Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | str33t_punk's commentslogin

In my experience that has never happened

Usually its a bunch of people advocating for socialism, screaming silence is violence, and saying white people are going to hell

From what I've seen (maybe this is just the bay area) you don't usually know someone is conservative until they trust you lol


> white people are going to hell

You’re not very good at straw man arguments, for what it’s worth.


jesus calm down


You can but only really one will have value

There are crypto punks on Binance / Tron but they are pretty worthless. Everyone knows which one is the real one

For most projects that go multi chain it’s all about wrapping. I.e the main item is on ETH but they are wrapped when on other chains.


CryptoPunks are Ethereum-based. I think someone cloned them into TRON and Binance Smart Chain.


Hey — don’t listen to these clowns. They are upset because all they do is make enterprise widgets for a megacorp and memorize leetcode. Most software engineers in megacorps are incredible risk adverse (similar to doctors and others who follow a path) and are pretty salty they missed the boat.

IMO the most interesting problems in computer science are happening in crypto. Especially if you are interested in cryptography or distributed systems. Way more interesting than making some web app ‘scale’ with the same formula everyone uses


Game theory? Distributed systems? Cryptography?

The technical challenges in crypto are much more interesting than that of a FANG company’s (i.e enterprise software and widgets)


There's a lot of assumptions in this comment:

- That people are only employed at FANG

- That outside of cryptocurrencies, people only work on enterprise software and widgets

- That blockchain has the only difficult distributed systems problems

- That cryptography is being advanced significantly by blockchain (I would like to see more on this if it's true. From a brief search only "zero-knowledge proofs" are brought up, and considering it's a deeply technical math area, just throwing more money at the problem won't necessitate any advancement)

But most of all, you just threw out buzzwords without giving any examples, which is a non-argument.


True retail is mostly on CEX's. Folks on DEX's are mainly power users.

Also there are two reasons why DEX's have high volume: - Long tail of assets are only on DEX's. Average retail isn't buying these - DEFI protocols utilize DEXs. I would argue most of the volume isn't people trading, rather automatic trading to support protocols like Yearn.finance


You would love Eth 2.0 then! The idea of proof of stake is to remove waste from the equation


Isn't the basic idea of ETH still "distributed computer" a.k.a. "pointless redoing every computation over and over" albeit with 2.0 it's sharded (i.e. only a subset of verification nodes redoing each computation)?

Still sounds wasteful, except slightly less massively so.


That's accurate, although Eth 2 is planning to use fairly small shards (128 nodes according to the current spec). So there should be ~128 nodes redoing each computation, vs several thousand in Eth 1.

Some newer projects (including the one I work on, mirprotocol.org) are using cryptographic proofs to verify each computation, to avoid re-execution entirely.


Proof of stake does not have the same security properties as proof of work. The arguments are too complicated for me to usefully communicate them in a short HN post, but as a heuristic just keep in mind that most cryptocurrencies haven't adopted PoS despite it facially seeming better/"less wasteful".


Given that ETH is the second biggest cryptocurrency it will be a great stress test of the security properties of proof of stake.

Honestly if it runs successfully for multiple staking periods I don't think there will be much of an argument for PoW cryptocurrencies that aren't the dominate coin in their respective type of work. Essentially all coins that share a proof of work with a larger coin are constantly at risk of a 51% attack. We've seen it before with bitcoin forks.

Proof of work's security properties are broken for everything that isn't BTC, ETH (although this will change soon) and whatever the dominate CPU coin is (Monero?)


> Proof of work's security properties are broken for everything that isn't BTC, ETH (although this will change soon) and whatever the dominate CPU coin is

PoW secures any coin that dominates the daily issuance of all coins (efficiently) using the same hardware. So the different hardware classes are

CPUs

GPUs

SHA256 ASICs

scrypt ASICs

Equihash ASICs

X11 ASICs

etc...

and each one can secure one dominant coin.


> most cryptocurrencies haven't adopted PoS despite it facially seeming better/"less wasteful"

Most post-launch cryptocurrencies were designed a long time ago, though. If you look at recent credible projects, most involve proof of stake: NEAR, Solana, Coda (Mina), Cosmos, Celo, Polkadot, etc.

I can only think of a couple recent blockchain designs based on proof of work: Grin and Iron Fish.


You're right, but that's only the case right now. Incredible effort has been and continues to be made on making PoS secure, scalable, and distributed.

I'm not aware of any insurmountable problems having been found. With Eth2.0 steadily approaching launch and other networks in various stages of progression, it seems increasingly unlikely we'll find one.


The insurmountable problem is that a user cannot tell which is the 'real' fork of a PoS chain without some kind of sidechannel information.


My favorite argument: "it's too complicated for me to explain!"


See this comment by Gregory Maxwell (a core Bitcoin developer): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25007874

Saying that PoS offers zero security seems a bit extreme but there's definitely a trade-off.


This article employs the same malicious cropping Taylor Lorenz did that made people so mad. I think the origin story is not that she complained about the CEO of Away, it was that when Balaji copied her exact wording, she cropped out the origin picture that showed this and claimed harassment.

Journalists seem incredibly tone deaf -- do they ever wonder why people dislike them? It's because they employ so many subtle lies like this all the time.

Journalists really need to get off twitter - it ruins their credibility. If this is how they act for some crap drama, it calls into question all sorts of 'important' articles and op-eds


It is funny that Alex Stamos works there.

After all his morale handwringing about working for Facebook, he is now working for Zoom, a Chinese Communist Party spy operation. Not only does he work for them, his job is to shill them so that people trust them.

He should feel ashamed of himself and really makes his whole situation with Facebook seem quite silly. He is now actually working for the 'bad guys'


One reason people don’t trust China’s aid is that the shortage is caused by China.

They bought up the worlds supply of PPE (over 2 billion masks) and nationalized factories owned by foreign companies (such as 3m) so their masks produced stay internal.

It’s almost as if I cornered the food market and then when people were starving I start selling them food but disguising it as a loving donation. People can see through that


Nonsense.

Here [1] is a fine article of an all-American company in Texas that is too nervous to get back into the business of making masks since they lost a ton of money and had to lay off over 100 staff when demand vanished after the last SARS panic.

They still have the equipment and know-how. They just don't trust the market.

Not a single Chinese government official involved in this sad saga.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/02/15/coronavir...


Just like with oil, any industry can be gamed if a single player accumulates a massive stockpile of a commodity, then floods the market to drive prices down and make production unprofitable for competitors.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: