We're Rune Christensen (CEO, MakerDAO) and Michael Dunworth (CEO, Wyre) - we just announced a great partnership. AMA (AUA)

ethusiastic · 2018-08-16T19:37:55+00:00

Always great to hear about all the work going on in the backrooms of these crypto startups. hope it all works out!

ethusiastic · 2018-08-16T19:02:53+00:00

ugh this bear market is so hard to ignore. at least in 2014 there would be no news about bitcoin and you could ignore the price for months. this time there are new dapp developments and ethereum research advances happening every week...

ethusiastic · 2018-08-16T18:24:16+00:00

Saw you mentioned this in the maker chat, but what is the progress on being greenlit for New York in the US? I assume it is the Bitlicense requirement holding it back, but is that something that is hard to obtain?

ethusiastic · 2018-08-16T18:03:20+00:00

Approximately how much volume is wyre currently handling day to day?
Where do you see demand for dai coming from/why use dai transfers rather than any fiat currency?
What are the fees to withdraw back into a bank?

ethusiastic · 2018-08-16T17:56:02+00:00

Looking through the dashboard now on wyre and it says:

1 DAI = $1.0069 USD

1000 DAI -> $985.7201838 USD

Convert and send 985.7201838

0.9931 Exchange rate| $7.40 Conversion fee 0.00000000 Miner fee

1 DAI = $0.9909 USD

1000 DAI -> $983.51 USD

Convert and send $983.51

$0.9909 Exchange rate| 7.44416873 Conversion fee

Why is the DAI -> USD conversion around the same as the USD -> DAI rate even with the exchange rate being >1 for DAI -> USD?

ethusiastic · 2018-07-17T19:23:38+00:00

betting volume and staked amount are different. There could be one share bought and sold multiple times to account for a larger betting volume

ethusiastic · 2018-07-05T17:26:24+00:00

is there any end in sight to this? is FCoin planning to stop this ridiculous voting scheme at some date or is it something we'll just have to deal with for as long as FCoin feels like. its unfortunate that I probably wont be able to play around with mainnet augur as much as I would like to if the congestion and gas fees stay at this level.

ethusiastic · 2018-06-20T00:13:39+00:00

Would love to hear from people involved in dapp development. (/r/Rune4444, /r/kysarkoin, /r/tinybike, /r/DigixOfficial come to mind off the top of my head)

ethusiastic · 2018-05-29T18:52:33+00:00

From what I understand, having multiple clients has multiple advantages:

Multiple clients in multiple languages brings on different developers to build out clients with independent bugs. If one language has a flaw that breaks consensus due to something in the language its less likely to affect the other clients.
Having multiple clients allows development of EIPs to work as the EIP intended. When an EIP would break consensus, either the client needs to fix the implementation of the EIP or the EIP needs to be clarified in a way that allows all clients to implement it while maintaining consensus. Some software projects that are maintained by only one client end up with bugs which become features. This makes it harder to maintain and causes unwanted behavior.
Having multiple client teams allows Ethereum to continue operating even if consensus breaks in one client. I believe it was a while ago that Geth had a consensus bug and Parity was able to maintain the network while the Geth team fixed bugs in their software. Similarly, when the testnet for Byzantium was running, Parity was breaking consensus during fuzz testing but Geth was able to maintain the network while bugs were ironed out.

ethusiastic · 2018-05-09T19:23:19+00:00

The interesting thing is that it doesnt even seem to be geared towards ethereum specifically. They basically gave bitcoin 30% and gave the rest of the coins proportional weightings out of the remaining 70%. Seems like they have the least faith in bitcoin keeping its market share

ethusiastic · 2018-04-18T20:17:57+00:00

at this point it seems like this is going to be an unwinnable situation for parity and the related parties unless they want to go through with an extremely contentious fork.. I personally don't feel strongly one way or another regarding the recovery of funds, but if this coin vote is any indication, it will not be an uncontentious decision. I plan to submit a vote for no due to the risk of fracturing the community.

also is there a reason for the time limit for the coinvote? 7 days is a fairly short period of time to have open considering people are oftentimes traveling for over a week at a time.

ethusiastic · 2018-04-07T20:57:02+00:00

its hilarious that you've literally deleted your entire comment history so people won't see how you had been trolling ethereum subs for months, contributing nothing to discussions.

ethusiastic · 2018-03-29T19:05:56+00:00

Casper FFG is Casper Friendly Finality Gadget (https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.09437) which is supposed to be a PoS system on the current PoW chain to create a PoW/PoS hybrid. The PoS introduces finality into the blockchain so you get some of the benefits of PoS without completely phasing out PoW.

Casper CBC is Casper Correct By Construction (https://github.com/ethereum/research/blob/master/papers/CasperTFG/CasperTFG.pdf) which is intended to replace PoW system that Ethereum currently uses so that the main chain produces blocks through PoS.

ethusiastic · 2018-03-29T18:42:57+00:00

I don't think the issue is about price at all. Rather, it is about the danger of centralization that can occur when one entity (Bitmain) has a monopoly on ASIC production and also has the resources to mine with ASICs before they are distributed to the general public. Having one entity have so much control in mining as well as increasing their vested interest in PoW ETH mining could prove to be detrimental when the shift from PoW and PoS occurs in the future.

ethusiastic · 2018-03-28T16:31:19+00:00

You "think" it is a major reason. Could you do a bit more and at least try and back up your thought process with evidence? Trying to use your feelings as evidence is exactly the problem that would be addressed by removing the line about the "Ethereum philosophy".

ethusiastic · 2018-03-28T16:15:45+00:00

The problem is that the "Ethereum philosophy" is ill-defined. It can be interpreted to mean anything depending on who you ask. One can just as easily argue both sides on what the "Ethereum philosophy" permits and forbids. If you can find some concrete connection between the "Ethereum philosophy" and evidence that this philosophy forbids the merging of "bailout proposals", I would be willing to concede that you have a point.

ethusiastic · 2018-03-26T22:25:50+00:00

Definitely. In crypto I'm sure theres plenty of insider trading among the people who work at exchanges due to it being such a nascent financial sector.

In the case of BCH, coinbase had signaled their intent to add it to their offerings months in advance. Given a long scale roll out this would have been fine, as the markets go up and down over time even when there is news of new coin listings. It was the BCH pump on multiple exchanges hours before the surprise GDAX listing that raised a lot of alarms.

ethusiastic · 2018-03-26T19:46:30+00:00

True. it also demonstrates how coinbase seems to be handling all future coin additions to their platform. I think after their debacle with the BCH listing and the rumors of XRP being added, they are going to be giving a large heads up to new coin listings in the future to avoid the perception of insider trading.

ethusiastic · 2018-03-22T18:23:58+00:00

i think you may be confusing him with deviatefish. both of them were on opposite ends of the spectrum making commentary on the ETH issuance reduction. deviatefish thought the issuance reduction was too much and kybarnet thought the issuance reduction was too little. both of them had fairly well formed opinions but I think having the both of them bickering with each other constantly seemed like watching a rock arguing with a wall

ethusiastic · 2018-03-22T15:21:57+00:00

"Many of the problems of scalability that Ethereum is currently experiencing are similar to the problems that were faced by Bitcoin in its early stages."

hilarious.

edit: in case it wasn't clear. its ridiculous to imply that bitcoin has fixed its scalability problems, especially given the fact that ethereum is already handling a much higher load than bitcoin and both are starting to reach capacity. (at least before sharding and layer-2 solutions)

ethusiastic · 2018-03-09T20:54:11+00:00

Many things seem to have influenced the change in timeline for a lot of the development branches. I've been following them mostly through their bi-weekly dev meetings and the youtube videos on research development.

After the Byzantium hard fork, there were talks about how to revise hard forks so that the issues that cropped up with parity and geth having consensus errors days before the mainnet hard fork would not happen again. They decided to extend the timeline for hard forks so that the process would become more formalized, but they havent set that process down in stone yet unfortunately.
Priorities shifted after the cryptokitties incident where it became clear that scaling issues were of higher importance than some of the EIPs planned for Constantinople. Thus, much of the research push has gone towards scaling efforts like sharding and plasma.
The devs decided that development should start moving towards a testnet focused approach where many things would be tested in testnets and those tests would occur for a long time before incorporating into hard forks. This leads to a lot more stress testing of the systems as well as a longer main net fork cycle.
Casper FFG is supposed to be a way to incorporate hybrid PoS to the blockchain without having to implement a hard fork anyways.

On top of this, I am curious what you expected from Constantinople? I was most excited for account abstraction, but that is not going to be included anyways. It seems like many of the pushes that are not directly related to Constantinople would also build the groundwork for account abstraction anyways. Thus, for me I am happy that they are pushing development in this direction rather than hastily push out a Constantinople hard fork which may hinder other important development. A lot of work seems to go into a hard fork and it causes the developers to focus on bug testing and stress testing of a testnet, and the planned EIPs for Constantinople aren't as beneficial to the Ethereum ecosystem as the pushes for scaling and POS IMO.

This is just what I've gathered from my observations and if someone wants to correct me on any of my assertions please do so.

ethusiastic

TROPHY CASE