Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more andxor's commentslogin

This has absolutely nothing to do with Polygon.


What Bitcoin Did is run by a toxic Bitcoin maximalist who is totally clueless about the tech and is only in it for the money.

Check out Bankless and The Daily Gwei.


Not true, most stuff launching these days is either PoS or migrating.


You don't see that most proof-of-stake still requires a tremendous amount of energy and resources wasted at the very least for the stupid mining process?


Uh? There's no mining in proof of stake. That's the entire point.


I thought this when I first learned about the idea, but the name doesn't give away the true nature of, at least, most implementations... It's like 'mining requires less energy', and not that the tokens aren't mined at all.

Of course, theoretically you could've an initial distribution defined and shared without effort, but what really happens is a points system that makes it easier for people to... uh... mine, but it's obviously still the same awful idea.


Sorry, this makes no sense.


You can implement all of this, including reversable transactions under specific conditions, via smart contracts, without sacrificing decentralization.


Smart contracts should really be called "dumb contracts", as they're strictly dumber than traditional, old-school contracts.

Here's something worth pondering: what happens if you trigger a bug in a smart contract? What options do you have to fix or undo it?

Smart contracts are all bug-ridden by definition - formally codifying intent is a General-AI-complete problem, and since we are nowhere near close to making a human-level AI, it follows that a smart contract is just a crude approximation of the most obvious aspects of what you actually meant it to represent (no different than any other program here). Traditional contracts are smart enough to not even try - they don't codify intent, they just help achieve mutual understanding and pin down shared context for further reference. Interpretation, execution and debugging are all left to the general framework of common sense, tradition, regulations and accumulated case law.


When I can use a major chain and execute a smart contract for <$1 (on say a $100 contract) I'll be reasonably stoked. How are people playing with these when the fees are so high?


A lot of liquidity is moving to L2 Ethereum already and you can definitely execute smart contracts there for way less than $1 (e.g. on Polygon).

As for why people are willing to pay high gas fees on L1 - have you considered the possibility that the opportunities and value that they're getting out of it are worth the cost?


I am not debating that the value can be worth the cost; I really meant "playing". Thanks, I'll look into Polygon


There are solutions for this - i.e. social wallets.

https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html


Beautiful.


Shorting the USD seems like a pretty good idea given the insane amount of money printing.


> This is all feeling very dotcom bubble 2.0.

Yeah, what a shame, that Internet thing never really took off.


Which is a useless metric because the energy usage doesn't scale with the number of transactions.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: