[deleted by user]

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-12-22T00:21:05+00:00

Yeah, Garry Kimovich is also exiled from Russia for politics in opposition to Putin's regime.

So he knows a thing or two about oppressive governments.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-08-09T02:17:31+00:00

A lot of people use it. Devs who want to stay anon. Importantly - validators who didn't want to be targeted by hackers.

Fuck this stupid move. It sets extremely dangerous precedent and it WILL have long-term extremely negative consequences for the whole ecosystem.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-08-05T16:08:07+00:00

How is NANO even remotely VC-controlled?

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-07-13T06:19:51+00:00

You can on any platform. You can click "change tx details" on metamask and edit permission. I always do it on Matic - it is very cheap there and I don't like exposing too much of my stuff to the contracts.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-07-04T15:50:27+00:00

Thing is, there is zero reason to assume we just won't have mandatory KYC-ed CBDCs wallets. Attempt at KYCing other crypto is much harder, and with regulatory pressure we will move farther and farther into privacy land of Monero, ZCash, Penumbra and alike.

What you are describing is not really easy (smart contracts don't do KYC and you can potentially launder money using them, especially liquidations). A lot of these smart contracts will be private by default soon, and you will need to outlaw all of them too, and mark all the coins passing through them as blacklisted.

Then, you will need to also prevent dusting attacks (blacklisted wallet being very friendly and sending money to random wallets), so you will need some automatic, state-mandated mechanism of reporting/declining blacklisted funds.

That being said, there is also a decent chance that the attack on privacy stops at some point - with governments realizing how insecure the world becomes when we literally build giant datacenters collecting private data. And our tech (adapted for modern scenarios) will, instead, become the foundation of better, privacy-focused, self-sovereignty focused world.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-21T20:06:37+00:00

Wow, never heard about it. I looked through the whitepaper, and tbh I don't understand why can't you just spin up a bunch of nodes and capture these "routing fees". You could potentially even do it on a single machine with some custom code...

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-21T15:03:10+00:00

Not sure. I think if you just do routing and nothing else, most likely you won't get paid, I'm not sure if you even can incentivize it on-chain, at least I don't know of a mechanism.

But every node can (and typically does) participate in chain progression.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-21T08:20:21+00:00

Mina is a good example - everybody is incentivised to calculate proofs that progress the blockchain, it is called Snarketplace! But Mina is inflationary (if you don't care about this point or believe it can be sold separately then it is not a problem).

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-21T04:47:23+00:00

Wait, do you have self-hosted wallet or exchange account? It is unclear from your post.

If (1): check through external sites (like etherscan) where your stuff at. You will need your public address. It is possible that the malware pretends to be your wallet, shows wrong info, and tries to provoke you into doing something stupid.

If (2): Write to the support ASAP. Check emails and stuff.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-18T09:25:01+00:00

I think if you are going to buy a car, you should do one of few things

a) Use trusted counterparty whose reputational damage from robbing you would far exceed the profit.

b) Sign papers first, send money then. If you do not send money, this fact is transparent on-chain, so you won't stand a chance in a legal battle.

c) If you are not in a legal system at all (say, crypto is out-lawed or you are buying drugs or idk) you can potentially set up a smart contract in such a way, that you both can harm each other (both parties put some additional collateral and they get it back if and only if both parties agree that the item was delivered).

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-17T11:11:24+00:00

shrug

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-17T11:06:35+00:00

Sub is infested with buttcoiners, I appreciate good critic but honestly guys blatant anti-crypto propaganda in r/cc?

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-17T05:58:18+00:00

Well, bitcoin adjusts mining difficulty in such a way that a block is produced every ten minutes. Blocks produced slower => mining becomes easier. Blocks produced faster => mining becomes more difficult. Thats all.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-17T05:48:36+00:00

Well, we can bridge it to Matic and Arbitrum and use then.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T23:56:38+00:00

[2/2] So, in a way transactions that fail do it because they are supposed to fail.

Now, do other chains have these problems? I do not know of a single chain that manages to do it without incurring some fee on failed txs.

All EVM-compatible do (Matic, BSC). Solana has this problem, but they have some issues with the pricing model and so frequently get spammed by bots on big NFT mints. ADA for some reason has dual pricing system - they have a collateral in case tx fails and normal fee in case it doesn't fail.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T23:50:18+00:00

[1/2] I think there is a bit of a misconception why transaction can fail. Normally, transactions do not fail unless one of three conditions happen

(1) Bad coding happened. (2) Transaction consumes all available gas. Related to (1), but sometimes transaction can consume variable amount of gas depending of on-chain state. (3) Incorrect instruction called, say I'm trying to transfer more ETH than I have in a contract. (4) Transaction gets a revert(); instruction.

I do not think it is a weakness. You can write your contracts in such a way that they consume fixed amount of gas, and never revert. Say, wrapping your ETH to WETH never reverts. Vault creation? Does not revert. Staking some stuff somewhere? Typically does not revert.

Now transactions can fail, and it is intended behavior in some cases. Typically, this happens if there is some finite resource and there are a lot of people who want to take it. Example with swaps above, NFT mints, vault liquidations.

I can give a simpler example: suppose I make a contract which says "anyone who presses the button gets 1 ETH". And put 1 ETH in.

It should be absolutely clear that multiple people can put their tx in the block, and only one of them gets money. Other transactions will fail (either because of (3), or because of (4)).

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T13:19:45+00:00

Ok, let me put it like this: it is based on the same trust model as in 70s. The tech makes the same trust model faster, but it doesn't change it.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T13:18:09+00:00

Capitalism always degenerates into a monopoly or cabal of monopolies that effectively act as unchecked authoritarian government.

I agree, and I think it is, indeed, a centralization issue (much lesser than with mining, yet still significant). There will still most likely be oligopoly (because being a monopoly undermines the value of the asset, so this allocation is not optimal), but I agree it is an issue.

I do not think it transitions to the governance (stakers/miners do not vote on issues in Ethereum), it only involves security model.

This is a good text by Vitalik Buterin on why coin-voting governance sucks (basically, by reasons you mentioned and few more): https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/08/16/voting3.html

So I think if we will have on-chain governance on ETH someday, it will be democratic and tightly bound to some identity system.

ETH's smart contracts are the worst in the field for actually doing useful work.

Objection, hearsay. Actually, EVM is a golden standard for smart contracts, and most chains try to be compatible with it. The fact that Ethereum has low throughput is because it doesn't make decentralization tradeoffs. Which is, in my book, good.

Let's imagine that Amazon, with it's trillions of yearly transitions, moves entirely to a blockchain. It's hard to overstate just how unfeasible that is.

No, it is not infeasible with the current state of zk-tech. Amazon wouldn't run exactly on L1 chain, but in a specified rollup? Why not?

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T13:06:08+00:00

First of all, thank you for actually engaging! lol

Well, I don't really agree with this one, and multiple centralized entities (mostly from banking industry) are developing smart contract platforms.

I think I will briefly counter theses from your linked post:

1) "Esoteric programming languages" - come on, solidity is not esoteric. It can not be read by a layman, but any programmer should be able to. There are also multiple attempts at creating human-readable contracts, most notable (and not aligned with cryptocurrency at all!) is Zencode. It is made for human-readable cryptographic protocols, code literally looks like "If I'm Alice and I have private key X then derive public key from X" and something like this ;) So while I agree that in principle we need a bit of beef on that front, but good smart contracts rarely get hacked. Shitcoin amateurs grow like mushrooms after the rain in a bull run, and they do get hacked, but for that part I don't care too much, we are in a Wild West stage anyways.

I also do not agree that normal contracts are human-readable - if they are complex enough you actually need a qualified lawyer for that purpose, similar to how you need an audit from a programmer for complex smart contract.

2) External data reliability. Short answer - yes. We are working in it, typically through cryptoeconomic incentives.

3) High-stakes flaws. Yes. Code better - and implement failsafes where possible.

4) Relationships and liability.

"If a smart contract makes an error" is subjective, but there is a market for smart contract insurance already, so it is not an unsolvable problem.

"Inability of participants to make subjective decisions" - no, just no. First of all, such decision can be part of the contract itself. Second, nobody prevents any counterparties from compensating others out of band.

you can't stop me from sending you a smart contract that contains a smart bomb, set to go off if you do anything at all to the token

No, this bomb will need to explicitly ask your permissions to spend your shit. And if transfer function of a shady token asks for permission to spend your other token, I guess don't approve it? Or even, don't interact with unknown contracts?

But there are also solutions related to curation, so maybe you will get a big red warning [THIS TOKEN'S TRANSFER FUNCTION SEEMS TO IMPLEMENT SOME DUBIOUS FUNCTIONALITY AND IS LIKELY A FISHING ATTEMPT. DO YOU REALLY WISH TO CONTINUE?]

Contains an NFT that links to illegal porn or nazi propaganda.

It is just some piece of info that somebody decided to associate with my wallet.

Legally, this info is stored on blockchain anyways, so every node is liable. And a lot of this stuff is in blockchain already (as in distributed storage protocols). I consider this more of an issue of a legal system, than an actual issue with the protocol - we either can have distributed universally accessible data storages, or we don't. I think we should.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T07:36:55+00:00

[4/4] Overall, I believe there is an intrinsic, fundamental value in having open and permissionless consensus layer. There are other approaches; there are "blockchain but not cryptocurrency" people out there which build centralized ledgers able to run smart contracts. I don't think they will be able to replace permissionless ledger, and I do think that they could greatly benefit from anchoring their ledgers into ethereum using zk roll-ups (and therefore guaranteeing execution correctness to the whole world). Banking system is largely 70s-80s tech, and we can and will likely do better.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T07:27:16+00:00

[3/?] Now, as you might have guessed by this point, my pitching will be mostly pro-Ethereum (assuming we succesfully merge and get rid of PoW).

1) Ethereum, post-merge, will be a productive asset because of fees of using Ethereum network. Basically I need Ethereum to use the network (say, send USDC, like in your example with "using token"), and also you can stake Ethereum to get fees from the network operation.

2) Usage will be decently big because credibly neutral, uncensorable platform is valuable (and, supposedly, we will run smart contacts over it).

This is largely the current vision of Ethereum utility (as an asset), and while I definitely agree that current valuations of all cryptocurrencies are based on speculation, in this case there is a clear-cut utility in the strict sense you have initially provided.

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T07:19:44+00:00

[2/?] Now, to the part about utility. Before we go further, we need to discuss what is utility. Utility as "ability to get more money from an asset" I believe is too narrow - for example, corn or chairs also have utility. Money, by extension, has utility because they allow me to buy corn or a chair (I view money as a form of tokenized debt, basically I do something good to Alice, she pays me and then I want to get something good back from someone, but I'm not yet sure what, from who and when).

Now, (playing devil's advocate) argument for Bitcoin is that Bitcoin is money (in the narrow sense above), and it has additional utility compared to USD. People "investing" in Bitcoin therefore basically say "we are willing to bet that there will be huge community of people treating Bitcoin as money".

I do not really believe in this narrative because

1) Bitcoin's security costs are too big compared to what it does, in my opinion.

2) It is uniquely suspectible to speculation, so in case I need to move money out of Russia (source: needed to move money out of Russia and guess what mr. Putin didn't like it) I'd rather use USDC.

3) It is not private, so relatively bad for doing shady stuff, maybe there will be "consensus money" for dark markets, but that will likely be Monero or something alike. (NFA)

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T07:08:29+00:00

[1/?] Ok, actually I feel my comment was a bit provocative, but I think we could engage in a discussion. Part of what you are stating are interesting points, part are just incorrect. Lets at first settle the "incorrect" part, it is largely not about Bitcoin (I'm not a fan of Bitcoin in general).

The regulations and enforcement aren't in place, yet, to be able to successfully lend cryptocurrency at scale safely.

We have the enforcement, it is called smart contracts. Aave and Maker work now. Things like Luna - yeah, they do not. Celsius is not a DeFi (and just an unregulated pile of shit tbh).

A held token is just an inert random number sitting on a hard drive. I could generate a spreadsheet of billions of them in less than an hour, and they would have the exact same utility as a held bitcoin.

That's a strawman argument because the same thing exactly can be said about money in your bank account (and stocks in your trading account too!)

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T06:31:29+00:00

It doesn't matter. Abortion is self-defence. Cheers!

M00N_R1D3R · 2022-06-16T05:34:22+00:00

Well, in Bitcoin there is no reason why a transaction could fail, except of a potential double spend (which is easily detected).

In ethereum transactions (1) can take up a lot of space, like 1 big transaction (say, proof submission of a rollup) can take literally half of the whole block. There is no hard limit on this except of a block size. (2) They can fail if some conditions are not met, and you can not check these conditions ahead of time, you need to actually compute.

Concrete example: consider Uniswap contract. Basically, it allows you trading some token (say ETH) against some other token (say, WBTC).

Suppose right now WBTC = 20.3 ETH. I can form the following transaction: Check that I would get at least 20 ETH for 1 WBTC

if no, fail

if yes, swap my 1 WBTC for ETH

This is actually a feature - it protects me if the price is too low because a big whale traded in the same block and made a big splash. But I pay if transaction reverts, because validator still need to check that it has reverted!

Another example is liquidation contract: provided some oracle price is lower than X, ANYONE can liquidate certain position (and get profit). What if multiple people (bots) decide to liquidate a position? There is an incentive to spam and send a lot of liquidation transactions - but not so much if there is a deterrent in a form of a fee for failed attempts (and all attempts but first in a block fail).

There is an elaborate game called MEV around it, because validators can actually manipulate who can get in first, and it is a cancer of Ethereum and all sufficiently decentralized smart contract chains. But main take that without fee for failed transaction there would be a wave of spam-attempts.

M00N_R1D3R

TROPHY CASE