/biz/ - Business & Finance

Some other major problems in design:
>Impossible composability and interoperability
>Fragmented liquidity
>Terrible UX/UI, The average user will never be able to use ZK "properly"
>Poor finality
>Storage wasting on the DA
>Dexes running on Rollups are regulatory align with CEX, Meaning that your Uniswaps will be as regulated as your Coinbases, Which defeat the point of running decentralized exchanges to begin with.


Pic related makes you wonder why we're prioritizing a scaling solution that cover 2-3% (Sub 2% among POS protocols) of all exploits while increasing ten folds the risk of exploits that cover 80%+ of all hacks.

>>54223271
just write the contract correctly and it's no problemo compadre

>>54223292
>>54223294

>>54223292
This is the juvenile arrogance i'm talking about

>>54223271
I hate that those niggers cannot scale it on chain
t. 90% eth, always delaying/changing goalposts etc....

>>54223294
>>54223271
that's why Avax exists.

>>54223271
ada charles had the route to scale eth but instead the hippies who develope eth opted to libel and slander him instead, so as a result the banks are going to kill eth by luring the retards who run it into a trap designed to decapitate it

>OP launch a token
>People rotate to Arbitrum
>Arbitrum launch a token

Let me guess, the next L2 is gonna be all the rage while the old one is forgotten? They all have the same DApps serving the same users, that's how it's supposed to be?

>>54223346
I don't work as an ethereum developer my guy, I just recognize a gish gallop when I see one. You have no clue what you're talking about

>>54223811
Go ahead and post your counter arguments

>>54223346
he's right though, if the software has bugs then bad things can happen, that's also true for the client software running the protocol itself.
regarding state bloat, vitalik once wrote about possible solutions to that, so there's definitely something on the roadmap to deal with it. withing the staking community i always read that people advice against a 4TB SSD because "state size will never get there", not sure if that will become true but that's the consent.
and idk enough about ZK proofs to argue against your fud. i'd think that if there's really some CIA level bug/backdoor in a large financial zkEVM rollup and they start exploiting it, that some kind of rollback or redeployment will be performed, just like in the DAO hack.

>>54224004
you think the US government needs a zeroday to take down eth?

They'll kill vitalik and tell bezos to shut off all validating nodes on AWS (80%+). Its literally that fucking simple.

>>54223980
No one is going to take the time to argue your copypasted gish gallop arguments. You'll post the same pasta tomorrow.

>>54223811
>gish gallop
based and gish gallop pilled

>>54224004
Bruh the argument is that nearly all attacks occur at the contract level, and that's with low level contract complexity compared to zK stuff which mean exponentially more vulnerabilities going unidentified, and when they do they can operate silently without even knowing hacks occured. So how tf your argument even make sense? You completely ignored the elephant in the room.

>>54223757
No it all got lost somehow
The 2020 narrative was we just need cheap blockspace and defi is the future and now we have cheap blockspace but only pump and dump and jpgs
Im really searching for a new good longtermhold even tho i likely will for a long term be most in ethereum

Literally doesn't matter I just want devs to keep making gems in ETH ($GPT being the latest example) while third parties like OP fix its glaring shitty issues

>>54223271
im a good person therefore those bad things will never happen to me.

>>54223271
They are scaling L1 with danksharding. L2 is all that can be done for now, given how reliant the industry is on ETH and how experimental ZK tech still is. L2 is the containment of that risk within the rollup, high value transactions can still happen on L1 they will just cost accordingly.

>>54223271
>Extremely centralized by nature and parasitic on its users, Decentralizing the sequencers will come at cost of scaling and then you get to point zero and ask yourself wtf is even the point of this shit?
There is no point to this shit. The whole "shared security" is retarded to begin with. User will be lured in to a false sense of security, thinking its the same as Ethereum, and when an exploit happens Ethereum itself will lose credibility.

Subnets > "L2"

>>54223271
Who said a thing about ETH maxis being smart and knowing how the crypto ecosystem works? They are only in CT being pushed by their NFT influencers and Crypto Gurus to "follow the trend" while their base foundation is falling to pieces.
There are some better alternatives to Ethereum already (Layer 0 Protocols); we just have to let Ethereum die.

>>54225892
>There are some better alternatives to Ethereum already
Name one, you won't.

>>54223757
coinbase is onboarding their 100+ million users to DEFI using the OP stack. if you think optimism is finished you're a fucking retard

>>54225529
Explain danksgarding to me.

>>54225960
Avalanche and Cosmos, boomer.

>>54226241
Yeah avalanche is better because of the cute anime girl threads, cosmos is also a joke. Go home pajeet.

>>54226151
https://www.alchemy.com/overviews/danksharding

>>54223271
Ethereums best moment is long gone now, vitalik's best contribution was EVM, after that it has become some sort of spaghetti code looking to impress some fool through appearing high tech while remaining an unviable network to make txs, fucking expensive and slow

>>54223271
there are already plenty of chains that allows you to do everything that ethereum does but cheaper and more secure. Avalanche for example has a foolproof consensus model that guarantees speed and security. Just give me a reason to invest in that thing when there are already many better options that do promise long term adoption.

>>54226631
>>54227071
ethereum has survived every single bear market and remains on top to this day

you're a fucking autist retard

ethereum L2's will be the main narrative this bullrun

>>54227155
Past performance is not indicative of future results

>>54227071
Decentralisation is the intrinsic value of L1 blockchains. Ethereum is the most decentralised smart contract blockchain. Avalanche is interesting, I'm keeping my eye on it. But I fail to see how you can say it's more secure or decentralised.

I think the decision to not use a slashing mechanism was a big mistake. Further, AVAX has fairly high new token issuance, right? Also, doesn't Avalanche have a high degree of on chain governance, or is working towards it? On chain governance is a big problem, it's not good for a L1 blockchain.

>>54228591
>Secure
Both protocols provide for adequate liveness and security thresholds, although avalanche tradeoffs off a little liveness for more security. ETH2.0 still retains some theoretical vulnerabilities due to retaining the PoW probabilistic finality (e.g. reorgs) at the present time I believe which Avalanche does not have. Anything other than that is frankly highly subjective and not worth debating.
>Decentralized
Avalanche stake is far more distributed than ETH. ETH2.0 nakamoto coefficient is something like 10-12 and avalanche is 29-30. Not to mention the whole OFAC fiasco.
>Slashing
Slashing is worse than useless, it only actually penalizes honest node operators who run into some sort of technical issue. If someone is going to attack the network they either are going to do so with enough resources to where protocol level slashing has no effect and you're back to social consensus i.e. utter failure of the system or they aren't going to do it at all because there is no benefit to staging an attack in the first place. I have yet to hear an actual good argument for slashing that doesn't boil down to "it feels right".
>Governance
No governance at this time, it's been delayed due to the regulatory uncertainty in the US. Governance would only apply to certain network parameters if it were implemented though and they would have windows, hysteresis, %change limits, etc.

>>54227155
delusional. ETH and co to zero. screen cap this

>>54229240
Regarding security, I'm using the term in a non-technical sense, basically as another way of saying decentralisation. Beyond this, is there some vulnerability in the code of ETH or AVAX? I don't know. I'm not smart enough to know. But I do know that there are 100x the people working on ETH and auditing it's code than there is for AVAX.

On nodes, Nakamoto Coefficient is not a good measure. Maybe it made sense 10 years ago for Bitcoin, but it doesn't tell us anything about ETH or AVAX. There is no way of telling who controls which nodes. My understanding is that the core AVAX team may control a large % of them directly or indirectly.

On token distribution, my understanding is that the AVAX team controls a very large percentage of the tokens and that a big percentage of the tokens were initially given to insiders, the team, partners, private sale, etc.Now, this isn't great, but it's not in and of itself terrible for the network, except...

On governance, when a project has on chain governance, it is essentially a democracy (which is not a good thing). But it's worse, with on chain governance, it's democracy by token holders. This is not a viable model for decentralised systems. And that's if there is fair, widespread token distribution, which may not be the case with AVAX. This is terrible for a number of reasons, but the most critical one is that:

On contentious hard forks, on chain governance deminishes or even eliminates the possibility of forking the chain. This is a critical design flaw for blockchains. The "French Revolution" option must ALWAYS be on the table. If you lose this, you lose everything, in terms of decentralisation.

>>54229240

Finally, on slashing, slashing is absolutely necessary for POS blockchains. Slashing is what makes POS more secure than POW. In POW, if a nefarious actor gains control of the network via mining, the network can fork and try to quickly get back to business. But that actor still maintains control of their hash power. They can attack again, and again, and again. Such an event would essentially mean the death of Bitcoin.

In POS or dPOS, the event would go like this: some entity buys up large amounts of tokens. They slowly spin up validators over time. Eventually they have enough to start attacking the network. This causes the price of token to crash. Prior to the attack, this actor uses some financial instrument to short the price of the token. The nefarious actor (just to be clear, this is the US government or something like that) then uses the money they have generated from shorting to buy up more cheap tokens. Rinse and repeat.

Slashing prevents this from happening. It's the last hope of the network.

>>54230555
>Security
I feel that that's a bit of a fuzzy definition of "security", decentralization is a separate metric. If we're talking about merely protocol level here, ETH2.0 is way more complex than avalanche and plans to become even more so according to the road map. That's before you even bring in the whole "L2's are how we scale" bit which is another few magnitudes worth of complexity. So having 100x more people auditing code (which idk where you're drawing this figure from btw) doesn't necessarily mean "better". Most actual security issues arise from the EVM and smart contract risk with flash loans etc. That's shared between the projects ofc, but C-chain is just a glorified tech demo. Avalanche is way more expansive than EVM/solidity.
>Decentralization
I'm not sure there's a better metric than nakamoto coefficient viewed in context of the token distribution. Obviously a 600 node POS network where the foundation controls 95% of the tokens but they're evenly distributed across all 600 nodes does not have a NC of 200 lul. Which leads to
>Token distribution
At the present time, the absolute worst case scenario is that avalabs+avalanche foundation control ~16% of the circulating supply. There have ofc been disbursements of this AVAX though through initiatives like Avalanche Rush and also selling for team runway purposes. The vast majority of AVAX is from public sales and staking rewards thus far, VC's were a pretty small proportion all things considered. The staking reward rate is higher than ETH though, ~5% per year presently I believe. But Avalanche is a young network just getting off the ground so I think that inflation is reasonable given the anticipated demand for subnets and token burn. Compare this chart to ETH https://cointelegraph.com/news/64-of-staked-eth-controlled-by-five-entities-nansen which is not exactly what I would call decentralized. Avalanche certainly isn't worse.
>Hardfork
Why does governance preclude a hardfork?

Anyone think it's worth grabbing some ethw?

>>54231216>>54231216
Security: I don't think anyone can fairly argue that far more people are engaged in development on Ethereum (including those involved in really important core projects) is far, far more than any other blockchain. The failure of other important projects, L2s, etc. would really suck. But that's just how this is. Crypto is the wild west of finance. It's gonna be that way for a long time. What matters is the L1. The L1 is the internet. Everything else are just websites. Websites go bust, crash, have viruses, are scams, etc. It doesn't matter. The freedom of the internet is what matters.

Decentralisation: My position is that Nakamoto Coefficient tells us virtually nothing.

Tokens: I agree AVAX is a young network, and that's why I'm keeping my eye on it. It can't be expected to be perfect right now. However, distribution of ETH tokens is surely not ideal. But ultimately it doesn't really matter. Because ETH does not have on chain governance. On chain governance is a critical flaw and I can't believe that so many people don't realise this. Same thing with slashing, wouldn't it be great if there was better ETH distribution. But it doesn't really matter. Because if those token holders fuck around, they're gonna find out.

Hard forks: Can't speak directly about AVAX, but most chains with on chain governance do not have the option to fork.

>>54230676
>Slashing
You're carrying a PoW mindset over to PoS but that isn't really how classical consensus protocols behave. In PoW you can have competing sets of the hash power who are racing, in a sense, and that finality and the probability of the correct fork winning out degrades gradually and so you're envisioning a progressive attack. This is not so for classical consensus protocols (or avalanche really). If you have >1/3 of the stake your attack is instantly successful for liveness and the system is busted, if the attacker has 1/3< then the attack does nothing practically. For most classical protocols if the attacker possesses >2/3 stake the network suffers a safety failure and the attacker can do whatever they please with the data. ETH2.0 is a bit different because of the inactivity leak idea which effectively lowers the safety threshold to 51% of stake because they carry over the PoW property of preferring liveness over safety. Avalanche prefers safety over liveness, an attacker needs ~28% of stake to perform a liveness attack and needs a full 80% for safety to be violated. And actually an interesting property of avalanche protocols is that liveness degrades like nakamoto so 28% isn't an on-off switch. Personally, if an attacker has the stake to cause a network to have a liveness failure, I would greatly prefer that the network maintain safety instead of liveness because you're going to be resorting to off chain remediation either way. I don't think liveness>safety is the correct design choice for anything that aims to support large amount of valuable economic activity.

I think ETH will be milked for all that its worth for a couple more years. Each new "development" adds complexity and allows for insiders to extract value from people. The greater the complexity, the greater the surface area for exploit. The amount of money that gets hacked from ETH is insane, just look at the Euler hack. There were like 6 firms that audited the contract and couldn't find the exploit. Now there is the possibility for Zero Knowledge attacks, which we haven't even begun to understand.

>>54231475
>Security
I'm merely talking about the number of people with eyes on the core protocol. There's more total dapps being developed on ETH probably sure, but that would apply mainly to eyes on the EVM not core protocol. At this point Avalanche the protocol is pretty well vetted and tested, especially during the market crashes of the past year. It's the only chain that didn't gag, go down, or spike to ridiculous gas fees despite high load.
>Decentralization
What alternative objective metric is there?
>On-chain governance
I mean avalanche doesn't have it period right now. They've never fully laid out how exactly it would work but Emin has mentioned issues that needed to be solved like you mention regarding how the token distribution influences voting etc.
>Hard Forks
I don't see how on chain governance prevents a hard fork. Some group edits the node client software and >51% of the stake switches over to the new protocol, on-chain gov can't do anything about that. Voting rewards would however discourage validators from switching via the economic incentive though I would agree.

Avalanche is unironically what next-gen Ethereum should be, but the ETH maxis are completely against anything that could pose a threat to their bags. Their "plan" to scale Ethereum is a way too complex and complicated vertical way of stacking extreme experimental bandaid solutions on top of the hopelessly old main chain. The vast majority of these solutions are still "secured" by pajeet multisigs and not really decentralized. Arbitrum for example is already shilling "L3s" for fucks sake, fucking lmao. The main L2 is barely working and they're already planning to stack another layer of chains on top of it. The shared security thing is also a retarded nothingburger meme, just like slashing.

tl;dr Ethereum will never go away without a catastrophical failure/blackswan because it's backed by an autistic horde of bagholding cucks.

>>54231661
Can you elaborate for a mid wit like myself what you mean by liveness vs security? Thanks in advance.

But I'll say this: off chain remediation is not a failure or flaw in the network. The ability to have bloodless revolution against the powers that be on the chain is quite possibly the most ingenious aspect of decentralised blockchain technology. If you don't play by the rules, I will pick up my marbles and leave. And there's nothing you can do about it. Here in Canada, if our government becomes (more) tyrannical it means I either die, get thrown in jail, lose everything, have to flee the country (with nothing), lose my house, lose my bank account, or.... I have to successfully kill a bunch of people, most of whom are innocent and just got caught up in the system. It's a terrible way of doing things.

>>54231876
L3 is not a scam. It's the ultimate conclusion of blockchain technology. It means 1) interoperability between L2s, and/or 2) fully customised solutions for any and every application and user.

>>54231819
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I mean, for example, would you say that the Bitcoin L1 has more or less the same level of 'eyes on it' that Avalanche has. I just cannot imagine that that would be true. I also don't think that spikes in transaction fees on Ethereum is in any way related to a security flaw.

Decentralisation: The metric is adoption. both by developers and users. A few times you've talked about Layer 0, the social layer, as though it is not important or not a good aspect of blockchain. I can't agree. Layer 0 IS the blockchain. If 90% of all the Bitcoin core developers and 90% of the Bitcoin nodes decided they wanted to increase the max supply, that's where the chain would go. And the normies would follow. It's all about Layer 0.

Hard forks: this may be correct, not exactly sure, but it is certainly the case that on chain governance came about as an attempt to to create chains that don't fork. You would have to convince people basically to create and adopt a new blockchain to get away from the old guard of token holders.

>>54232001
Sorry, I suppose I've been slightly muddying terms. Sometimes people use the term security threshold but really Safety is the correct term. Liveness means that the network continues to make progress finalizing transactions. If the liveness threshold is exceeded then an attacker can effectively halt the network from doing anything. But data/account balances/NFT ownership etc. would remain safe. PoW/nakamoto basically is always live. Safety is the further threshold I mentioned (2/3 for classical protocols, 51% for ETH2.0, 80% for Avalanche) where, if exceeded, an attacker can alter the chain data at will.
>>54232046
This just isn't true lol, maybe for ETH though but that's due to poor design choices. L2's and L3s are a symptom of dysfunction IMO.
>>54232346
In terms of expert eyes on the core protocol, sure BTC and ETH rpobably have more eyes but not by that much. Twitter personalities don't count.
That's a very nontechnical take on what constitutes L0 kek.
I think governance just decreases the likelihood. And also provides an outlet to make reasonable protocol changes WITHOUT needing to resort to a hardfork which is messy and has deleterious effects on the community.

ATTN comrades please ignore this thread and click to the Daily Gwei at once. Anthony Sassano will sooth your cares away with his nice voice.

50 replies and i've yet to see a single comment trying to tackle ANY of the points i presented in the OP without running circles around them.

>>54232046
>It's the ultimate conclusion of blockchain technology

Making things "modular" basically mean giving up on trying to find elegant, scientific solution to problems that *demand* you to find an elegant and scientific solution, It's literally the opposite of ultimate conclusion, More like the ultimate bandage. Not how you should build a system that runs trillions of dollars, This is suicidal.

Eth is gay and PoS = Piece of Shit

>>54233343
About L3: fair, I was speaking in the context of Ethereum without thinking

About Layer 0: I have no idea what you are trying to say.

About forking: the entire purpose of a contentious hard fork is that it is contentious. It's the nuclear option. It's the "French Revolution" option. Just without shedding any blood. You hit those psychopaths in the only place it hurts them: their wallets. You just walk away.

>>54234794
Ethereum is not designed to be elegant, it's designed to be decentralised. Many sacrifices have been made for this. For me to care about any of the things you wrote about in your OP you first have to show me why your favorite chain is more decentralised than Ethereum. I'm not an ETH maxi, I'm a decentralisation maxi.

>>54234794
OP, you are right. ETH right now is being exploited. I am making a lot of money per day from an exploit I found during the last big upgrade and moving the PoS was the most retarded thing they could've done. Also Code is Law so I don't feel bad about it.

>>54235891
Ethereum isn't decentralized

>>54225960
MultiversX

>>54236223
Elaborate.

>>54226241
Cosmos, yeah
>>54237842
>MultiversX
It's got the tech, and i love it's deal with holoride, one of the few metaverse project with real world products.

>>54223271
you say this as if the accounting mechanisms (which include the state apparatus via enforcement of contract terms) of traditional finance are 1. any better 2. capable of being improved without a few orders of magnitude more effort and cost. it doesn't matter if crypto currently sucks ass because the incentives involved ensure that dozens of solutions for every single problem will be constantly probed for bounties and battle hardened without stupefying oversight.

it helps to see the crypto economy as a nation state that has its own financial system rather than a potential total replacement for trad finance. despite what you may see as flaws in its operation, it is still attractive to and capable of serving well enough an ever increasing number of people who, for now, are free and willing to risk loss for a new way to do things. complain about handwaving all you want but the computer economy has handwaved away intelligent, pessimistic and ultimately wrong takes likes yours for over 60 years

>>54223271