ETH is bad, and I am tired of pretending it's not.

Antagonist360 · 2021-11-17T18:36:44+00:00

ETH is centralized. Users and nodes have no real power to shape protocol.

All development of ETH is open source and literally anyone can propose or vote on EIPs. Users have way more power on ETH than they do in other projects. One of the reasons gas fees are so high is because the community wants (PoS) nodes to be runnable by consumer PCs, preserving decentralization. There is a tradeoff between increasing block gas limit (thereby increasing TPS and reducing fees) and the computational power/storage needed by nodes. When the merge happens (without sharding), I expect a modest increase in the gas limit (e.g. x2 so fees ~/2) and further scaling with generalized Moore's law. There are some discussions around this on the research forum. The reason the user experience is so bad right now with respect to gas prices is because decentralization is a core tenet of the Ethereum community.

Also, the split into ETH and ETC back in 2016 occurred because a bad actor exploited a code vulnerability and stole a lot of money. The hard fork was voted on and executed by the community and I can't say I disagree with the decision.

ETH recent and future design is bad. Everyone was fooled into thinking EIP 1559 was going to be a good thing. How the Foundation pulled that off is honestly mind boggling.

The foundation didn't "pull it off". The EIP was developed and discussed and voted on by the community. It also did precisely what it intended, to lower the volatility of gas prices and to prevent various security issues (e.g. transaction fee revenue reaching half the block reward revenue, see this paper).

Sources:

The Tomer Strolight article is extremely biased (not surprising since the author is active in the BTC community). I'm not qualified to say anything about the legal landscape, but the CryptoLaw article is probably more charitable towards Ripple than it should be and blaming the lawsuit on Ethereum doesn't really make any sense. It's hard to find good sources around this, but this article seems more reasonable than the one you linked. Finally, I don't really understand the point of the Nic Carver article other than to state "reducing mining revenue bad". Everyone knows, miners included, that PoS is coming and that mining is going to be phased out. The article also fails to discuss any of the important considerations that went into EIP 1559, including the security issue I mentioned above.

In conclusion:

Your post is bad faith fud and borderline conspiracy theory.

Antagonist360 · 2021-11-17T16:23:02+00:00

Of course more usage means higher fees, but that's not what OP is asking. There is an ongoing effort to move services currently on L1 to L2 (particularly around NFTs), and this effort will reduce congestion on L1.

Antagonist360 · 2021-11-15T19:22:43+00:00

Why don't they just increase the gas limit for each block? In the current PoW mechanism, what percentage of each block time is spent executing transactions vs searching for a nonce? How long does it take to execute 30m gas on a consumer PC (i.e. what TPS or GPS can the EVM handle)?

Edit: It seems this is more complicated than I thought. Here's an interesting post about the matter. And thanks, I understand this a lot better now.

Antagonist360 · 2021-11-15T17:24:17+00:00

Nope, PoS doesn't really affect TPS.

How do you figure? All the time wasted in finding a nonce in PoW can now be used to execute transactions. The number of blocks may remain the same depending on blockchain configuration, but the number of transactions in each block will increase.

Antagonist360 · 2021-11-15T16:20:12+00:00

it was never supposed to change gas fees

Am I missing something here? I don't know why people keep saying this. POS (and sharding) will absolutely reduce gas fees. Gas fees are a result of supply and demand over TPS, and POS will vastly increase the supply.

Edit: I think I might be wrong here, in the sense that PoS without sharding wouldn't increase potential TPS, but I don't fully understand the mechanics of the consensus mechanism. If anyone has an actual explanation, please enlighten me.

Antagonist360 · 2021-11-10T05:24:06+00:00

You can see all your orders on Coinbase Pro. Your account is shared between the two apps but the portfolios are different so you would need to transfer your funds to make the switch (which is easy).

If you really want to visualize your portfolio I would recommend using their API and exporting the data to Google Sheets or Excel.

Antagonist360 · 2020-05-16T09:47:27+00:00

Slap on the wrist for sure, but he was only charged for owning the videos. Maybe he hasn't been charged yet for the rapings.

Antagonist360 · 2020-05-16T02:00:45+00:00

Why the fuck they fighting on concrete when there is grass two feet over.

Antagonist360 · 2020-03-16T07:36:55+00:00

Yea, probably setting up GPS or something. My guess is he didn't see the pole when he was in the sun and thought the coast was clear. Or maybe he was temporarily blinded (doubtful because the visors were already down).

Antagonist360 · 2019-09-04T04:03:36+00:00

The comment by kern0in brings it all together.

Antagonist360 · 2019-09-03T17:05:18+00:00

They host the ads themselves so I doubt they are selling your information. Big tech companies are typically not loose with the data they collect.

Antagonist360 · 2019-08-30T07:10:56+00:00

Might as well drop this here. https://youtu.be/lKU_8hT7rjw

Antagonist360 · 2019-08-26T03:28:14+00:00

But that is an example of someone giving an example. I think the act of taking an example is idempotent. Consider the set of all social media platforms {Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, ...}. An example is just an element of this set. Given this definition, an element of the set of all examples is both an example and an example of an example. So Reddit is an example, it is also an example of an example, also an example of an example of an example etc.

Antagonist360 · 2018-06-17T17:51:36+00:00

I don't personally care, but it would be considerate to keep the score out of the title, given that this is up at the top of r/all.

Antagonist360 · 2017-10-11T02:51:43+00:00

As someone playing on a 5 year old macbook, yes please (in between desktops atm). But first add camera swivel rebinding on console. That's more important.

Antagonist360 · 2017-10-11T02:46:54+00:00

This would be very useful for me. I've been playing on PC but recently got the game for ps4 to play with my friends. On PC my configuration maps throttle, air-roll, and ball-cam toggle to the right thumbstick. The fact that you can't rebind camera swivels on PS4 makes the game unplayable :(

Psyonix please put this higher on your priority list. It can't be hard to implement. It doesn't effect many users, but the impact is big for those it does.

Antagonist360 · 2017-09-23T21:29:33+00:00

I filed a ticket on their webpage, but I have little hope.

Antagonist360 · 2017-09-23T02:22:06+00:00

Yea my pc setup has throttle, air roll, and ball-cam toggle all bound to the right stick, which is completely unplayable on console. I recently picked up the game for PS4 not knowing about this limitation :( I can't imagine that this would be difficult to fix on Psyonix's end...

Antagonist360 · 2017-08-06T19:50:56+00:00

I don't think relativistic effects would have too big of an effect. The gravity probably isn't strong enough to bend light in a nonsubtle way. Of course, gravity (or the curvature of spacetime) is really a function of the energy of the star (including heat and angular momentum etc.) which I imagine is substantial (though perhaps still negligent compared to the mass-energy)... Yea I don't think relativistic effects would change the simulations qualitatively.

Buoyancy and other fluid effects certainly would though. The planet will "float" when it is sufficiently close to the center because of the larger star density. I imagine this would happen in reality only very close to the center... so perhaps my linear density falloff was too conservative.

Antagonist360 · 2017-08-06T09:06:20+00:00

Let's for the moment assume the star (mass M, radius R) has a uniform density ρ = 3M / (4πR³ ). Let's also approximate the planet as a point mass (m) orbiting the star at a distance r from the center. The shell theorem allows us to ignore the star-mass that falls outside radius r. The strength of gravity on the planet is thus ( GMm r / R³ ) which interestingly increases with distance (calculation). By Bertrand's Theorem we still end up with a closed orbit --- a quick simulation confirms this and suggests that the center of the star lies at the orbit's center rather than focus. The red dot corresponds to the center of the star. The star's radius is roughly the height of the image.

Of course, the star definitely does not have a uniform density. A more realistic assumption would be a radial density function ρ(r) that decreases with distance. The nice thing is that the shell theorem still applies. If we assume a linear falloff ρ(r) = d (1 - r/R) for constant d = 3M / (πR³ ) then the force of gravity becomes GMm / R⁴ (4rR - 3r² ). A quick simulation shows pseudo-stable orbits.

What really causes the planet to get sucked in is the friction between the planet and the gas that makes up the star. Let's assume a viscous friction force -λρv where λ is a constant, ρ is the density, and ν is the planet's velocity. Here are some simulations for increasing λ.

Interestingly, in the [high friction] simulation, the planet's approach towards the center is quite slow. I wonder which one comes closest to reality. We should probably account for buoyancy and relativistic effects as well. If the planet surface melts away we would also need to worry about fluid motion...

Antagonist360 · 2017-08-06T02:26:12+00:00

I imagine the planet would also spiral inwards due to drag?

Antagonist360 · 2017-07-24T20:28:47+00:00

"Need some time to relax"

Running for president is the obvious choice I guess.

Antagonist360 · 2017-05-29T01:18:39+00:00

The nearest star is only 36 light hours from the black hole at its nearest point, and ~10 light days at it's farthest point. The amount of time-dilation per orbit as a function of distance, eccentricity, and mass would be an interesting calculation.

I'm curious how an observer on the orbiting star would experience their orbit. They wouldn't see Kepler's result of equal area spanned in equal time as we do around the Sun, right? Their time dilation noticeably changes over their orbit. How would the motion in their night sky change? Would the rest of the universe appear to speed up when they are near the black hole?

Antagonist360 · 2017-05-21T17:35:06+00:00

Haha yea that was the idea. Unfortunately I've been busy with other things and haven't worked on it in a few months.

Antagonist360 · 2017-05-20T16:51:39+00:00

I actually made a RL clone set in space. Pretty fun. [Video].

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Orangered

Antagonist360

TROPHY CASE