Ethereum "The more important story is the digitization of all cash, digitalization of the financial services system, that is going to be mostly built on Ethereum." -- CNBC Squawk Box

I was wondering what exactly the state of contract domains were and if it would be worth getting one. I don't think metamask supports domains, but what is the best domain contract? I was thinking Unstoppable Domains, but they are kinda pricey.

submitted by /u/jadinthedog
[link] [comments]

Is it possible to port a Dapper wallet to Metamask?

Posted: 23 Oct 2020 06:40 PM PDT

Asking this because naturally I have some ETH stuck in the darn thing and it will not allow me to process any transaction or withdrawals without an "Uh Oh. Dapper Has Crashed" error message.

I thought maybe I would download my recovery kit and try a different computer, but no luck there as it spits out an error when trying to do that as well.

Is it at all possible to get my Private Keys from this thing and port it to a usable Web3 wallet?

submitted by /u/WittyNameGuy
[link] [comments]

Eth2 Medalla Validator and Network Health Deep Dive

Posted: 23 Oct 2020 10:20 AM PDT

submitted by /u/k-r-s-n-a
[link] [comments]

Introducing KyberPRO: The Only Professional Framework for On-chain Market Making

Posted: 22 Oct 2020 09:14 PM PDT

submitted by /u/ShaneMkt
[link] [comments]

Raoul Pal and Michael Saylor's Bitcoin vs Ethereum analysis is deeply flawed, and here is why.

Posted: 23 Oct 2020 07:26 AM PDT

Regarding the Bitcoin vs Ethereum narrative

Allocating capital in Bitcoin but not in Ethereum is a bet that the planned road-map for Ethereum will not be successfully implemented and/or its economic properties will not function as designed once the final phase of ETH 2.0 goes live. The combination of PoS, sharding and EIP-1559 will allow for a monetary policy that can sustain the system with zero, possibly negative, issuance. Detailed explanations of how this is possible has been documented through numerous interviews and blogs with developers and pundits. We also must take into consideration that even if the issuance is above zero, the returns from staking Ether must be accounted to compare the long-term holding value proposition against something like Bitcoin. If the staking rewards provide ~3% annual returns and issuance is ~2% then the equivalent issuance for a PoW protocol would be ~-1% (this will never happen in the Bitcoin protocol).

Addressing the claim that Ether is not money

The narrative that Ether is not money because the Ethereum protocol is not designed to exclusively function as money is akin to saying that the Internet is not a good emailing system because it is not exclusively designed to transmit emails. This type of narrative is trying to restrict the definition of money by suggesting that its underlying protocol should not have functionality that extends beyond the conventional way we think of it. The reality is that Ethereum is much better suited for a digital economy - Ether is its native monetary asset. The ability to issue other forms of digital assets and execute computer logic in a trustless unified system with a natively defined monetary asset encompasses all the fundamental building blocks of a future digital economy. This is a future where monetary, financial and information systems can take advantage of the inclusiveness, permissionless and trustless aspects that are central to the Bitcoin value proposition.

The Ethereum protocol is designed to do a lot of wonderful things, but it costs money to operate the network and that cost must be covered by something of value that can be easily liquidated or exchanged into other things of value.... otherwise known as money. The idea that Ether is more akin to oil than gold/money just because the price metric for computations is called "gas" falls apart under scrutiny. Ether is strictly used as a monetary incentive. It is not magically burned to propel a fictitious machine that runs the network... the computers that run the Ethereum network run under the same physical principles from the ones of Bitcoin - they consume energy and someone has to pay for it. It just so happens that the monetary rewards and cost of transactions operating the Ethereum network are done exclusively in Ether, and therefore it serves as a monetary base. In addition, Ether has been used as the monetary base for the acquisition of other digital assets during their ICO phase. Lastly, Paypal has revealed they will be including Ether as a means of payment for online merchants. Saying that Ether is not money is like saying the sky isn't blue.

Additional thoughts

The combination of staking, EIP-1559 and sharding will allow ETH to reduce issuance ahead of Bitcoin's schedule. It is very likely going to allow for sustainable zero issuance which is something that is still up in the air for Bitcoin.
The switch from PoW to PoS will dramatically reduce the operational cost of the network while incentivizing ownership of Ether. The reduction in operational cost is a huge factor contributing to a sustainable monetary policy.
The true soundness of Ether as a store of wealth needs to account for the returns from staking. That means that even if the nominal issuance remained higher than Bitcoin, it could still a better investment when you account for the staking returns.
Ethereum can operate as an entire financial system. It allows for issuance of new tokens and it can operate autonomously as a digital assets exchange... so that means that it can be an exchange for tokenized FIAT currencies, cryptocurrencies, tokenized securities and commodities. Think of a global market for stocks, commodities, future contracts and derivatives.
The integration with digital assets is done natively in one network. Ethereum serves as a native monetary asset with sound properties. Tokenized bitcoins would not only significantly reduce security (value would be lost if EITHER network is compromised) it also makes little sense if Ethereum's soundness (staking - issuance) is superior to Bitcoin.
There are a gazillion more use cases for Ethereum that would benefit from having a natively defined monetary asset.
Ultimately Bitcoin might serve as digital gold as a hedge against Ethereum. So they can coexist, but they are still competing with each other in terms of building value. Every investor who is getting into cryptocurrencies should be asking what assets to buy and why. Money allocated to Bitcoin cannot be allocated to Ethereum and vice-versa.

submitted by /u/TheWierdGuy
[link] [comments]

Bringing DeFi to Bitcoin

Posted: 23 Oct 2020 09:00 AM PDT

submitted by /u/buzzbooz
[link] [comments]

Ethereum Ready to Become the First Blockchain which Will Settle $1 Trillion in a Year - Cryptocurrency News

Posted: 23 Oct 2020 01:51 AM PDT

submitted by /u/Czfacts
[link] [comments]

Ethereum centralization concerns

Posted: 22 Oct 2020 01:24 PM PDT

Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere, or if the information I'm responding to here is out of date.

tldr: Are Ethereum (full, validating) nodes incentivized to vote no on gas limit increases that would lead to centralization?

Context:

I just read this old post, its follow up post, and this response post all discussing whether or not Ethereum will trend towards centralization over time. As far as I can tell, all of that long discussion really boils down to disagreements about this paragraph from Gustav's post:

As miners are incentivized to act in ways that maximize the value of the tokens they receive in each mined block, they are unlikely to vote for a blocksize increase that would break the network. If the author trusts Bitcoin miners to act in ways that maximize the value of their bitcoins (such as not censoring transactions, generally prioritizing txs by their fee and otherwise act in ways that are beneficial for the network) the author should trust Ethereum miners to only vote for block sizes that can be handled by reasonable hardware, as the decentralized verification done by full nodes underpins the security of the network.

StopAndDecrypt replies:

The network doesn't break because validators drop off and peers are lost. The network functions with two datacenters. What breaks is decentralization. The connected nodes have no incentive to care about other less-connected nodes validation abilities.

[...]

Vitalik even agreed that [the number of full validating nodes] would shrink over time if the gas limits kept going up, and there's nothing stopping that from happening. Right now miners are being altruistic, but what happens when mining doesn't even exist? What happens when it's just staking and the people doing it don't care about other people's blocks getting orphaned? Why would they keep the gas limit down? Remember they can manually adjust this, so why would they intentionally keep it low if they're hyper-connected to each other and fully capable of processing that data? What happens when they start compounding their staking earnings, setting up more nodes, and gain more control of the network?

Summary:

As block sizes increase, the number of full validating nodes decreases. Bitcoin solves this by simply saying block sizes never go up, period, and if that limits the amount of TPS the L1 layer can handle, so be it; just scale on L2. Ethereum's answer according to Vitalik is the gas price limits (and indirectly through that block size limits) that each individual miner/validator enforces. Implicit in this I believe is that sooner or later the block size limit has to stop growing (approximating the bitcoin approach), at least until hardware costs drop enough. This relies on an incentive mechanism in place to prevent validators from constantly increasing gas limits per block and letting the network trend towards centralization. Without such an incentive mechanism, I'd think each individual validator wouldn't necessarily care if increasing block sizes caused other validators to drop off the network, so long as they are able to keep up, which does indeed seem like it would eventually lead to a small number of powerful validators controlling the base layer.

Core issue and my actual question:

So I think the real question at the core of this disagreement is: in what cases would (full, validating) nodes reject a block due to it being too big (using too much gas)? What are the incentive mechanisms that keep individual validators aligned with the goal of keeping the core validator pool decentralized?

Please note I'm only talking about the centralization of fully validating nodes with the power to reject new blocks, light clients don't help, and sharding helps by a constant factor in the short term but doesn't address the fundamental long term trends. PoW vs PoS is orthogonal and doesn't really affect the issues being discussed here .

Thanks!

submitted by /u/stbrody
[link] [comments]

ENS registration deposit recovery

Posted: 22 Oct 2020 11:57 AM PDT

If I put deposits on ENS names back when they originally launched how can I recover those funds? I bid on a number of names and never did anything with them.

submitted by /u/JeepLif3
[link] [comments]

Breaking News

CryptoCurrency

Friday, October 23, 2020

Ethereum "The more important story is the digitization of all cash, digitalization of the financial services system, that is going to be mostly built on Ethereum." -- CNBC Squawk Box

Ethereum "The more important story is the digitization of all cash, digitalization of the financial services system, that is going to be mostly built on Ethereum." -- CNBC Squawk Box

No comments:

Post a Comment

Popular

Blog Archive