
Why I’m so “against” Ethereum - DyslexicAtheist
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1078682801954799617.html
======
DennisP
> state channels (ETH’s version of Lightning), but it is unclear whether main-
> chain issued ERC20 type tokens will be portable to this environment.

The Raiden project is the closest thing to Lightning, was recently deployed to
the main chain, and explicitly supports any ERC20 token.

The article says Plasma is dead because...Peter Todd, a Bitcoin dev, claims
they had a similar idea and rejected it? Meanwhile, on Ethereum a bunch of
teams are actively working on it and the Loom project has a version up and
running.

The article asks why if proof of stake is so great, didn't Ethereum just start
with that? Because proof of stake had widely-recognized security flaws (like
"nothing-at-stake"), and it took years of research to fix them all.

The entire article is of similar quality.

~~~
danaos
> The entire article is of similar quality.

You cherry-picked some points and rebuffed them, then proceeded to generalize
and dismiss all of them.

The reality is that any SQL database would be superior to every blockchain
unless your motives are criminal nature.

Disclosure: I sold all of my cryptos in Q1 2018, after buying my first bitcoin
in the summer of 2013 and loosing a (luckily) small chunk of it in the
infamous MtGox hack.

~~~
wslh
> The reality is that any SQL database would be superior to every blockchain
> unless your motives are criminal nature.

People in Venezuela and other political or economically opressed people around
the world don't agree [1].

It seems you are wrongly extrapolating the context where you live.

[1]
[https://coin.dance/volume/localbitcoins](https://coin.dance/volume/localbitcoins)

~~~
naniwaduni
This is, I suppose, very similar to criminal motive, except that we find them
sympathetic. A reminder that not all that is (locally, de facto) illegal is
wrong.

One man's terrorist &c.

~~~
wslh
Similar to criminal motives? It seems you never had 0 (zero) dollars and
needed to receive a few dollars from your family outside your country with a
government fully controlling the flow of capital.

~~~
naniwaduni
The government being in the way of letting you receive a few dollars from your
family is what's similar.

------
apo
_By now the Ethereum bloat is so bad that cheaply running an individual node
is practically impossible for a lay person._

This is an important yet under-appreciated point. It's now extremely difficult
to sync an Ethereum node from scratch. If the processes ever completes on
commodity hardware, it takes weeks. And that difficulty will only climb as
more and more stuff gets dropped onto the Turing-Complete "world computer."

This situation drives users in ever greater numbers to services that tell them
which transactions are valid or not. Verification with a full node, the
bedrock of censorship resistance, dies a death of 1,000 cuts as a result.

~~~
snissn
It takes me about a day to sync parity on a consumer desktop with an ssd and a
7 year old i5 Intel cpu

~~~
xiphias2
I guess you're not doing a full sync. Here's an example of a person trying to
do it:

[https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/37348/parity-
fu...](https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/37348/parity-full-history-
node)

~~~
CryptoPunk
An archival node goes beyond a full node and downloads data not needed for
full validation.

~~~
nootropicat
It doesn't download them, the state history is generated from the blockchain
locally. The blockchain itself is 68GB (uncompressed, decimal G)

------
kev009
When reading this I think of my deep knowledge of TCP (especially the pain
points) and yet it is "The Internet" for the past while. Compared to simpler
protocols like Delta-T and later/better protocols like XTP, TCP still "won"
for a variety of reasons (adoption, good enough, numbers of implementation,
hardware implementation, etc)

There are a couple reasons I think Ethereum might prevail over bitcoin:

* Vitalik is young and "all in", god willing he will have many decades to refine and improve Ethereum. Think Linus and Linux versus the cabal of Bitcoin and BSD core leadership.

* Most of the criticism in this article are things that have slipped committed or expected dates. The community is aware of the problems and is looking forward to fixing them despite it taking longer than expected. It's ok to be wrong and off on dates if you get it right "just in time" which is only obvious after the fact.

All in all, Bitcoin might be BSD and Ethereum might be Linux. BSD was
technically better for a decade, but Linux had the central leadership of a
young Linus and scaled better in adding new developers and corporate users
into the mix at the right time. That seemed to matter more than quality,
stability, and longevity of governance at least up until now.

It's perfectly valid to point out the technical flaws and remind people they
missed their commitments. But I'd caution against making financial decisions
with too much weight on that alone, which would be about as effective as
making them on the expected good will of the community of a cryptocoin :)

~~~
h1d
I guess BSD and Linux were aiming to take the same position as OS where
Bitcoin and Ethereum are not.

No one sane would get Bitcoin staffed with complicated features beyond its
simple purpose of keeping a decentralized ledger.

Nothing else would go forward if it isn't for Bitcoin running in a stable way.

Bitcoin would be positioned as TCP whereas Ethereum would be regarded as HTTP
protocol ready to run apps on top.

BSD's position is more like Bitcoin Cash (or SV). Similar purpose, different
philosophy.

~~~
DennisP
Except that HTTP literally does run on top of TCP, while Ethereum doesn't
depend on Bitcoin in any way, unless you count price action and the minds of
many speculators.

------
randomacct3847
He’s criticizing Eth for being a “ science experiment”? The entire crypto
ecosystem _is_ just an experiment, including bitcoin. It’s all immature and
unstable.

~~~
stillbourne
I've always tried to tell people that ask me about crypto currencies that not
only do they not have any intrinsic value, but the only positive value that
they have is entropy. I explained it like this over Christmas dinner, lets say
I wanted to start a new commodity, for arguments sake lets say that this new
commodity is based on matches. Matches have a value, you light them and they
produce a certain amount of energy. You can use them to light candles, clean
out that odor from the previous occupant of the toilet, you could even combine
a match with a small sterling engine to create motive power. But my commodity
isn't the matches, its the energy used as the match is burnt. In my novelty
commodity I only trade in matches that have been used, its proof that the
match performed work in that it burned a fractional number of BTUs. This
proves that the matches are sound. Furthermore, I, as a processor of used
match commodities, can charge a nominal transaction fee when people trade
spent matches on my Matchchain(TM) platform. Also, while this is a commodity I
will call it a currency regardless of the fact that it has no debt
instruments, lacks liquidity and is completely unregulated and prone to theft.
Would you care to invest?

Now replace spent matches with spent compute.

~~~
hackernudes
The "valuable" matches would have to do something statistically rare, like
make a pattern of Jesus's face or something. And somehow be resistant to
counterfeit matches. Then your analogy almost makes sense.

~~~
stillbourne
Do crypto coins make patterns of Jesus's face? Man there is something I would
never have guessed. Also is counterfeit money really that big of a problem
that its debasing the value of the dollar enough that we have to abandon all
notions of fiat currency and replace it with an entropic commodity that burns
energy to no other end? I mean I get, that the "valuable matches" are the ones
that "make a coin" of whatever the jargon is but the problem is to make a
"coin" takes 215 kWh to create, lets put that back into match terms, assuming
one matchstick has one BTU and we convert BTU to kWh that comes to about
733610 matches at a conversion rate of 0.000293071 kWh per BTU that comes to
about 2445 boxes of 300 count matches. Amazon sells a 3 pack of 300 count
matches for 6.75 which comes out to about $5501.25 for 733610 count of
matches. Now be aware that I'm pulling these number out of my ass, butt every
match I burn has a 1 in 733610 chance of being a "Jesus Match" that means that
I can burn more than that and still not end up with a match that is a Jesus
Match because its a statistical argument much like the lottery. In the end
what do I have to show for all of this? A huge fucking pile of used matches,
and a real sense that maybe just maybe the Emperor's New Currency has value.

~~~
hackernudes
What you have to show at the end of the day is a digital currency that has no
central authority and yet still prevents double spending.

The cycles are not wasted - they secure a digital currency.

Banks and governments use immense resources to secure fiat currency.

~~~
stillbourne
>The cycles are not wasted - they secure a digital currency.

But why though? Is the USD that insecure? Is fraud so prevalent that its
debasing the value of currency? Do we literally need to spend 70TWh per year,
and that's just in its current state as a semi novelty currency/commodity, to
secure the concept of money? Can you imagine how much it would cost to run
bitcoin if it was the primary reserve currency of the world?

------
dlubarov
> 7/ Recently, a team of reputable developers decided to peer review a widely
> anticipated Casper / sharding white paper, concluding that it does not live
> up to its own claims.

That's rather misleading. The critique was about Casper CBC, which is very
different from Casper FFG. Casper FFG is the basis of the Ethereum 2.0 design,
and it's not very controversial. Casper CBC may be more controversial, but
nobody is suggesting that it be deployed any time soon. It's Vlad's ongoing
research project.

------
menzoic
Lots of misinformation in this article. My favorite one is "Plasma is dead".
Meanwhile Plasma MVP was just demoed at Devcon last month...

~~~
cdiddy2
Plasma was also developed by the same guy who created the lightning network

------
arisAlexis
This is a very good read from what I call the thought leaders of HN and
Silicon Valley. [https://a16zcrypto.com/](https://a16zcrypto.com/)

------
JohnJamesRambo
This is bitcoin maximalist dreck, I’m surprised to even see this nonsense
upvoted on HN.

~~~
russdpale
Perhaps, but its nice to see some discussion in these comments that isn't just
taking a dump on all crypto currency like I have seen many times before.

------
frustratedmngr
I find it extremely disturbing that cryptocurrency discussions sound so much
like political debate

~~~
arcticbull
More like religious debates honestly: “the cryptocurrency I ‘invest’* in is
the one true future and all the others are shitcoin scams” — like calm down,
IMO they’re all scams ;)

* It's not an investment as it does not convey ownership interest.

------
nebali
>>12/ However, upon closer examination [Plasma] was the recycling of some
stale ideas, and the project went nowhere

Past tense? this guy isn't very thorough.

------
simonebrunozzi
TL;DR: A long, insightful, and at least partially correct critique of the
"state" of Ethereum as of today.

My humble 0.02 is that what's current is immature and unstable, but there's a
decent chance that Ethereum, or Bitcoin, or both, will at some point in the
future provide some interesting technical solutions/services.

The fact that Ethereum is not there yet is not a good enough argument for me.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
Other than making some people really rich, what problems would it solve that
aren’t better solved by existing solutions which don’t burn energy to create
secure entropy?

~~~
jazzyjackson
Remittances without high fees.

I think as entropy becomes very inefficient to produce (difficulty multipliers
increasing on crypto as the network expands...) it will become more clear that
the expensive part about sending money internationally is trusting all parties
involved.

You pay VISA/MASTERCARD a 3% fee because you trust them to protect your
account in the case of fraud. Moneygram takes 2% of all transcations over $900
because you trust them to move money from your account to the recipients
account without losing it.

Even in computer security, you have to put your trust in something. Somebody
picked cryptography and high numbers of CPU cycles.

Anyway, you asked what problems crypto could solve, and I guess my answer is,
maybe it will cost less to send money around the world. As it turns out,
there's not necessarily a way to make it free.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
I don’t pay a fee on my credit cards, the merchant does, and in case of fraud
I can issue a chargeback to boot. As long as I pay my balance each month, my
credit card is free, plus generating rewards. That’s almost the opposite of
cryptocurrency, where far from being able to tackle fraud, it makes theft or
loss nearly impossible to remediate. A credit card is also one of the easiest
things to use, and all of the hard work on security is undertaken by merchants
and the credit card issuer.

~~~
yebyen
> I don’t pay a fee on my credit cards, the merchant does

While that may be technically correct, it's ignorant of the fact that costs
are always passed down the line in any economic relationship like you're
describing.

That fraud protection costs the card issuers, which is the basis for that
merchant fee, and the merchant passes the cost on in the form of higher
prices. (Merchant accounts with higher fraud rates will pay higher fees!)

So from another perspective, you actually are paying the bill for those
unknown percentage of frauds, which you wouldn't be as much on the hook for so
directly if only everyone was responsible for their own individual security.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
If the price of Good N is Value of N+x where x is a markup to cover the costs
you’re talking about, that cost is passed on to people who pay with any means.
If I buy a TV with cash, or credit card, it costs the same. Except of course
that I can get cash back on my card, but not with cash (or bitcoin).

So, credit card or not, the cost is there, even if I pay with bitcoin or
ether. Except of course for the benefits of the credit card.

~~~
nonbel
>" that cost is passed on to people who pay with any means. If I buy a TV with
cash, or credit card, it costs the same."

If people start charging less when paid via methods that have less chargeback
risk will you reassess?

~~~
thiagotomei
As a matter of fact, this (merchants giving a discount for cash transactions)
used to be illegal in Brazil. It recently became legal, but I haven't seen
much evidence of changes.

~~~
nonbel
Cash is also more easily counterfeited than card transactions. I'm not sure
how the risk of a fraudulent transaction works out in the end.

------
tim333
There's a reply to each of the 50 tweets by Vitalik Buterin on Reddit here
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/aac4hr/tuurs_crit...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/aac4hr/tuurs_criticism_discussion_thread/)

By the way, not much mentioned in the discussion but I'm for Ethereum and kind
of anti Bitcoin because of the awful environmental impact of proof or work
which the Ethereum folk are at least trying to find a solution to.

~~~
keymone
> awful environmental impact of proof or work

compared to what? you can't have free cheese and environmental (and social)
impact of existing fiat systems is far worse.

> Ethereum folk are at least trying to find a solution to

PoS was known long before PoW. PoS is not and cannot be a solution because it
doesn't provide _objective_ measure by which competing chains can be compared.
only trust in third parties that can be hacked, coerced, etc. oh and ofc "the
rich get richer" \- so much for fixing awful impact from fiat systems.

------
SlowRobotAhead
>Ethereum is becoming increasingly centralized.

How do people see the forks, the ‘closed’ meetings, the pivots, the obvious
influence that a couple devs have over the entire system - and still walk away
with any notion there is decentralization?

~~~
lawn
Because there are several different kinds of decentralization and it's not
black and white.

Miner decentralization is important is the whole security model relies on
nobody controlling >50% of hashrate.

Developer centralization is another important point. BTC arguably fails at
this when a small group, combined with extensive propaganda campaigns,
artificially constrains Bitcoin's throughput. There are no valid arguments
against raising the blocksize to 2MB for example.

Then there's node centralization, wealth distribution and maybe other types
I'm missing.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
>Developer centralization is another important point. BTC arguably fails at
this when a small group, combined with extensive propaganda campaigns,
artificially constrains Bitcoin's throughput. There are no valid arguments
against raising the blocksize to 2MB for example.

If a handful of people could effectively destroy a “currency” at any point...
it’s not decentralized in any sense of the word that is important for
trustworthyness or longevity.

A government could crash its own money, but there is a strong incentive to not
do that. Bitcoin or Eth has nothing tied to it, it’s entitely at the whim of
some programmers who as I understand it, aren’t economics experts.

That’s the point I made above. You want to say the blockchain and hashing is
decentralized, great. But when people use that word, they’re talking about
(imo) how it’s _“safe”_ to put money into because _“no one owns the crypto
coin”_ and if anyone still believes that latter part, well, they probably
aren’t paying attention.

~~~
lawn
That's not really true though. They didn't "destroy" it. They constrained it's
development and hindered adoption.

They didn't do it by themselves either. They got miners and exchanges on board
as well.

Also if you disagree and you think there's a better way to develop it you can
by creating a fork or sell your coins. There is nothing stopping you.

> they’re talking about (imo) how it’s “safe” to put money into because “no
> one owns the crypto coin” and if anyone still believes that latter part,
> well, they probably aren’t paying attention.

There's a difference between believing nobody has significant sway over how
the cryptocurrency should be developed and you personally having full control
over your own coins.

------
jspook16
There are other projects like Komodoplatform that are make big strides in
block chain tech.

------
Temasik
What about tezos?

------
xmly
As a developer, I checked Ethereum's code base. To be honest, it is not that
complex in the tech itself.

I know it is not fair to just count code lines to compare the complexity. But
the Ethereum python code base has only 30K-40K lines code including test while
Linux kernel has 15M lines.

~~~
mothsonasloth
Ethereum is predominantly written in C++. The python codebase you are talking
about is the Ethereum client / virtual machine of which there are several
implementations written in Java, Go etc.

~~~
gamma-male
Non of you are right. Go ethereum (geth), the official client is written in
Golang

~~~
xmly
I know GETH is the official one now. But that does not matter at all. So a
software written in Python is only 30K line with tests, it could become 15M
lines once it is rewritten in Go? Of course, it is IMPOSSIBLE!

Btw, there is also a RUST implementation from Gavin Wood, which is much faster
than Geth.

~~~
gamma-male
I have no idea what python implementation you're talking about. Concepts
behind cryptocurrencies are most often not hard, but there are a million
implementation details to consider if you want to write a production ready
client

------
mimixco
Vitalik & Co have enough money to hire an army of top developers if they want
to try and fix ETH. The fact that they don't is proof that it's unfixable and
that they don't care.

~~~
cdiddy2
There aren't enough devs who know how to write/research decentralized apps for
them to hire. If you know of them, they will hire those people gladly

~~~
xmly
FB and Aws both have a branch of devs who know P2P and blockchain.

P2P is not that complex, just it is not worth time to work on it at this
moment because it goes nowhere.

Actually, P2P research was only hot around 2000-2005.

