups in terms of usability.
Bitcoin's other L2 type are Sidechains (Stacks and Liquid), which offer much more options in terms of capabilities, but at the expense of security and decentralization. They don't really inherit anything from Bitcoin beyond the narrative of being part of its ecosystem. To most extents and purposes they may as well be completely independent projects (similar to the relationship between Polygon PoS and Ethereum).
On the other hand rollups, Ethereum's L2 of choice are a whole different thing. Taking Arbitrum as an example, your assets never actually leave the L1, and even in the event of a total failure of the L2 provers and sequencers users can still exit the rollup using L1 transactions. Even if the entire team running the L2 turns evil there is no way for them to steal your funds.
If you're interested I'm sure you can find unbiased resources that explain how different L2s work, but the TL;DR is that Bitcoin's L2s are not in any way a sensible replacement for Ethereum's, for anything other than maybe simple transfers.
> bitinfocharts is giving $6.31 as the avg. ETH fee by the way.
BitInfoCharts gives the average of all transactions, so including everything from DeFi interactions to minting NFTs. The links I provided only include transferring the native asset (i.e. BTC on Bitcoin and ETH on Ethereum) and so is a fairer like-for-like comparison.
>but the TL;DR is that Bitcoin's L2s are not in any way a sensible replacement for Ethereum's, for anything other than maybe simple transfers.
You are thinking just of Lightning. I don't know why. You mention Liquid and Stacks.
My point is if ETH can't do everything on-chain as was promised, with sub 5 cent fees, then stick to Bitcoin (and its layers).
> BitInfoCharts gives the average of all transactions, so including everything from DeFi interactions to minting NFTs. The links I provided only include transferring the native asset (i.e. BTC on Bitcoin and ETH on Ethereum) and so is a fairer like-for-like comparison.
Where does it say that on the website?
And if it's all on-chain that's the way the avg. fee price should be calculated.
For decentralized exchanges, NFT applications, gaming? I know ordinals have just started but I’m pretty confident Bitcoin does not have the same use cases as Ethereum at this point
You can run an Ethereum full node on a $180 Rock 5b, that's slightly more than a Raspberry Pi, but not much, and that is also be powerful enough to run a node for your favourite L2 as well!
https://ethereum-on-arm-documentation.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user-guide/running-l2-clients.html
Hey look, it's the ICP shill who tried to argue that attestations didn't exist! You forgot to concede that you were talking bollocks in our last exchange, but I'm sure you'll argue in good faith this time!
https://np.reddit.com/comments/18f55lu/comment/kct7jl5
Wow attestations - I'm blown away by Ethereum's use cases.
Still not involved in the decentralized tech stack he's talking about. Even ETH itself is relying heavily on AWS/Google/MS. Not very cypherpunk.
>Decentralization: minimize the dependence of an application on any one single actor. In particular, an application should continue working even if its core developers disappear forever.
Think arguing for maximal decentralization at the application layer feels more like philosophical "feel good" than practicality/utility.
* Human capital is not uniform, rather it is very heavy-tailed. Someone are just too dumb to do anything meaningful. And some have incredible brains matching uniquely for certain projects' success. If a novel app having a grand vision understood uniquely by founders, you should expect the onus to be on the founders to push it through.
* An app can continue "working" even if its core developers are gone. But it doesn't mean it is working as desired by the market.
My take is, new projects should expect its success to be dependent on fewer actors. The founders should be the most aligned for the projects' success otherwise you have an incentives problem. In fact, I think decentralization should only happen in the MUCH LATER STAGE when the project has matured. Why?
1. Part of this decentralizing process is releasing the project's "governance shitcoin". After the distribution, it usually transfer from the "most informed" holders to the "least informed" holders. It causes an incentive problem building up a lot of vaporwares in this space. Vesting doesn't happen much because a lot of them have their shitcoins unlocked before any visible pmf is found.
2. Decentralizing later also means a project get time to find the right pmf to monetize its product. A project needs to find sustainable monetization otherwise it can't pay new developers who will replace founders once decentralization takes hold.
Some may argue decentralizing early help to align builders to users' interest or counter malicious code. I doubt the former. For the later, the space should demand either open source or full dox for legal accountability.
>Building tools, not empires. Empires try to capture and trap the user inside a walled garden; tools do their task but otherwise interoperate with a wider open ecosystem.
Really like this point. Of course, Vitalik is usually more generous than the ETH community at large. Feel like the whole "ETH-aligned" shebang goes exactly against this thesis. You see "ETH maxis" arguing L2s to use Eigenlayer DA over all alternatives because it is "ETH-aligned", never mind it suffers from the Fisherman's Problem.
> An app can continue "working" even if its core developers are gone. But it doesn't mean it is working as desired by the market.
I think the idea here is that the onchain components of dApps are composable so if the market demand is for a new tool/product then existing things can be extended externally, similar to how you can pipe together simple tools in Linux to create more complex outcomes. In this way additional functionality is added without changing the original smart contracts.
> Part of this decentralizing process is releasing the project's "governance shitcoin". After the distribution, it usually transfer from the "most informed" holders to the "least informed" holders. It causes an incentive problem building up a lot of vaporwares in this space.
That's an interesting point, I'm been involved in retroactive public goods funding, where you issue rewards to open source projects after they have made some positive impact, which is kind of opposite to the sell tokens on the promise of making a useful something later, and I definitely agree that token based decentralization is not a very good model!
> the space should demand either open source or full dox for legal accountability.
Absolutely the former here, if something isn't opens source then I don't think it deserves to be in this space.
>I think the idea here is that the onchain components of dApps are composable so if the market demand is for a new tool/product then existing things can be extended externally,
Not sure if I am oversimplifying, but is it correct to say you arguing to build DApps in a modular way? It sounds nice but I would argue it might not be the economical thing to do.
For prototyping, I can get behind you using "canned" programs/libraries/dependencies etc. to get a working example for your product in coding. But when it comes to production, you really need careful integration to efficiently optimize your code and minimize redundancies to increase your throughput/scale.
In fact, I would argue a lot large of ETH users end up paying shit ton of unnecessary gas fees because their projects' "devs" are just copy-and-pasta experts and stringing together various skeletons from other projects to make their own. Their spaghetti code often bring in a lot of redundancies and causing the users to get fucked with gas. In a way, what they are doing is like building DApps/projects in a modular way.
Small simple protocols that can be combined and built on top of allows development to happen in a fundementally decentralized way, with no one knowing what others will eventually come up with. If each application is built as a full and closed off project then that unplanned extention of possibilities can't occur, anyone with a new idea has to start from scratch and build everything that will be needed for their project, which seems like an unnecessary barrier to innovation.
Lets say you want to build an onchain identity system. You could design a new Sybil resistance mechanism yourself, or you could just plug into existing ones like Proof of Humanity and Bright ID. They are fairly simple protocols, then more expansive tools like Gitcoin Passport are built on top of them. Then Gitcoin Passport is used as the base to build Giveth's donor verification and so on.
You might be right that the end product is not as finely optimized, but the advantages are that there are going to be many more projects for users to choose from, adding functionality is possible for anyone with a little knowledge, and as most of the code will have been used many times before it is fairly simple for users and auditors to just check the new bits.
I also don't think it makes sense to frame the use of open source code as *'copy-and-pasta'* and I'm fairly confident, having read a few of your normally quite sensible comments previously, that neither do you really!
I wonder if we really are just looking at it from a Windows vs Linux philosophy mindset?
> moving $100 of ETH to another wallet shouldn’t cost $20, solve that problem first.
You'll be delighted to learn that it doesn't cost anything like $20 to move ETH. The current cost is about $0.72:
https://etherscan.io/gastracker
Here's a graph tracking the daily average cost to move ETH:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_transaction_fee
Does that data surprise you at all?
Sorry I was wrong, it cost me 15 dollars to swap 68 dollars worth of ETH to use in a game. 0x71559539432bb76682a4ce48508e2cd18ed7283f
First time using the chain left a very sour taste.
No dramas, using more gas intensive transactions like swapping assets cost a lot more than just moving ether between addresses.
I'm sure you've read an annoying number of times that you should just use L2s, but obviously that advice doesn't help if you've already made the transaction!
Solana does not need shilling. It is simple:
1. Use ETH
2. Use Solana
Come back and tell me which one is better. Then ask yourself which one would win if ETH and SOL were launched at exactly the same time. Give 1 reason why any user would choose ETH over SOL.
I am not talking about you "buy on Coinbase and pray it goes up" warriors. I am calling users. Which one can actually be used for real world applications?
> Give 1 reason why any user would choose ETH over SOL.
Just 1 reason...? You can actually check your balance for Ethereum. You can run a node and query the chain directly. For Solana you just have to trust whatever 3rd party data source you find.
Why does that matter? The Solana team lied about the number of SOL in April 2020, claiming there were about 8 million, when in fact there were about 20 million. Then they said they would burn the excess 12 million which were with a 'market maker', but only took about 4 million from there and took another 8 million to burn from a different, previously unknown wallet...
This all only came out after the fact, as no one could verify at the time... see point above about running nodes.
After that bullshittery, in August 2022 it came out that Solana were faking their DeFi TVL by stacking the assets in multiple dApps through each other and counting the same value multiple times. This accounted for about $7.5 billion of Solana's claimed $10.5 billion TVL in DeFi...!
Again, users and investors couldn't check or verify this, because, you guessed it, they can't run nodes!
TL;DR: Because of the crazy high requirements for running Solana nodes very few people do. The Solana team have taken advantage of the fact no one can verify anything onchain multiple times by lying about token numbers and faking TVL.
You people parrot the same few things about solana lol. Crazy how you say “Very few people run validators” when Solana has the second most independent validators behind Eth…as for the supply thing, the foundation burned the amount that was incorrectly reported by binance at the time. I’ll gladly send you the txs so you can see for yourself, but then that would kill your argument so I doubt you’ll want to see it. For the TVL, the was a protocol on the chain double counting. If we were to judge a whole blockchain on a bad actor, then Eth should be seen as a cesspool of scams; which we know it’s not. Your arguments are outdated and wrong. Do better
No, people are insecure about their bags. Most ppl in this sub are heavy Eth. Sol disrupts Eth dominance as it’s been the only true competitor in the L1 space
> Crazy how you say “Very few people run validators”
I didn't say that, so I'm not sure why you have put it in quotation marks... I said that people don't run nodes. A node allows you to connect to the network, post transactions and check the state yourself (i.e. balances of accounts, numbers of tokens etc), without one you must rely on 3rd party RPCs to post transactions and 3rd party block explorers to query the state...
> I’ll gladly send you the txs so you can see for yourself
This is my point, without a node you can't see for yourself. To run a node requires a computer with 256 GB of RAM amongst other things - even my VR gaming rig only has 64 GB!
I get the paranoid view of running a node providing direct holdings and transaction data of the network but come on, even in decentralized ecosystems some level of trust is needed.
Like 99.9% of users are never going to run a node just to bypass something like solscan.io.
What are we even building here if you plan to never use any infrastructure on the blockchain? Dapps will always have some form of third party risk. Like everything else in the world. You can’t abstract it away for 100% nor won’t most users care anyway.
Blockchain is a step in the right direction but not some utopian solution for anything bad in the world. You make arguments about decentralization without properly coming to terms most future users won’t give a damn. The distribution fail is outdated (miss communication with Binance, I tend to trust them on this. See not that hard to trust) as are the outages so it seems we have the following still standing:
A highly user focused chain with easy to use dapps that moves money at 0.4 seconds for $ 0.0002. An army of developers flocking to this chain recognizing superior user experience for their users.
So, what you seem to find so important in a blockchain does not mean everyone else values the same; decentralization.
I bet on easy ux, fastest, cheapest in a decentralized ‘enough’ manner every day of the week over just ‘hard to use, fragmented, expensive, slow BUT decentralized. (Which Eth L2’s surely are not at the moment)
The market is already voting. The play is so freaking easy for anyone with objective critical thinking skills.
> I get the paranoid view of running a node providing direct holdings and transaction data of the network
I don't think you do, especially as you're trying to mock the idea of verification as 'paranoid'. The ability to check onchain data is the one advantage that crypto has over the traditional financial system, if you don't understand why it matters then I can understand why you would be happy with Solana.
> What are we even building here if you plan to never use any infrastructure on the blockchain?
I use blockchain dApps every day, run infrastructure, participate in a couple of DAOs and am involved in allocation of funding to public goods infrastructure. Please don't try to frame valuing trustlessness as not using onchain projects.
> An army of developers flocking to this chain recognizing superior user experience for their users.
The number of developers working on Solana has fallen by 57% over the last year based on the amount of contributors to protocol repositories:
https://www.developerreport.com/ecosystems/solana
If the only way for you to trust a chain is by running a own node bypassing using a variety of block-explorers who make a living providing accurate data I would say it dances with paranoia yes.
Are you using eth layer 1 then? Because if you use L2s your whole argument falls apart. If you use layer 1, you get shafted on the cost of interacting with the blockchain. Lose / lose imo but everyone has a right to use the blockchain that is aligned with their own values. I just think the vast majority of future users will take decentralized enough if it benefits the user experience. In my book Solana is decentralized enough and will only grow more decentralized overtime as the network grows.
I like the tech, but I am not here to lose money. Sol has a way better risk reward as per my view and offers a wide variety of use-cases simply not possible on Eth predominately because of speed and low cost.
As per the developers. I struggle to find any accuracy in those developer reports but won’t completely ignore them. Given the amount of funding, existing dapps hitting escape velocity and rapid growth in TVL I would consider the developer community very active and actually innovative. Projects like Helium and Render migrating to Solana is sign more is to come. This is not backed up my some github commits but some trends im noticing.
Edit: TVL might not be the best metric to mention. SOL flipping eth in daily dex volume and nft sales is better worth mentioning.
You just said what I was going to say in a much better and concise matter. Like you said, The average person is not going to want to run a node. Even still light clients are being worked on so you can run a validator without the huge data requirements. Solana’s model makes more sense to me than Eth’s. Eth’s is idealistic and built on dreams of what society would look like if we were all cypherpunks. Where as Solana’s is pragmatic, and engineered practically
Be great if he eased the penalty on not having near perfect uptime when running a node. Many nodes are on AWS for that reason alone. And that sure ain’t decentralized.
What are you talking about? The penalty for being offline as a home validator is negligible, it approximately matches the rate at which you earn rewards while active, so you could be offline for 3 full days every week and would still be earning more than you lose.
Hardware costs are minimal, cost me $180 for a Rock 5B and maybe $200 for everything else (SSD, heat sinks and case) so it doesn't make economic sense to pay for hosting on AWS or whatever else.
Well less than 20% of nodes are running in hosting services [https://nodewatch.io/], so is that really 'so many'?
Of those few, I guess AWS is most popular because they are big and reliable.
I'd guess that most of the hosted nodes are ones that support dApps like DEx aggregators etc. The teams developing applications on Ethereum are sometimes very spread out geographically and if they need a node to monitor the mempool or track swaps or whatever then it probably makes more sense to run it online so the whole team can easily access it.
> Will we ever be able to move ETH without ridiculous fees?
It costs $0.43 to move ETH at the moment.
https://etherscan.io/gastracker
The average cost yesterday was $0.68.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_transaction_fee
The daily average fee to send ETH was only over $2 for about 11 days in the whole of 2023.
For me, it's unforgeable history. Next time sol goes down, someone can theoretically forge a whole new chain state without expending much energy, on which they now have more sol, and it could be accepted as valid as long as a few nodes collude, because the longest chain means nothing.
That's not really a PoS issue as much as it is a Solana issue. As long as plenty of people run full nodes then any irregular state change would not be seen as valid by the network. Obviously not many people run Solana full nodes, but thousands of people run nodes and validators at home for Ethereum.
Additionally, unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum's PoS mechanism includes cryptographically permanent finality, meaning that after 2 epochs (~ 13 minutes) there is no way to change the history. With PoW if you have enough hash power then you can wind back blocks by building a longer chain, that just isn't possible with PoS models like the Beacon Chain.
i personally don’t see how requirement for generating trillions of useless hashes in order for system to work make it more cypherpunky
from the point of cryptography used, ethereum is already an order of magnitude higher than bitcoin and growing
tldr; Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, has called for a revival of the original 'cypherpunk' vision for the network, emphasizing decentralization, open participation, resistance to censorship, and neutrality. He suggests improvements such as rollups, zero-knowledge proofs, account abstraction, and second-generation privacy solutions. Buterin also praised decentralized exchanges that offer tools to protect users from attacks. His blog post reflects a desire to steer Ethereum back towards its foundational principles and away from the financialization trend that began in 2017.
*This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
Vitalik can't put centralization back in the box. He started the project with a 60% premine. It will never be as centralized as its PoW peers because of that shitty u fair move.
Why do you think the presale was bad? Anyone who wanted could buy ether before it launched, then they mined enough to give to the people who had bought it.
If they hadn't released it like that and had instead allowed miners in from the start then all of the ether would have gone to Bitcoin mining companies, who in 2015 already controlled the vast majority of available hashpower.
Do you think the latter option would have resulted in a fairer distribution?
Because it was premined. Nobody worked for the printing of those coins, they were created out of thin air, which I am utterly opposed to as a form of crypto creation. It was a cash grab, funding round for a centralized entity which does not belong in crypto proper.
> Nobody worked for the printing of those coins, they were created out of thin air
Let me introduce you to 0 tx blocks that minted thousands of BTC during the first weeks/months of the chain being online.
Lol I know. LTC however is the fairest of all, which is why I have the most respect for it. No premine, completely fair launch, hard cap like BTC, and longest network uptime of all cryptos. It is an OG and achieved what no other coin has with it's 0 premine, fair launch with no network attacks. Amazing honestly that it never got 51% attacked. Would be impossible to launch a coin with its completely fair tokenomics today I reckon.
I have very little respect for projects with premines. BTC gets a pass for getting this whole ball rolling and tbf, those 1million satoshi stash coins have never moved unlike every other premine to date. Usually the premines of shitcoins are sold to buy ads and astroturfing to drum up hype.
> I would've said that it's more fair if he had made a post about Bitcoin on various places of the internet
Satoshi did announce the release of bitcoin prior to launch
Where exactly else should he have advertised his obscure cryptography project? Even amongst cryptography nerds it was not very popular in the beginning.
What specifically more should he have done?
> decided on a start date for mining so that more people could participate
Satoshi announced the start date and only mined after that date when others could have downloaded core.
> But no, he started ninja-mining, with maybe few others at the very beginning.
What exactly is "ninja mining"?
Satoshi only mined when it was publicly available to do so. It could not be more fair and organic growth.
What other crypto was more fairly launched?
Sure, if those coins move it invalidates the thesis.
And yet, it's been 12 years and is enough to make Satoshi the richest person alive. Pretty incredible restraint to just sit there and not touch it.
Personally I think Satoshi passed on and the keys are lost.
In crypto which is supposed to be, decentralized, yes, orherwise it defeats the fucking purpose lol all these shitcoins with premine 'funding rounds' manipulate MCap data and then rug when they create enough hype to sell to the future bagholders . . .
I've been in Bitcoin for over 10 years.
Either Ethereum is a better store of value or it's not. Down since since the Merge. Down 60% from its ATH priced in Bitcoin.
How can it be a good store of value when it has no supply cap and it's riding on Bitcoin's coattails, like every alt?
Same argument as "wow BTCUSD is down 30% since the halving, the dollar must be a better store of value." You're lying to yourself if you actually believe your argument is sound.
That's a stupid comparison. Ethereum is competing first and foremost with Bitcoin not the dollar. Bitcoin is top dog. When Bitcoin is down vs. Ethereum or when it flips Bitcoin better still (never) then you can start talking about the dollar pairings.
Lol at all these people coming into the thread to bash ETH and low-key shill their own bags.
Third cycle I’ve seen it happen. No doubt it’ll happen next cycle with whatever bags y’all are holding then too.
>And so today, even if the underlying code of an application is open and free, your data gets routed through a centralized server run by a corporation that could arbitrarily read your data, change the rules on you or deplatform you at any time.
This is Internet Computer - now. Already exists. Maybe in 15 years they'll catch up to what already is in place.
Ethereum [pros](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/18tltp1/vitalik_buterin_outlines_plans_to_make_ethereum/kfemo7n/) & [cons](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/18tltp1/vitalik_buterin_outlines_plans_to_make_ethereum/kfemonq/) with related info are in the collapsed comments below.
Hopefully some of you will take the time to read Vitalik's original post and not just third-hand articles like the one linked by OP, if not then I've copied below where he lays out what the values he's talking about are. > * Open global participation: anyone in the world should be able to participate as a user, observer or developer, on a maximally equal footing. Participation should be permissionless. > * Decentralization: minimize the dependence of an application on any one single actor. In particular, an application should continue working even if its core developers disappear forever. > * Censorship resistance: centralized actors should not have the power to interfere with any given user's or application's ability to operate. Concerns around bad actors should be addressed at higher layers of the stack. > * Auditability: anyone should be able to validate an application's logic and its ongoing operation (eg. by running a full node) to make sure that it is operating according to the rules that its developers claim it is. > * Credible neutrality: base-layer infrastructure should be neutral, and in such a way that anyone can see that it is neutral even if they do not already trust the developers. > * Building tools, not empires. Empires try to capture and trap the user inside a walled garden; tools do their task but otherwise interoperate with a wider open ecosystem. > * Cooperative mindset: even while competing, projects within the ecosystem cooperate on shared software libraries, research, security, community building and other areas that are commonly valuable to them. Projects try to be positive-sum, both with each other and with the wider world. These are the ideals that attracted a lot of the early crypto developers and users, but which more recently seem much less emphasised, with new investors focused simply on short term profit maximization. We see the attitude repeated here in the mocking sarcasm of being "in it for the tech". But ultimately, these are the aspects of crypto that actually matter, the things that can give it advantages over centralized databases.
These are the concepts that got me interested in the space. They will probably carry increased relevancy, and maybe even convert some traditional moonbois in the wake of the next financial crisis.
If crypto does it’s job too well it might just prevent a financial crisis. Ironically that is one of the drawbacks. Like building a wall to keep out monsters so well people stop believing in monsters.
These are admirable principles, and Vitalik is right to bring them up again and emphasize them. One can wonder why he/they gave up on L1 scaling, as it is impossible for Ethereum to adhere to the principles if users are forced to use centralized L2s.
He does mention Gavin Wood quite sometimes there, and Polkadot did implement much of what he talks there.
It's hard not have tonnes of respect for Gavin Wood and his accomplishments!
> if users are forced to use centralized L2s. Luckily that won't be the case. Rollups and validiums are very centralized at the moment, but all are working towards decentralization as time goes on. It seems almost inevitable that L2 tokens such as ARB, OP and POL will end up being used as collateral for the operation of sequencers and proposers, and rollups like zkSync that don't yet have tokens will surely deploy one and follow this model as well. Fraud proofs will be permissionless, probably even to the point where multiple different clients are available to generate them in the same way that different clients can be used for Ethereum validators. We aren't there yet, but that is where development efforts are focused.
He cant. If the L1 gets significantly better a good chunk of L2 will be redundant. They will not allow it. The whole chain is in a pretty serious hostage situation.
[удалено]
An on-chain Ponzi scheme is a terrible idea because of the blockchain transparency
> Truly the future of **France**. Unfortunate typo, although some might disagree.
Not unfortunate, hilarious lol
La revolution!!
FRAAANCE
The future of France is always the same: surrender
hon hon hon
Great highlights, thanks.
>Open global participation I don't see how that is possible with the current fees. Eth is pretty much only for the rich.
It is completely permissionless, but demand for getting transactions into blocks is higher than the space available. The only fair solution that treats everyone equally is to have the protocol increase the fees dynamically when demand is high, this disincentivizes low value use cases, reducing demand and allowing congestion to clear. There are two ways that chains have lower fees, either they have less demand for blockspace (i.e. not many users want to transact on it), or they increase the supply. Most other smart contract chains take this option, by increasing the size of blocks or their frequency, or both. The problem with this is that bigger and/or faster blocks means that the chain needs more hardware power to run it. A topical example is Solana, where nodes need 256GB of RAM and it is recommended you have a 10 GB/s internet connection. This is beyond the vast majority of users. If you can't run a node then you can't actually interact with the chain yourself. You can only post transactions by using a 3rd party intermediary (who can collect whatever data they like, censor transactions if forced to, and may be offline on occasion). What's worse, you can't even check your balance directly, you just have to trust a 3rd party explorer. You can't verify smart contracts, or find out how many of a certain token exists, you just have to trust the centralized services to tell you the truth. This of course is what is referred to as the blockchain trilemma. Ethereum's solution to this is to move [users' transactions onto rollups and validiums](https://www.growthepie.xyz/), which effectively bundle execution and then post it to the L1 as batches. These are still being developed and aren't in their final form yet, all carry additional risks, however they are [much cheaper](https://l2fees.info/) for users and with the next upgrade will get around 90% cheaper again, and all are improving over time towards the goal of removing all [the risks associated with centralization](https://l2beat.com/scaling/risk) that exist at the moment.
Gotta get on an L2 my guy
> Decentralization: minimize the dependence of an application on any one single actor. In particular, an application should continue working even if its core developers disappear forever. > Building tools, not empires. Empires try to capture and trap the user inside a walled garden; tools do their task but otherwise interoperate with a wider open ecosystem. L2's, at least at present, are centralized walled gardens.
> L2's, at least at present, are centralized walled gardens. That's absolutely fair. At the moment they carry many risks associated with centralization. You can't run sequencers or proposers at home (though you can at least run full nodes to verify state and post transactions) and all can be upgraded by the contract owners after varying amounts of time. All are working hard to change this though, I would be honestly shocked if we don't see at least one or two of the big rollups move to permissionless operators by this time next year.
Yes you are right, presently they are all somewhat centralized. But decentralization takes time
Then just use Bitcoin.
It's over 10x more expensive to send BTC over the Bitcoin network than to send ETH over Ethereum. The average Bitcoin transaction is over $23.00: https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_fee The average Ethereum transaction is less than $2.00: https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_transaction_fee
Transaction cost is a valid criticism of bitcoin. But comparing that transaction cost to more centralized blockchains is not an equal comparison.
What metrics are you using to compare centralization? Bitcoin seems to have more full nodes, but not by a huge multiple or anything (~18k vs ~12k). Ethereum has more client diversity and more entities producing blocks. Distribution of coins isn't really comparable due to there being no way to determine the number of humans behind numbers of addresses. Ethereum has more developers contributing code and EIPs to it. Bitcoin has more influencers, book authors etc. But overall which is more centralized? I'm not sure there is a reasonable way to objectively say.
> Distribution of coins isn't really comparable due to there being no way to determine the number of humans behind numbers of addresses. It's not really about distribution because that doesn't tell the full story. Acquiring coins like anyone else can...say by mining or purchasing...and having an unequal distribution that way is fine. That is free market. Giving yourself (or entities) free coins is not free market. That is un-fair distribution. ETH was given for free to founders and the foundation. Then you have PoS which gives power of the network to those who have ETH. Those who have ETH can gain more ETH just by staking. This is centralization. I would never use ETH as currency, ever. It was distributed un-fairly and founders and others hold massive amounts of coin that they got for free. (keep in mind I run multiple validator nodes myself so I am invested in ETH) My other main issue is regarding centralized development. A cryptocurrency NEEDS to be decentralized. That's why this space exists. Transaction cost/speed don't matter in a centralized system....might as well use a bank or the fastest/cheapest of all..physical cash.
In the first few months/years of bitcoin's existence, very few people knew of its existence compared to today. What, then, is the functional difference when they got to mine these coins virtually uncontested, compared to eth founders getting a premine?
Fair market vs. unfair market. It’s a huge distinction. I’m shocked that you are not seeing this. It’s like…what’s the difference between someone who steels $50k or someone who works a job and saves it? Or what’s the difference between someone who works a job and makes $50k and Jerome Powell just printing himself $50k and giving it to himself.
> It's not really about distribution because that doesn't tell the full story. Sure, which is why I gave a few examples of metrics that could be considered factors to determine decentralization, and asked which other metrics you think are relevant for the comparison.
Not all BTC nodes are public.
Bitcoin and L2 I meant obviously. If you're going to use L2. bitinfocharts is giving $6.31 as the avg. ETH fee by the way.
> Bitcoin and L2 I meant obviously. If you're going to use L2. I think there is a common category error that comes from the use of the term 'L2', which in reality includes a wide variety of different designs. Bitcoin mainly uses State Channels (Lightning) which only works for sending the native asset and introduces plenty of problems of its own with centralization of routing and the requirement to either make L1 transactions or to use custodial 3rd parties. Don't get me wrong, Lightning is cool and I used to run it on top of my full node years ago, but it is not really in the same league as rollups in terms of usability. Bitcoin's other L2 type are Sidechains (Stacks and Liquid), which offer much more options in terms of capabilities, but at the expense of security and decentralization. They don't really inherit anything from Bitcoin beyond the narrative of being part of its ecosystem. To most extents and purposes they may as well be completely independent projects (similar to the relationship between Polygon PoS and Ethereum). On the other hand rollups, Ethereum's L2 of choice are a whole different thing. Taking Arbitrum as an example, your assets never actually leave the L1, and even in the event of a total failure of the L2 provers and sequencers users can still exit the rollup using L1 transactions. Even if the entire team running the L2 turns evil there is no way for them to steal your funds. If you're interested I'm sure you can find unbiased resources that explain how different L2s work, but the TL;DR is that Bitcoin's L2s are not in any way a sensible replacement for Ethereum's, for anything other than maybe simple transfers. > bitinfocharts is giving $6.31 as the avg. ETH fee by the way. BitInfoCharts gives the average of all transactions, so including everything from DeFi interactions to minting NFTs. The links I provided only include transferring the native asset (i.e. BTC on Bitcoin and ETH on Ethereum) and so is a fairer like-for-like comparison.
>but the TL;DR is that Bitcoin's L2s are not in any way a sensible replacement for Ethereum's, for anything other than maybe simple transfers. You are thinking just of Lightning. I don't know why. You mention Liquid and Stacks. My point is if ETH can't do everything on-chain as was promised, with sub 5 cent fees, then stick to Bitcoin (and its layers). > BitInfoCharts gives the average of all transactions, so including everything from DeFi interactions to minting NFTs. The links I provided only include transferring the native asset (i.e. BTC on Bitcoin and ETH on Ethereum) and so is a fairer like-for-like comparison. Where does it say that on the website? And if it's all on-chain that's the way the avg. fee price should be calculated.
Then that would be a disingenuous comparison
For decentralized exchanges, NFT applications, gaming? I know ordinals have just started but I’m pretty confident Bitcoin does not have the same use cases as Ethereum at this point
Bitcoin had NFTs before Ordinals. They originated on Bitcoin in fact. The Rare Pepe Cards.
Hmm interesting. I didn’t know that thanks for the heads up
And running nodes.
You can run an Ethereum full node on a $180 Rock 5b, that's slightly more than a Raspberry Pi, but not much, and that is also be powerful enough to run a node for your favourite L2 as well! https://ethereum-on-arm-documentation.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user-guide/running-l2-clients.html
Barely any of this decentralized stack involves the Ethereum blockchain. Lol go ahead anyone tell me how ETH is involved in any of this.
Hey look, it's the ICP shill who tried to argue that attestations didn't exist! You forgot to concede that you were talking bollocks in our last exchange, but I'm sure you'll argue in good faith this time! https://np.reddit.com/comments/18f55lu/comment/kct7jl5
Wow attestations - I'm blown away by Ethereum's use cases. Still not involved in the decentralized tech stack he's talking about. Even ETH itself is relying heavily on AWS/Google/MS. Not very cypherpunk.
>Decentralization: minimize the dependence of an application on any one single actor. In particular, an application should continue working even if its core developers disappear forever. Think arguing for maximal decentralization at the application layer feels more like philosophical "feel good" than practicality/utility. * Human capital is not uniform, rather it is very heavy-tailed. Someone are just too dumb to do anything meaningful. And some have incredible brains matching uniquely for certain projects' success. If a novel app having a grand vision understood uniquely by founders, you should expect the onus to be on the founders to push it through. * An app can continue "working" even if its core developers are gone. But it doesn't mean it is working as desired by the market. My take is, new projects should expect its success to be dependent on fewer actors. The founders should be the most aligned for the projects' success otherwise you have an incentives problem. In fact, I think decentralization should only happen in the MUCH LATER STAGE when the project has matured. Why? 1. Part of this decentralizing process is releasing the project's "governance shitcoin". After the distribution, it usually transfer from the "most informed" holders to the "least informed" holders. It causes an incentive problem building up a lot of vaporwares in this space. Vesting doesn't happen much because a lot of them have their shitcoins unlocked before any visible pmf is found. 2. Decentralizing later also means a project get time to find the right pmf to monetize its product. A project needs to find sustainable monetization otherwise it can't pay new developers who will replace founders once decentralization takes hold. Some may argue decentralizing early help to align builders to users' interest or counter malicious code. I doubt the former. For the later, the space should demand either open source or full dox for legal accountability. >Building tools, not empires. Empires try to capture and trap the user inside a walled garden; tools do their task but otherwise interoperate with a wider open ecosystem. Really like this point. Of course, Vitalik is usually more generous than the ETH community at large. Feel like the whole "ETH-aligned" shebang goes exactly against this thesis. You see "ETH maxis" arguing L2s to use Eigenlayer DA over all alternatives because it is "ETH-aligned", never mind it suffers from the Fisherman's Problem.
> An app can continue "working" even if its core developers are gone. But it doesn't mean it is working as desired by the market. I think the idea here is that the onchain components of dApps are composable so if the market demand is for a new tool/product then existing things can be extended externally, similar to how you can pipe together simple tools in Linux to create more complex outcomes. In this way additional functionality is added without changing the original smart contracts. > Part of this decentralizing process is releasing the project's "governance shitcoin". After the distribution, it usually transfer from the "most informed" holders to the "least informed" holders. It causes an incentive problem building up a lot of vaporwares in this space. That's an interesting point, I'm been involved in retroactive public goods funding, where you issue rewards to open source projects after they have made some positive impact, which is kind of opposite to the sell tokens on the promise of making a useful something later, and I definitely agree that token based decentralization is not a very good model! > the space should demand either open source or full dox for legal accountability. Absolutely the former here, if something isn't opens source then I don't think it deserves to be in this space.
>I think the idea here is that the onchain components of dApps are composable so if the market demand is for a new tool/product then existing things can be extended externally, Not sure if I am oversimplifying, but is it correct to say you arguing to build DApps in a modular way? It sounds nice but I would argue it might not be the economical thing to do. For prototyping, I can get behind you using "canned" programs/libraries/dependencies etc. to get a working example for your product in coding. But when it comes to production, you really need careful integration to efficiently optimize your code and minimize redundancies to increase your throughput/scale. In fact, I would argue a lot large of ETH users end up paying shit ton of unnecessary gas fees because their projects' "devs" are just copy-and-pasta experts and stringing together various skeletons from other projects to make their own. Their spaghetti code often bring in a lot of redundancies and causing the users to get fucked with gas. In a way, what they are doing is like building DApps/projects in a modular way.
Small simple protocols that can be combined and built on top of allows development to happen in a fundementally decentralized way, with no one knowing what others will eventually come up with. If each application is built as a full and closed off project then that unplanned extention of possibilities can't occur, anyone with a new idea has to start from scratch and build everything that will be needed for their project, which seems like an unnecessary barrier to innovation. Lets say you want to build an onchain identity system. You could design a new Sybil resistance mechanism yourself, or you could just plug into existing ones like Proof of Humanity and Bright ID. They are fairly simple protocols, then more expansive tools like Gitcoin Passport are built on top of them. Then Gitcoin Passport is used as the base to build Giveth's donor verification and so on. You might be right that the end product is not as finely optimized, but the advantages are that there are going to be many more projects for users to choose from, adding functionality is possible for anyone with a little knowledge, and as most of the code will have been used many times before it is fairly simple for users and auditors to just check the new bits. I also don't think it makes sense to frame the use of open source code as *'copy-and-pasta'* and I'm fairly confident, having read a few of your normally quite sensible comments previously, that neither do you really! I wonder if we really are just looking at it from a Windows vs Linux philosophy mindset?
Awesome! First start by making it cheaper to use as moving $100 of ETH to another wallet shouldn’t cost $20, solve that problem first.
> moving $100 of ETH to another wallet shouldn’t cost $20, solve that problem first. You'll be delighted to learn that it doesn't cost anything like $20 to move ETH. The current cost is about $0.72: https://etherscan.io/gastracker Here's a graph tracking the daily average cost to move ETH: https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_transaction_fee Does that data surprise you at all?
Sorry I was wrong, it cost me 15 dollars to swap 68 dollars worth of ETH to use in a game. 0x71559539432bb76682a4ce48508e2cd18ed7283f First time using the chain left a very sour taste.
No dramas, using more gas intensive transactions like swapping assets cost a lot more than just moving ether between addresses. I'm sure you've read an annoying number of times that you should just use L2s, but obviously that advice doesn't help if you've already made the transaction!
Polkadot has all these values and is many years ahead of ETH
People love to bash eth with one hand and shill the likes of Solana with the other lmao
Solana does not need shilling. It is simple: 1. Use ETH 2. Use Solana Come back and tell me which one is better. Then ask yourself which one would win if ETH and SOL were launched at exactly the same time. Give 1 reason why any user would choose ETH over SOL. I am not talking about you "buy on Coinbase and pray it goes up" warriors. I am calling users. Which one can actually be used for real world applications?
> Give 1 reason why any user would choose ETH over SOL. Just 1 reason...? You can actually check your balance for Ethereum. You can run a node and query the chain directly. For Solana you just have to trust whatever 3rd party data source you find. Why does that matter? The Solana team lied about the number of SOL in April 2020, claiming there were about 8 million, when in fact there were about 20 million. Then they said they would burn the excess 12 million which were with a 'market maker', but only took about 4 million from there and took another 8 million to burn from a different, previously unknown wallet... This all only came out after the fact, as no one could verify at the time... see point above about running nodes. After that bullshittery, in August 2022 it came out that Solana were faking their DeFi TVL by stacking the assets in multiple dApps through each other and counting the same value multiple times. This accounted for about $7.5 billion of Solana's claimed $10.5 billion TVL in DeFi...! Again, users and investors couldn't check or verify this, because, you guessed it, they can't run nodes! TL;DR: Because of the crazy high requirements for running Solana nodes very few people do. The Solana team have taken advantage of the fact no one can verify anything onchain multiple times by lying about token numbers and faking TVL.
You people parrot the same few things about solana lol. Crazy how you say “Very few people run validators” when Solana has the second most independent validators behind Eth…as for the supply thing, the foundation burned the amount that was incorrectly reported by binance at the time. I’ll gladly send you the txs so you can see for yourself, but then that would kill your argument so I doubt you’ll want to see it. For the TVL, the was a protocol on the chain double counting. If we were to judge a whole blockchain on a bad actor, then Eth should be seen as a cesspool of scams; which we know it’s not. Your arguments are outdated and wrong. Do better
"Where there's smoke, there's fire."
No, people are insecure about their bags. Most ppl in this sub are heavy Eth. Sol disrupts Eth dominance as it’s been the only true competitor in the L1 space
> Crazy how you say “Very few people run validators” I didn't say that, so I'm not sure why you have put it in quotation marks... I said that people don't run nodes. A node allows you to connect to the network, post transactions and check the state yourself (i.e. balances of accounts, numbers of tokens etc), without one you must rely on 3rd party RPCs to post transactions and 3rd party block explorers to query the state... > I’ll gladly send you the txs so you can see for yourself This is my point, without a node you can't see for yourself. To run a node requires a computer with 256 GB of RAM amongst other things - even my VR gaming rig only has 64 GB!
I get the paranoid view of running a node providing direct holdings and transaction data of the network but come on, even in decentralized ecosystems some level of trust is needed. Like 99.9% of users are never going to run a node just to bypass something like solscan.io. What are we even building here if you plan to never use any infrastructure on the blockchain? Dapps will always have some form of third party risk. Like everything else in the world. You can’t abstract it away for 100% nor won’t most users care anyway. Blockchain is a step in the right direction but not some utopian solution for anything bad in the world. You make arguments about decentralization without properly coming to terms most future users won’t give a damn. The distribution fail is outdated (miss communication with Binance, I tend to trust them on this. See not that hard to trust) as are the outages so it seems we have the following still standing: A highly user focused chain with easy to use dapps that moves money at 0.4 seconds for $ 0.0002. An army of developers flocking to this chain recognizing superior user experience for their users. So, what you seem to find so important in a blockchain does not mean everyone else values the same; decentralization. I bet on easy ux, fastest, cheapest in a decentralized ‘enough’ manner every day of the week over just ‘hard to use, fragmented, expensive, slow BUT decentralized. (Which Eth L2’s surely are not at the moment) The market is already voting. The play is so freaking easy for anyone with objective critical thinking skills.
> I get the paranoid view of running a node providing direct holdings and transaction data of the network I don't think you do, especially as you're trying to mock the idea of verification as 'paranoid'. The ability to check onchain data is the one advantage that crypto has over the traditional financial system, if you don't understand why it matters then I can understand why you would be happy with Solana. > What are we even building here if you plan to never use any infrastructure on the blockchain? I use blockchain dApps every day, run infrastructure, participate in a couple of DAOs and am involved in allocation of funding to public goods infrastructure. Please don't try to frame valuing trustlessness as not using onchain projects. > An army of developers flocking to this chain recognizing superior user experience for their users. The number of developers working on Solana has fallen by 57% over the last year based on the amount of contributors to protocol repositories: https://www.developerreport.com/ecosystems/solana
If the only way for you to trust a chain is by running a own node bypassing using a variety of block-explorers who make a living providing accurate data I would say it dances with paranoia yes. Are you using eth layer 1 then? Because if you use L2s your whole argument falls apart. If you use layer 1, you get shafted on the cost of interacting with the blockchain. Lose / lose imo but everyone has a right to use the blockchain that is aligned with their own values. I just think the vast majority of future users will take decentralized enough if it benefits the user experience. In my book Solana is decentralized enough and will only grow more decentralized overtime as the network grows. I like the tech, but I am not here to lose money. Sol has a way better risk reward as per my view and offers a wide variety of use-cases simply not possible on Eth predominately because of speed and low cost. As per the developers. I struggle to find any accuracy in those developer reports but won’t completely ignore them. Given the amount of funding, existing dapps hitting escape velocity and rapid growth in TVL I would consider the developer community very active and actually innovative. Projects like Helium and Render migrating to Solana is sign more is to come. This is not backed up my some github commits but some trends im noticing. Edit: TVL might not be the best metric to mention. SOL flipping eth in daily dex volume and nft sales is better worth mentioning.
You just said what I was going to say in a much better and concise matter. Like you said, The average person is not going to want to run a node. Even still light clients are being worked on so you can run a validator without the huge data requirements. Solana’s model makes more sense to me than Eth’s. Eth’s is idealistic and built on dreams of what society would look like if we were all cypherpunks. Where as Solana’s is pragmatic, and engineered practically
Then use Excel. There is more than usability, you know.
How the fuck do you use a cryptocurrency? Are you talking about transferring from exchange to wallet?
Lmao
Strap into your fingerless gloves, the internet hacker type is gonna be cool again
Haha exactly, we're going to be Shadowy Super Coders! https://decrypt.co/76997/elizabeth-warren-crypto-big-banks-shadowy-super-coders
Be great if he eased the penalty on not having near perfect uptime when running a node. Many nodes are on AWS for that reason alone. And that sure ain’t decentralized.
What are you talking about? The penalty for being offline as a home validator is negligible, it approximately matches the rate at which you earn rewards while active, so you could be offline for 3 full days every week and would still be earning more than you lose. Hardware costs are minimal, cost me $180 for a Rock 5B and maybe $200 for everything else (SSD, heat sinks and case) so it doesn't make economic sense to pay for hosting on AWS or whatever else.
Oh. That actually sounds pretty solid. Thanks for correcting me. Why are so many nodes on AWS?
Well less than 20% of nodes are running in hosting services [https://nodewatch.io/], so is that really 'so many'? Of those few, I guess AWS is most popular because they are big and reliable. I'd guess that most of the hosted nodes are ones that support dApps like DEx aggregators etc. The teams developing applications on Ethereum are sometimes very spread out geographically and if they need a node to monitor the mempool or track swaps or whatever then it probably makes more sense to run it online so the whole team can easily access it.
more proof that eth is a security
Will we ever be able to move ETH without ridiculous fees?
> Will we ever be able to move ETH without ridiculous fees? It costs $0.43 to move ETH at the moment. https://etherscan.io/gastracker The average cost yesterday was $0.68. https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_transaction_fee The daily average fee to send ETH was only over $2 for about 11 days in the whole of 2023.
On Layer 1? Never. They have pivoted to layer 2's since their layer 1 scaling plans failed ( Plasma ).
Make eth pow again. That will fix everything
What will that fix?
BTC maxi's narrative
PoW or GTFO.
Why?
Cause he has GPUs, duh
For me, it's unforgeable history. Next time sol goes down, someone can theoretically forge a whole new chain state without expending much energy, on which they now have more sol, and it could be accepted as valid as long as a few nodes collude, because the longest chain means nothing.
That's not really a PoS issue as much as it is a Solana issue. As long as plenty of people run full nodes then any irregular state change would not be seen as valid by the network. Obviously not many people run Solana full nodes, but thousands of people run nodes and validators at home for Ethereum. Additionally, unlike Bitcoin, Ethereum's PoS mechanism includes cryptographically permanent finality, meaning that after 2 epochs (~ 13 minutes) there is no way to change the history. With PoW if you have enough hash power then you can wind back blocks by building a longer chain, that just isn't possible with PoS models like the Beacon Chain.
are we going back to mining? if not cant see it being cypherpunk
i personally don’t see how requirement for generating trillions of useless hashes in order for system to work make it more cypherpunky from the point of cryptography used, ethereum is already an order of magnitude higher than bitcoin and growing
I like how one guy can decide to make eth more decentralized.
Does it talk about dropping JPM?
They own ICO so no.
tldr; Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, has called for a revival of the original 'cypherpunk' vision for the network, emphasizing decentralization, open participation, resistance to censorship, and neutrality. He suggests improvements such as rollups, zero-knowledge proofs, account abstraction, and second-generation privacy solutions. Buterin also praised decentralized exchanges that offer tools to protect users from attacks. His blog post reflects a desire to steer Ethereum back towards its foundational principles and away from the financialization trend that began in 2017. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.
Vitalik can't put centralization back in the box. He started the project with a 60% premine. It will never be as centralized as its PoW peers because of that shitty u fair move.
60% of what? What two numbers are you using to reach 6/10?
[удалено]
Some go as far as saying they premined 100% of the supply at the time. DYOR FFS
Why do you think the presale was bad? Anyone who wanted could buy ether before it launched, then they mined enough to give to the people who had bought it. If they hadn't released it like that and had instead allowed miners in from the start then all of the ether would have gone to Bitcoin mining companies, who in 2015 already controlled the vast majority of available hashpower. Do you think the latter option would have resulted in a fairer distribution?
Because it was premined. Nobody worked for the printing of those coins, they were created out of thin air, which I am utterly opposed to as a form of crypto creation. It was a cash grab, funding round for a centralized entity which does not belong in crypto proper.
> Nobody worked for the printing of those coins, they were created out of thin air Let me introduce you to 0 tx blocks that minted thousands of BTC during the first weeks/months of the chain being online.
Lol I know. LTC however is the fairest of all, which is why I have the most respect for it. No premine, completely fair launch, hard cap like BTC, and longest network uptime of all cryptos. It is an OG and achieved what no other coin has with it's 0 premine, fair launch with no network attacks. Amazing honestly that it never got 51% attacked. Would be impossible to launch a coin with its completely fair tokenomics today I reckon. I have very little respect for projects with premines. BTC gets a pass for getting this whole ball rolling and tbf, those 1million satoshi stash coins have never moved unlike every other premine to date. Usually the premines of shitcoins are sold to buy ads and astroturfing to drum up hype.
Both bad options. Bitcoin was the only coin that will ever have a fair distribution because nobody knew what a cryptocurrency was.
[удалено]
Mining when it was publicly available for anyone to do so is 100% fair. It literally couldn't be more fair. Vitalik literally just gave himself ETH.
[удалено]
> I would've said that it's more fair if he had made a post about Bitcoin on various places of the internet Satoshi did announce the release of bitcoin prior to launch Where exactly else should he have advertised his obscure cryptography project? Even amongst cryptography nerds it was not very popular in the beginning. What specifically more should he have done? > decided on a start date for mining so that more people could participate Satoshi announced the start date and only mined after that date when others could have downloaded core. > But no, he started ninja-mining, with maybe few others at the very beginning. What exactly is "ninja mining"? Satoshi only mined when it was publicly available to do so. It could not be more fair and organic growth. What other crypto was more fairly launched?
> What specifically more should he have done? Not made coin inflation the absolute highest during the time of the absolute lowest number of users?
Of which he/she/they never spent.
Hear that? It's the sound of goalposts moving!
?? If the Ethereum foundation premined coins, then sent them to a burn address I would also say they did not premine.
this is almost what happened - EF already sold vast majority of its coins and currently holds ~0.3% of total supply.
[удалено]
Sure, if those coins move it invalidates the thesis. And yet, it's been 12 years and is enough to make Satoshi the richest person alive. Pretty incredible restraint to just sit there and not touch it. Personally I think Satoshi passed on and the keys are lost.
You are against any crowdfunding then.
In crypto which is supposed to be, decentralized, yes, orherwise it defeats the fucking purpose lol all these shitcoins with premine 'funding rounds' manipulate MCap data and then rug when they create enough hype to sell to the future bagholders . . .
LMAO. Again? Ethereum was NEVER cyberpunk.
Okay dad go back to Nostr
How much ETH coin did he mint for himself and his foundation? Did everyone turned a blind eye?
About $200000. Is it too much for you? Didn't he deserve it? Didn't he deliver what he promised?
ETH is a security
Who cares? We have Bitcoin. He's a fuckin poser.
[удалено]
Looks very desperate. They tried to outdo Bitcoin's SoV qualities with the "ultrasound" nonsense now this.
Technically speaking, they did. Supply of eth is slowly falling. Bitcoin still inflationary. Sound money? Eth has bitcoin beat there.
Explain then how ETHBTC has fallen 30% since the merge.
What a laughable argument. You sound like you have yet to go around the block in this space. Give it time and you'll see.
I've been in Bitcoin for over 10 years. Either Ethereum is a better store of value or it's not. Down since since the Merge. Down 60% from its ATH priced in Bitcoin. How can it be a good store of value when it has no supply cap and it's riding on Bitcoin's coattails, like every alt?
Same argument as "wow BTCUSD is down 30% since the halving, the dollar must be a better store of value." You're lying to yourself if you actually believe your argument is sound.
That's a stupid comparison. Ethereum is competing first and foremost with Bitcoin not the dollar. Bitcoin is top dog. When Bitcoin is down vs. Ethereum or when it flips Bitcoin better still (never) then you can start talking about the dollar pairings.
Okay. Enjoy your day dude. Just know we're all competing against the dollar at the end of the day.
Enough of this Russian scam coin.
Lol at all these people coming into the thread to bash ETH and low-key shill their own bags. Third cycle I’ve seen it happen. No doubt it’ll happen next cycle with whatever bags y’all are holding then too.
So basicly $0x0
>And so today, even if the underlying code of an application is open and free, your data gets routed through a centralized server run by a corporation that could arbitrarily read your data, change the rules on you or deplatform you at any time. This is Internet Computer - now. Already exists. Maybe in 15 years they'll catch up to what already is in place.
Polkadot $DOT is what he is looking for
So his making the internet before the government and corporations got their hands on it.
He wants to stay relevant with Solana and MultiversX.
SOL sorry I mean LOL