Pages:
Author

Topic: The Ethereum Paradox - page 56. (Read 99876 times)

legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1007
February 13, 2016, 04:43:45 PM
#74
Miners decide the order of transactions within a block - unless the block gets orphaned, this remains fixed. Block ordering in PoW chains is eventual, which implies the deeper a block gets embedded in the chain the higher the probability it won't be reordered. I don't know if etherium scripts start executing after a set number of confirmations, but they almost certainly should do to reduce the probability of the ordering changing.

I expected you to write that. That is why I wrote this rebuttal before you wrote your post:

Do not dismiss my point thinking that the boundary is at block confirmation. That is a naive perspective.

The issue is that since the output state of a contract in one partition could impact the input state of a contract in another partition (and there is no way to prevent this unless no one can write any user data into the block chain), then validators in each partition need to trust validators in all partitions, thus they really need to verify the scripts from all the partitions else the consensus-by-betting doesn't reflect rational incentives which the math depends on for rational (versus randomized noise) convergence, i.e. the game theory of the consensus model is impacted. But if all partitions have to validate all partitions, that destroys the scaling gains from partitions.

The point is there can't be partitions with programmable scripting. Coasian boundaries are subject to destruction by entropy.

I was talking about PoW chains - casper is a horrible idea IMO.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 13, 2016, 04:30:06 PM
#73
Miners decide the order of transactions within a block - unless the block gets orphaned, this remains fixed. Block ordering in PoW chains is eventual, which implies the deeper a block gets embedded in the chain the higher the probability it won't be reordered. I don't know if etherium scripts start executing after a set number of confirmations, but they almost certainly should do to reduce the probability of the ordering changing.

I expected you to write that. That is why I wrote this rebuttal before you wrote your post:

Do not dismiss my point thinking that the boundary is at block confirmation. That is a naive perspective.

The issue is that since the output state of a contract in one partition could impact the input state of a contract in another partition (and there is no way to prevent this unless no one can write any user data into the block chain), then validators in each partition need to trust validators in all partitions, thus they really need to verify the scripts from all the partitions else the consensus-by-betting doesn't reflect rational incentives which the math depends on for rational (versus randomized noise) convergence, i.e. the game theory of the consensus model is impacted. But if all partitions have to validate all partitions, that destroys the scaling gains from partitions.

The point is there can't be partitions with programmable scripting. Coasian boundaries are subject to destruction by entropy.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1007
February 13, 2016, 03:43:53 PM
#72
I am making an additional and more damning point. That is since each contract WITHIN a block has to be executed to completion before the next (i.e. no parallelization) this also means that the result of the block chain state will be potentially different depending on which order the contracts are ordered in the block. But note that such order is completely arbitrary (because there is no synchrony in distributed systems, i.e. there is no way to prove which transaction arrived first during the block period since each node will have a different ordering due to variance in network propagation).

The becomes an insoluble problem due to chain reorganizations (unless everyone waits for umpteen confirmations before validating anything but then how do we order the blocks...etc...see next paragraph).

Miners decide the order of transactions within a block - unless the block gets orphaned, this remains fixed. Block ordering in PoW chains is eventual, which implies the deeper a block gets embedded in the chain the higher the probability it won't be reordered. I don't know if etherium scripts start executing after a set number of confirmations, but they almost certainly should do to reduce the probability of the ordering changing.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 13, 2016, 01:56:36 PM
#71
legendary
Activity: 2310
Merit: 1047
February 13, 2016, 11:45:33 AM
#70
All this ethereum hyp and pump will probably end up bad, ill just keep buying clams.
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
February 13, 2016, 11:43:34 AM
#69
My point was that once partitions are introduced, they can't be kept orthogonal due to externalities, thus partitions can't be introduced. It is only simple because you didn't add partitions. But w/o partitions the scalability isn't attainable.

Okay - (see my final paragraph after I edited) - so yes with partitions I would think that does change the picture.

IMO scalability is best achieved by having many separate blockchains and using ACCT to transfer tokens between them (that is of course perhaps a harsher method of dividing things up).
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 13, 2016, 11:41:35 AM
#68
In regards to the ordering of "script execution" the experience that the CIYAM team has had with the development of AT (the first "live" Turing complete system that has been running for over a year now) it is actually just another consensus rule.

(i.e. it is neither a difficult problem to solve nor very hard to verify)

My point was that once partitions are introduced, they can't be kept orthogonal due to externalities, thus partitions can't be introduced. It is only simple because you didn't add partitions. But w/o partitions the scalability isn't attainable.

Notwithstanding partitions, I would be very curious to see how you ordered script execution since there is no synchrony in a distributed system. Again I refer you to this page:

http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/smart-contracts-slow-blockchains/
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
February 13, 2016, 11:32:08 AM
#67
In regards to the ordering of "script execution" the experience that the CIYAM team has had with the development of AT (the first "live" Turing complete system that has been running for over a year now) it is actually just another consensus rule.

(i.e. it is neither a difficult problem to solve nor very hard to verify)

I am not a fan of the Ethereum VM because I think it is overly complicated (the AT virtual CPU is a much simpler implementation) but I don't doubt that it can work in a deterministic way just as AT has been doing perfectly.

It should be noted that I am not very familiar with Ethereum beyond the original paper (which I read way back before many people had heard of it) so if the current design has some new problems in regards to the ordering of script execution then that could be entirely possible.
legendary
Activity: 996
Merit: 1013
February 13, 2016, 11:27:31 AM
#66
I do not find the reason for the recent rise. Did anybody find why the price rose so much recently?

Bitcoin block size war and fatigue. I've heard a lot of ppl
dumping their btc for what looks like a serious
contender.
hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 1003
February 13, 2016, 11:26:38 AM
#65
What should the Ethereum team do now? Admit that they failed and call it quits, downgrade the feature list and try to continue, continue as if nothing happened and hope some divine intervention will solve the issues?

Maybe they can build a soda machine.

Or perhaps they should beg for some donations so they could create a GUI, I've heard those are the only thing standing in the way of inevitable mass adoption.
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
February 13, 2016, 11:20:59 AM
#64
What should the Ethereum team do now? Admit that they failed and call it quits, downgrade the feature list and try to continue, continue as if nothing happened and hope some divine intervention will solve the issues?

Maybe they can build a soda machine.
hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 1003
February 13, 2016, 11:19:00 AM
#63
What should the Ethereum team do now? Admit that they failed and call it quits, downgrade the feature list and try to continue, continue as if nothing happened and hope some divine intervention will solve the issues?
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 13, 2016, 10:00:55 AM
#62
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 13, 2016, 09:16:59 AM
#61
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 13, 2016, 08:20:25 AM
#60
Do we know who is behind the latest pump of Ethereum. That requires to lock a lot of Ethereum and needs a lot of Bitcoin.

 Huh

I see ~93% of the volume is on Poloniex and Kraken:

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethereum/#markets

Does anyone know if these exchanges enforce strict KYC and keep records of all trades so that authorities will be able to determine who was selling to whom? So an investigation could determine if the insiders were buying from themselves to manipulate the price?

Afaik, this would be insider trading and should get them jail time (at least afaik according to SEC regulations).

The fools who support these scams by buying the coins and promoting them, are giving the government every reason to regulate alt-coins. You are polluting  the well from which we all drink.

Note though that Peter Thiel had gifted a $100,000 award to Vitalik, so perhaps Ethereum has protection at the highest levels of our corrupt system. Who knows  Huh
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
February 13, 2016, 07:53:43 AM
#59
Do we know who is behind the latest pump of Ethereum. That requires to lock a lot of Ethereum and needs a lot of Bitcoin.
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 13, 2016, 07:20:27 AM
#58
I do not find the reason for the recent rise. Did anybody find why the price rose so much recently?

Possibility is they need to raise the ETH price so they can sell some because they had exhausted their $millions in funding from the ICO vaporware pre-sale:


Another reason one might imagine that perhaps Vitalik could be corrupted to participate in the pump by emphasizing Casper vaporware and hiding the fact they were not close to solving the fundamental technological issues. And yet they were running out of money (but not now if they can sustain these higher prices for ETH and/or have sold a lot of ETH on this price rise ... in either case selling ETH to bag holders).

So one might imagine perhaps the insiders have cleverly realized they could control Vitalik so they would be able to cash out.

The professionals play these games very strategically. You bag holders have no chance against them (unless of course you sell early enough and get out the door before the rest of the bag holders). Note I am not short ETH, but I did play this game strategically also. I waited for ETH to reach a nosebleed price before I started to reveal the truth more aggressively. This is a warning to these professionals (hucksters) to not fuck with my coin when I release it.

Edit: I have just challenged Vitalik directly:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/45bhus/so_the_ethereum_foundation_can_now_fund_itself/czx5jej

Edit#2: Vitalik admits they've been selling on the pump (in violation of escrow?). And note he mentions raising monthly budget so more money in their pockets (see how this works, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine!):

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/45bhus/so_the_ethereum_foundation_can_now_fund_itself/czwqr30
sr. member
Activity: 672
Merit: 250
February 13, 2016, 07:06:56 AM
#57
All this money flowing into alts is depressing. I had kinda hoped Cryptsy had killed that scene for good.

Don't worry the market caps are likely fake insiders buying from themselves, so the amount wasted isn't $400 million, perhaps just a few $millions.

Smart contracts are getting a lot of attention lately. Anything interesting happening yet?

I do not find the reason for the recent rise. Did anybody find why the price rose so much recently?
sr. member
Activity: 420
Merit: 262
February 13, 2016, 06:54:27 AM
#56
All this money flowing into alts is depressing. I had kinda hoped Cryptsy had killed that scene for good.

Don't worry the market caps are likely fake insiders buying from themselves, so the amount isn't $400 million, perhaps just a few $millions.

Does the pump of Ethereum just finish and the hot money is moving to the Moneoro? I think it is long over due.

Ostensibly Ethereum insiders held a lot of ETH and BTC which they could use to sell it to themselves over and over again to drive up the fake price on the exchanges. The price was not likely driven by very much hot money. The only requirement was that the true buyers (not the insiders) exceed the sellers so that the insiders could be net sellers.

Once there are more sellers than buyers, then the insiders can't continue the manipulation thus the price collapses. But if the selling subsides, the insiders can start pumping it again. But it depends on whether any buyers will be motivated to buy. It is a rollercoaster//yoyo game that extracts money from the speculators. Everyone is a net loser over time, except the bandit insiders who fleece the community.

Monero in theory doesn't have this centralization of the float and thus can't in theory be P&D like that. So it might be difficult to light the speculative fever necessary to get such a dramatic price rise. But realize that not that much hot money was involved in the recent ETH P&D. Only Poloniex and Kraken know for sure. Perhaps only a few $millions or much less  Huh
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
February 13, 2016, 06:52:30 AM
#55
All this money flowing into alts is depressing. I had kinda hoped Cryptsy had killed that scene for good.
Pages:
Jump to: