[HN Gopher] Ethereum Services Are Centralized ___________________________________________________________________ Ethereum Services Are Centralized Author : iamnotarobotman Score : 132 points Date : 2021-10-12 19:20 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (michaelgummelt.medium.com) (TXT) w3m dump (michaelgummelt.medium.com) | modeless wrote: | > If an owner of a smart contract publishes a new change, nodes | will mindlessly run it. | | This is only true if the contract specifically allows that, | right? And that's disclosed in the contract itself. So if you | don't want that, don't use that contract. | russellbeattie wrote: | The post is mostly nonsense, but that said, I'm always astounded | by how few nodes there are out there. Checking now and there's | just 2,713 of them - though this number is low because of a bug | in the latest software which removed thousands in September for | some reason. It's never been higher than 7,000 or so. | | How long would it take you to write a script which DDOS all of | them? How many are run by organizations which can protect against | attacks? My guess is not enough. Considering the amount of money | relying on those measly ~3k servers out there? It's truly | frightening. | dwmbt wrote: | after reading the article and some comments, i thought i would | comment my own grievance with the article. i think there is a | disconnect between the quantifiable trust a blockchain offers and | the authors interpretation. specifically, he mentions that "the | code these nodes are running is available for anyone to inspect | (trust)" and that "smart contracts can be trusted to a large | extent because they operate in the open, are kept in check by the | ecosystem, and even often have voting protocols in place to | govern changes." | | yeah, that's actually a good enough explanation of what's going | on there. yet, this doesn't seem to be enough for the author. i | guess my biggest annoyance is that they seem to think a smart | contract is just a series of if/else conditionals that can be | ported onto an AWS instance. | carlosdp wrote: | Echoing the other comments, this is a pretty naive understanding | of how a general purpose smart contract blockchain works and the | incentive models involved that keep the kind of censorship | described here from happening. They also don't seem to fully | grasp how smart contracts that are in-fact decentralized work, | and are cherry-picking the ones that have an authoritarian | controller because of the nascency of the technology. | | The article isn't really detailed at all, so it's hard to know | where to start with why these "services" aren't in fact | "centralized." | | It's effectively the equivalent of someone saying "you can't keep | your password secure from hackers if you store it in a database, | if someone hacks it then they can steal it and use every site you | used that password on": it's just obviously false to people who | know how this works, but now I have to explain how hashing works | and such. | | I'd just encourage reading up on how Ethereum transaction mining | works before just taking the article's claims at face value. | Gwarzo wrote: | I do not have any comment to make on the validity of the | article, but this comment made me think of exactly why I | dislike todays censorship friendly media so much. | | I can read the article, gather my initial thoughts and come to | some sensible comments within that articles posting to further | navigate. | | If this article is garbage, the way to dispense with it is with | comments such as these. (I'm not making any claim to the | validity or lack-thereof of the article) | 34g34g34g wrote: | Then traditional systems better start attempting to | compete.While Western Union charges fees to cover network | operating costs for remittances, companies like Strike are | leveraging Bitcoin to bring those fees to zero. | reginold wrote: | What specifically are folks here reading up on regarding | Ethereum? | | I'm looking for interesting takes, generally growing exhausted | from the various eth subreddits, cryptocurrency and bitcoin | that are commentary on pricing. Sites like cointelgraph are | also just barren of anything interesting. It seems like such an | exciting time for cryptocurrency but not seeing the level of | rigorous thinking I want. | | Yeah this article is complete trash. No comment. | Tenobrus wrote: | The /r/ethfinance daily is much more focused on interesting | technical and social developments and has a higher level of | discourse than any other crypto sub I'm aware of. Still some | price talk/memes, but there's some consistently thoughtful | and well informed posters there, and I'd recommend checking | it out. | fossuser wrote: | Vitalik's blog posts are probably best. [0] | | There are also some decent selections here: | https://danromero.org/crypto-reading/ | | [0]: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/09/26/limits.html | tcgv wrote: | I wrote a piece on the topic earlier this year in my blog [1] | since I was also interested in learning more on the topic of | Ethereum and DeFi, and not interested at all in the | speculative take that attracts most people. | | In my post I write about an open source project I implemented | using smart contracts that acts as an options (derivatives) | exchange, and all the components required for making it work | (ex: stablecoins, price oracles, collateral management, | liquidity pools, etc). | | [1] https://thomasvilhena.com/2021/02/building-a- | decentralized-o... | dogman144 wrote: | https://blockthreat.substack.com/ great security-oriented | technical read | fleddr wrote: | Old but good: https://a16z.com/2018/02/10/crypto-readings- | resources/ | | https://decrypt.co/ is also pretty decent. | aboodman wrote: | Your comment doesn't address the point of the article. The | author isn't talking about Ethereum itself, which they | acknowledge up front can comfortably be considered | decentralized. | | The point is smart contracts. They are code, and they have to | get updated if there are bugs. How do they get updated? Well, | in the simple (and common) case somebody holds the private key | and updates it. That's centralization, obviously. | | You can get arbitrarily complex with how smart contracts are | updated. You can have multisig, where 2:3 have to vote to | update, or you can have actual voting, or you can even do | voting by stakeholder in the contract. | | But whatever you choose, it's fully a function of the smart | contract itself what level of decentralization it achieves, and | not at all about Ethereum. | saurik wrote: | > Well, in the simple (and common) case somebody holds the | private key and updates it. | | I will grant you "simple", and maybe even "common"... but | only because most people don't really understand | decentralization and many of the ones who do don't care about | it. | | The "actual" way this happens, for the protocols and | contracts that "actually matter" (certainly almost everything | you would have heard of, as opposed to the long tail of tiny | pet projects) is that, in the case that a bug is found, all | of the users have to vote with their feet to move to and | accept a new one. | | Essentially, this is equivalent to saying "decentralized | contracts simply aren't upgradable", but of course everything | is upgradable if you accept the idea of people giving up on | old software and using new software ;P. | | (If this sounds familiar, it should be: this is in a very | real sense similar to how Wireguard intends to deal with | cryptographic breaks in its chosen cipher suite, as they | aren't some centralized power able to upgrade everyone's | computers remotely.) | | (FWIW, there is something else you can do, but as it would be | implemented by still more contracts that themselves might | have bugs I don't consider it the answer here as it begs the | question: you make a contract--hopefully a simpler one that | is less likely to have a bug--that lets people vote on which | contract is the current accepted one, assuming they can all | have compatible APIs.) | mgummelt wrote: | Isn't Axie centrally upgradeable? | https://github.com/axieinfinity/public-smart- | contracts/blob/... | saurik wrote: | Axie as a product isn't even remotely decentralized, as | far as I can understand (though I haven't tried to really | pull it apart or anything, though I did spend way too | long researching it a couple months ago): the majority of | its product is a centralized gaming server that uses | classic cheat-protection and rate limiting strategies, | along with a game client that they require you to be | using--they even ban bots! think: how can a decentralized | game ban bots?!--which is important as it is effectively | centrally minting its SLP token (by way of how that token | comes from points you earn in the game from game play; | this "should"--if it were actually decentralized--result | in everyone using bots to play each other constantly for | maximum SLP earning, instead of hiring people in the | Philippines to play your characters for you). One would | do better to ask "in what ways is Axie Infinity even a | blockchain project?", as I feel like the answers are | mostly going to suck. | Grimm1 wrote: | > I will grant you "simple", and maybe even "common"... but | only because most people don't really understand | decentralization and many of the ones who do don't care | about it. | | So assuming that this is mainly an issue of people not | understanding versus understanding and not caring (though | you said there's some of that) how is the Ethereum | community going to get the word out so that this becomes a | mainstream success versus mainly for speculation as it is | now? | | A common issue and one that I personally feel crypto in | general suffers from is that neat tech isnt a a criteria on | which most people flock to use something so what are the | reasons end users need to know to be like ah yup I will | drop my regular finance interactions for this or heavily | augment them with this? | saurik wrote: | I question your premise. If you analyze "by weight | instead of by volume" then I maintain that all of the | important projects you hear about--think of the | decentralized exchanges or lending platforms, such as | Uniswap--do not have back doors in their contracts for | centralized code updates: when Uniswap wants to build a | new version, they release a totally new system that | happens to share a name. | | That there are a large number of silly projects most | people haven't heard of, or random tutorials on the web | for getting started in crypto, that involve building | contracts with backdoors is no different from any | technology... most stuff isn't scalable or even slightly | secure, even if the products from the biggest companies | and used by the most people tend to be: like think how | many websites have ubiquitous SQL or HTML injection | attacks... only "by volume" (looking at the total number | of such websites, irrespective of how much use they get) | as "by weight" (looking at the websites you use during | the course of a day by how much you use them) I bet | almost none of them do. | thebean11 wrote: | Sort of..an individual smart contract is completely | immutable; the code cannot be updated. You can create a proxy | smart contract that points to the contracts actually handling | execution, and update those pointers to point to new, updated | version of the code which is what I assume you're referring | to. | | Plenty of popular smart contracts do not do this though, and | are fully immutable. Rather than updates, the developers | upload a new version. Users can use the new version, or stay | on the old one forever (the developers cannot delete it). | | Regardless of which one, though, this is known ahead of time. | A user (or, more likely, a community of users) can inspect | the code and see to what extent the key holders can modify | functionality. | Darvon wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic#The_DAO_bail | o... | | Eth is immutable unless the central players lose too much | money then they can roll it back | RealityVoid wrote: | I think the DAO hack is misrepresented in the crypto | community lore. The network simply decided to follow the | main developers and those that did not, kept with what is | now ETH classic. A hard fork can happen in absolutely | _all_ cryptocurrencies, and I see it as a feature rather | than a bug. | thebean11 wrote: | They cannot roll it back. Anybody can create a hard fork, | and nobody is forced to use that version. In fact, the | version that was not rolled back still exists, and we are | all free to use it if we wish! | everfree wrote: | Ethereum Classic without the rollback still exists, the | old history didn't go anywhere. You and anyone else are | free to use it. | carlosdp wrote: | > But this fails to hold true for general purpose chains | acting as a VM, including the front-runner Ethereum. Ethereum | nodes can in theory filter modifications to the smart | contracts they execute, but in practice, node operators have | no reason to inspect or reject these upgrades, because they | have relatively little stake in the success of individual | contracts or their ecosystems. If an owner of a smart | contract publishes a new change, nodes will mindlessly run | it. Ethereum is blockchain AWS. | | This part does talk about Ethereum itself. It's just a | conflation that, I agree, the author probably didn't intend, | but nonetheless demonstrates the lack of understanding. | exo762 wrote: | Some projects avoid upgrading contracts at all. They deploy a | new version, create a new UI and point this new UI to new | contracts. Uniswap V2 vs Uniswap V3. This way users are | actively opting into new set of contracts. | aboodman wrote: | This makes sense to me and I think can be considered | decentralized. How common are completely immutable | contracts though? | | It seems like for any contract that holds significant value | it would be insane to make it immutable, particularly when | it's written in a turing complete language like Solidity. | DennisP wrote: | It's a tradeoff. There have been cases where an immutable | contract was hacked, but there have also been cases where | an admin key was compromised resulting in loss of funds. | Users also have to consider the possibility that the | admin is corrupt. | patrickaljord wrote: | It's pretty common, the two biggest and most used | decentralized exchanges uniswap and sushiswap hold $10.5B | and are immutable. | arisAlexis wrote: | Uniswap censored tokens representing stocks some months | back. This is 100% mutable behavior of the project. | snug wrote: | That was blocked at the web interface, if you wanted to | use one of those tokens you could directly interact with | the smart contract to get around those blocks | exo762 wrote: | Holders of large amounts of funds often value simplicity. | Take old Gnosis Multisig vs new Gnosis Safe. While lots | of projects migrated (moved funds) to Gnosis Safe, some | are still using old Multisig contract, which was so | simple it could be audited by anyone in an hour. Old | Gnosis Multisig is immutable and can definitely be | considered a huge success. | Tenoke wrote: | All things they consider risks are definitely possible and for | some of them if regulators or mobs push for them plausible. | It's not like there aren't e.g. blacklists already. | mgummelt wrote: | Author here. | | I would have fleshed this out more if I knew this was going to | reach the front page. Yes, many smart contracts are deployed | with distributed upgrade mechanisms, and I mention them briefly | at the end of the post. I mostly wrote this to start a | conversation with friends about a) how many internet services | can be practically operated with the friction that such upgrade | mechanisms create, and b) the potential to use the blockchain | only for the voting protocol, then to sign and deploy the | service on a traditional cloud. | seibelj wrote: | Decentralization is a spectrum. A truly decentralized network, | one pure from every angle of analysis, does not exist. | | Ethereum itself is more decentralized than all traditional value- | transfer networks of the old centralized financial world, and the | applications built on top of Ethereum are also a spectrum of | decentralization. | spicybright wrote: | Obviously there's no such thing as 100% pure decentralization. | I don't even know what that would look like. | | So it's not really worth the time trying to classify systems | based on some theoretical purity rating. It doesn't gain us | anything. | lottin wrote: | How do you measure decentralisation? | fleddr wrote: | Using decentralized analytics. | joelbondurant wrote: | Ethereum can be replaced by MongoDB. | xrd wrote: | This is pure garbage: | | "Ethereum nodes can in theory filter modifications to the smart | contracts they execute, but in practice, node operators have no | reason to inspect or reject these upgrades, because they have | relatively little stake in the success of individual contracts or | their ecosystems." | spicybright wrote: | This will likely be controversial, but tech like bitcoin is a big | step backwards from payment systems we currently have. | | All the rules and regulations were created because someone was | bad enough for people to agree on a rule to prevent something | from happening again. | | Block chain money loses all of those protections to stop a bad | actor from, say, a hacker draining your wallet with no recourse. | | So we find ourselves back to step one. I do think it's inevitable | layers of regulations and rules will crop up, either from | governments, or power holders requiring layers of smart contracts | to respect transactions. | | It will just be a matter of time till the modern banking systems | "port" themselves onto the chain. | dogman144 wrote: | > All the rules and regulations were created because someone | was bad enough for people to agree on a rule to prevent | something from happening again. | | It's a bit more nuanced than that. Current KYC/AML regs that | you're referring to in banking, and are being applied to | crypto, actually come from the Patriot Act, Title III. | | Why this is relevant: KYC/AML have stuck around as a perceived | common-sense thing to do, and your comment is good example | though. However, that evaluation deserves some inspection with | the knowledge that it comes out of the Patriot Act. The Patriot | Act is known for some historically challenging overreach and | various parts of it have been overruled, repealed, deemed | unconstitutional, and generally disliked by all aspects of the | political spectrum. That's not to say that a few good things | came out of it - perhaps KYC/AML is an example. But, I think | specifically because of the Patriot Act ties, it's a bit of a | misnomer to call KYC/AML as a sort of bland, unambiguously good | thing that's just always been around. The Patriot Act is very | much "not that," was passed in a fairly turbulent time in US | history, and has not aged well. As current KYC/AML came out of | that time period and law, perhaps it should be shaded by that. | DSMan195276 wrote: | I somewhat agree, and I think it's largely already happening. | For the most part I think it's unlikely anybody who's not | somewhat tech savvy would ever move their coins off of a | service/exchange like CoinBase, and such an exchange already | provides some of those guarantees and could easily provide | more. All the benefits and drawbacks of bitcoin pretty much go | away if you never actually use any "physical" bitcoins and just | go through an exchange. That said I have my doubts about it | ever actually getting all that big for everyday use, everybody | is always going to need dollars so I don't think there's all | that much of a reason for big banks and payment systems to | "switch". | k__ wrote: | I think, the excact opposite could be the case. | | An transparent open source platform with a globally | decentralized payment mechanism at protocol level could be the | one reason blockchains could win, despite everything else of | them being "just worse AWS". | fleddr wrote: | Contrary to the mainstream narrative on Bitcoin, it's not | purposefully designed to bypass regulation, depending on which | type of regulation we're talking about. | | Bitcoin's power lies in its controlled supply that is absolute | and guaranteed. As such, you can argue that Bitcoin is | regulated in its monetary policy (by verifiable software), | whilst the traditional system isn't. The entire reason Bitcoin | now has a trillion dollar market cap is the unstable | traditional system where savings have a negative return. | | This is the step _forward_ , not backwards. At least to those | believing in Bitcoin. You gain protection against central | debasement and you gain a brand new ability: Bitcoin is | unconfiscatable. | | You're right that crypto custody is harder than a traditional | bank account, although it doesn't have to be. People can chose | between die-hard self custody (cold wallet), hot wallets, and | soon there will be more fool-proof mainstream options, I | believe Twitter is working on one. | lottin wrote: | The supply of bitcoins can be inflated in the same way that | the supply of dollars is inflated, namely by fractional | reserve banking. In fact the amount of dollars created by the | federal reserve is a small proportion of the total dollars in | circulation. The other thing is that the quantity of money, | which is one of the key variables influencing the price | level, does not remain constant even if the supply of money | does, because of trade imbalances. For example, any trade | deficit is necessarily offset by an outflow of money, thus | reducing the quantity of money in the economy. Therefore if | you think that the adoption of bitcoin as currency would | prevent your cash balances from losing value in any way, | shape or form you're completely wrong. | fleddr wrote: | There is no such thing as fractional reserve banking in | Bitcoin. | | Say you have a wallet with a balance of 10 BTC and decide | to act as if you're a bank. The first lender comes, | requesting a loan of 30 BTC. | | You don't have 30 BTC, and it basically already stops | there. You can't transfer the 20 extra BTC to the lender, | since that BTC does not exist. You can't make up your own | BTC as it's all on-chain. | | You can make up however much fiat money you want. You can | own 10 BTC and loan out the USD equivalent of 30 BTC in | USD, but that's traditional fractional reserve banking, | which has nothing to do with Bitcoin. | yokem55 wrote: | > Bitcoin's power lies in its controlled supply that is | absolute and guaranteed. | | Bitcoin's supply limit is only as guaranteed as the community | consensus around what the supply limit should be. Now that | consensus is unlikely to change, but there is no magic or law | of physics that makes it so. | | It's just (a strong) community consensus. | fleddr wrote: | Technically, you're right, but the word "just" strongly | undersells the strength of this consensus compared to fiat | currencies, which has none at all. | beambot wrote: | I'm always reminded of articles like this: | | > Holding U.S. Treasurys? Beware: Uncle Sam Can't Account For | $21 Trillion | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2019/01/09/holding-u-... | | > Fed Committed $7.77 Trillion To Rescue Banks [in 2008, | previously undisclosed] | | https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- | way/2011/11/28/142854391.... | | You can argue whether this is a bug versus benefit... but | transparency seems like a general win. | serverholic wrote: | I forget the source but I once heard a quote that really | resonated with me "corruption festers in the dark but tends | to evaporate once it's brought to light". With that said, | imagine a government where you can audit every transaction | they make... | fidesomnes wrote: | > All the rules and regulations were created because someone | was bad enough for people to agree on a rule to prevent | something from happening again. | | No, not how things happened at all. | | > bitcoin is a big step backwards from payment systems we | currently have. | | Please share with the class the open PKI digital ledger that | anyone can use with no permission "we" currently have. | anonporridge wrote: | It's a mistake to think that the exciting thing about bitcoin | is as a new kind of payment system for consumers. | | Instead, it's a rock solid foundation for a new global | financial/monetary system in which every nation state, | organization, and individual can participate without the | permission of any privileged group. | | It's a neutral, digital money, like gold was a neutral, | physical money. | | I fully expect that if it becomes a new money standard, we will | in fact see higher layer payment networks (like Visa, Paypal, | etc) that provide consumer protection services (for a fat fee) | on top of the bitcoin network. Those people who don't want the | responsibility of self custodying their money in a way that | can't be recovered if they are robbed, can choose to bank with | these services. | lottin wrote: | I don't see why anyone would want to build an international | monetary system on top of something like bitcoin which was | designed and developed by people who clearly know nothing | about finance or monetary economics, but maybe it's just | me... | whimsicalism wrote: | > people who clearly know nothing about finance or monetary | economics, but maybe it's just me... | | I'd argue that that is true of effectively any currency | system that has ever existed. | | Maybe many are now managed by people who "understand" | monetary economics, but they weren't created by those | people. | brighton36 wrote: | Blockchains are a profitable form of discourse. They don't | have to do much of anything, and typically,they do nothing | at all. | | The function of blockchain, is mostly to obfuscate desire, | in the interest of increasing confidence. | anonporridge wrote: | "If you don't believe it or don't get it, I don't have the | time to try to convince you, sorry." - Satoshi | jstx1 wrote: | I wouldn't call it neutral. It still has a development team | made up of people who decide the direction of the technology. | You don't like a decision and use a fork - now you're | isolated from everyone else who is still transacting on the | main chain. | | The validation of transactions is a red herring in these | discussions - the real question of decentralisation is who is | responsible for making decisions about the future of the tech | and what happens when people disagree. In that respect | Bitcoin is neither decentralised nor neutral. Same as | Ethereum. | serverholic wrote: | Right now blockchains are essentially being incubated by | centralized authorities as they mature. | | Eventually, we'll see the ideas behind Decentralized | Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) mature and become a viable | alternative to centralized authority. | | I think that's the plan at least with Ethereum. However, | Ethereum 2.0 is still being deployed and what I'm talking | about is probably more like 4.0 or beyond. | | However, right now there is just no mature alternative. | Someone has to own the keys. | | Edit: Also, what others have said regarding being able to | choose your development team. That's one of the cool things | about crypto. Blockchains can be forked with enough | support. | fleddr wrote: | "I wouldn't call it neutral. It still has a development | team made up of people who decide the direction of the | technology." | | The development team has no such power. They can raise a | BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal), which goes through | rigorous cycles of analysis. A huge amount of paranoid eyes | will obsess over any change proposed. | | As for the development team itself, there's no THE | development team. Rather, it's a highly diverse set of | crypto businesses, non-profits, and individual volunteers. | This diversity too helps to preserve common interests, | rather than specific ones. | | Should the BIP survive the first round of extreme scrutiny, | next a whopping 95% of miners need to signal that they | support the change. But not even that is enough, nodes | (validators, of which there are an extreme amount) can | still reject the change. Which is what happened in 2017, | when miners wanted to increase block size (which reduces | decentralization) and the community blocked it, despite a | 95% miner approval. | | Surely there's no such thing as 100% decentralization or | neutrality at a theoretical level, but this is as close as | it gets. | ftlio wrote: | Good luck getting any change into Bitcoin that isn't good | for every participant of the network. The last time people | tried this, users, not even those users with the most | Bitcoin at stake, were able to produce enough chaos and | generate enough risk that they failed. Ethereum is capable | of full consensus mechanism changes that hurt subsets of | the network who don't hold the majority of Eth, the latest | of which just further entrenched that ability. | | I personally prefer the former for that reason, but by your | critique, Ethereum is practically conducive to keeping the | people who control the protocol small. Bitcoin is probably | headed to a version freeze this decade, which is great. | thebean11 wrote: | Unlike the development teams at a software company, though, | the development teams here do not have any special | privileges over the software. They only have "control" for | as long as their users continue choosing their forks. | | If a second "development team" sprung up and had more user | support than the existing team, there is literally no | advantage the current team has to control the software. | anonporridge wrote: | The development team doesn't have the power to decide the | future direction. If they release a highly controversial | change, no one is obligated to use their code. They could | continue using an old version, or switch to an alternative | node implementation led by different developers. | | Every change to the network is a complex dance between the | power of the developers, the miners, the exchanges and | services, and the actual coin holders. If any significant | segment of these forces don't agree with the direction, | then the default is to change nothing and maintain the | status quo. | | This is what makes it neutral. No major changes to the | network can happen without supermajority support among all | players, otherwise you risk severely fracturing the | network, which is bad for everyone. | kristjansson wrote: | _Any_ database can be foundational, digital money if you get | the enough people and their governments to agree that it is. | The database part is not the hard part. | anonporridge wrote: | No, the agreement and trust part is. | | Bitcoin is the trust machine. That's the problem it solves. | kristjansson wrote: | Bitcoin is trustworthy in the way that gold or beads or | shells in a vault are trustworthy - if you have it, you | have it, and if you give it to some else, they have it | and you don't[1]. That doesn't make it easier to get | people and world governments to agree to construct value | (and accept payments and taxes) in terms of Bitcoin, or | to trust that Bitcoin will continue to be exchangeable | for a predictable amount of real goods and services in | the future. | | It's a sort of stable system if everyone already measures | value in terms of bitcoin, since the database itself | works well enough, and users are incentivized to make | choices that sustain it as a store of value. That's true | of _any_ unit of account though, nothing inherent to | bitcoin makes it more stable in that regard; the energy | usage, transactions costs, and distinction between miners | and users probably add risk on that account. | | Also (and this is not directed at you personally, but the | arbitrary bitcoin maximalist) its hard to take one with | millions of glass beads seriously when they argue the | world should measure value itself in terms of glass | beads, which then by pure happenstance will make them | fabulously wealthy. | | [1]: and I do appreciate the social and software | engineering that allows a purely abstract quantity to | have those properties. | whimsicalism wrote: | > Bitcoin is trustworthy in the way that gold or beads or | shells in a vault are trustworthy | | Sure, if you abstract away the whole "who owns the vault" | question... | | But that seems facile. | | I'm hardly a crypto stan but I'd love to see actually | cogent critiques. | kristjansson wrote: | That was underspecified, apologies. You own the vault. | Everyone has a vault. The vault is your key. | | Would've been clearer to say 'pocket' or something, but | that doesn't imply the level of physical security I | attribute to Bitcoin. | NikolaNovak wrote: | People have different perception of "regulations" as a concept | (as opposed to myriad different good, bad & ugly | implementations). | | To some, "regulation" is a bad, 4-letter word. It's somebody | else, some strange entity, infringing upon my freedoms. "Let us | make our own decisions and use our own judgment and experience, | and this will work better!". | | The naive view of "regulation" as a concept, to which I | subscribe, is collective memory. Something bad happened, and we | said "Well let's not do THAT again". Hence regulation against | pyramid schemes in many countries; sure you can say "let me | make my own mistakes", but that's basically what happened: | pyramid schemes were allowed, we made a mistake, and said "well | that sucks". A lot of financial rules, that may be | inconvenient, go back to edge cases and bad actors and real- | life scenarios. | | NOW... bureaucracy absolutely has a life of its own, and there | are a lot of bad regulations, but the way I see it, from a high | enough perspective, any fresh, naive system (whatever | technology underlies it) will either: | | a) Actually and seriously not have any regulations ever, which | means we'll all keep repeating same mistakes and have issue | with same edge cases / bad actors forever; it'll be a wild wild | west and some people will have high risk appetites and some | won't. | | or | | b) will eventually have regulations making it same as old | system but with different technology. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | > a big step backwards from payment systems we currently have. | | Just yesterday lawmaking initiative in Russia proposed to give | police and FSB an ability of pre-judicial freeze of all assets | belonging to a person, including all personal accounts and all | accounts of all linked businesses. | | Good luck living in our increasingly cashless society where | corrupt police officers can suffocate you with a single press | of a button. | fleddr wrote: | Indeed. From our first world perspective, we don't understand | the humanitarian life raft that crypto can be. | | Lebanon is currently facing extremely high inflation whilst | at the same time, governments close banks. Imagine that, your | life savings being decimated whilst you're locked out of | accessing it. | | With a proper setup, crypto could be a solution. Access to it | can't be realistically blocked and it is unconfiscatable. | Furthermore, it can be used by those that are unbanked, all | it takes is a smartphone. | | Another story is from a guy whom recently fled from Venezuela | to Colombia, and blogged about his experience. On his | journey, he was shaken down by police officers, local tribes, | traffickers, basically everybody. | | Here too crypto could have played a humanitarian role. | ojr wrote: | Ethereum enthusiast are quick to disagree, the author of the | article might not have a deep understanding of how everything | works but headline of the article holds somewhat true. | | Metamask is a centralized service with centralized team, if | Google removed this extension from Chrome as they temporarily did | before, it would make adoption for new users harder. | | Open Sea has centralized operators, the orderbook is not on the | blockchain I believe. | | Uniswap the "decentralized exchange" has acentralized team with | vc funding and registration with the SEC. | | Infura is another centralized service, that so many Ethereum | projects depend on. | | It is hard to call these services decentralized. Although the | small mainstream success of these services and markets, show that | fully decentralization is probably not needed for most mainstream | users. | politician wrote: | Is Medium playing games with browser history? When clicking the | back button after clicking "read more" it kept refreshing the | same page. I hate when sites do that. | xchaotic wrote: | Medium has a lot of dark patterns by now - like seriously they | expect me to pay perpetually to read somebody's random rants? | Needing to login or register just read something etc I've moved | my blog off Medium a long time ago to ensure the content stays | in the open for free | sva_ wrote: | This lightweight 'wrapper' around Medium was on HN today: | | https://scribe.rip/crypto-services-are-neither-decentralized... | samaman wrote: | To respond to the title: yes, yes they are, if you consider how | many live in infura or an AWS geth instance and/or quorum by JPM. | Doesn't mean its not a better means for data security...just that | yes, the publisher of said smart contract can just replace or | change to contract if they really wanted to if it were not part | of the mainnet. There are many infura nodes though that are part | of the mainnet, so that's unlikely unless some company just | forced all users to their own ETH network. | crazydoggers wrote: | This lacks an understanding of how Ethereum contracts can | function. He's assuming that a single person or entity must own a | contract, and that's not true. | | That's the whole point of DeFi. Uniswap is a great example, which | is a fully decentralized exchange. | betwixthewires wrote: | > Ethereum nodes can in theory filter modifications to the smart | contracts they execute. | | This is the crux of the point, and as far as I'm aware is | incorrect. A transaction to change a smart contract must be | signed, a node cannot modify a transaction. A miner can in theory | refuse a transaction to change a contract, but the only way to | reliably prevent a change is a 51% attack. A node could refuse to | accept a change, but it would fork the network and the node would | be running a non canonical chain, which makes it pointless. | rgovostes wrote: | Meta: Unsure what is happening on the front page today. This | isn't even a link to the article[1], and somehow it rocketed to | #10 in under an hour. A nearly 2-year-old announcement about | SHA-1, posted 20 minutes ago, is in 3rd place. | | 1: https://michaelgummelt.medium.com/crypto-services-are- | neithe... | anonporridge wrote: | Maybe it's just because bitcoin has been on a tear toward new | all time highs this past week, so crypto is on everyone's | minds. | crazydoggers wrote: | I may be wrong, but I've felt for a while that there are some | pretty strong vote rings avoiding the HN systems. There's | always a lot of strong downvotes or upvotes for specific | subjects, but not that many voices in comments to go with them. | whimsicalism wrote: | > there are some pretty strong vote rings avoiding the HN | systems. | | Something I've noticed spending time online is that people | tend to really over-estimate when this is actually happening. | | These accusations seem to have accelerated a lot since the | 2016 election and related claims around astroturfing. | | Regardless, your comment is against HN rules. | burnished wrote: | You could also just be doing real-time sentiment analysis of | the readers of hackernews right? I wonder how you'd prove or | disprove this. I know I get a similar feeling lately about | Reddit, that some topics seem to be machine generated due to | pretty surprising typos (not the existence of them, but the | kinds, and not the kinds you get used to from ESL students). | wayoutthere wrote: | Agreed; though I always assumed it was the touch of the HN | editorial voice. | dang wrote: | These perceptions can be very unreliable so it would be good | to ask us to look at specific links. If voting rings are | getting around HN's anti-abuse systems, that would be a huge | problem and would instantly become our top priority. | dang wrote: | We've changed the URL to that from | https://michaelgummelt.medium.com/ now. Thanks! | | As for what's happening on HN - it seems to be just the usual | stochastic churn. Who knows why people post old things? if | they're interesting they're welcome, and a lot of people | decided that one was interesting. | robcohen wrote: | As other commenters have said, this article largely appears naive | on how contracts work. Looking past that, the main thrust of the | argument is that if "the market" wants things like chargebacks | and censorship, then there will exist large blockchain "startups" | that fulfill that need. They also make the argument that such a | progression is likely inevitable. | | What they fail to understand is that is not important. What is | important is that blockchain enables people to vote through their | choices. If they prefer decentralization, they can have that. If | they prefer centralized features, they can have that. Until | blockchain, it wasn't even possible to have the choice of | decentralization because it simply technologically didn't exist. | Crypto-hopefulls believe this choice will better society. Maybe | it will, maybe it won't. But even a subset of society can benefit | from having more choices. Just because your candidate loses | doesn't invalidate the benefits of having a democracy. | dabedee wrote: | Not to remove from some of the valid concerns made in the | article, but I find it ironic that a post decrying centralization | of Ethereum services is written on Medium. | [deleted] | trident5000 wrote: | Price is going up. Looks like its time for the daily anti-crypto | articles on HN now. | togilvie wrote: | This is a really bad take, with a limited understanding of how | Ethereum nodes and smart contracts operate. I clicked hoping for | more... | cryptica wrote: | The basic premise is true. Ethereum nodes do not provide even | basic search/querying features out of the box so you have to rely | on centralized services to index the blockchain data for | querying. So if you want to build anything useful which | integrates with Ethereum in any way, you need to trust a | centralized service provider to accurately report the data... I | was shocked when I tried to integrate with Ethereum for the first | time. It almost seems as though they have made it difficult to | integrate with on purpose. | | It's been over a decade. Couldn't they have written some kind of | open source service which exposes the Ethereum node's data via a | simple REST HTTP API? This would not be a difficult project to | implement. | eco wrote: | What data were you looking for? geth provides a JSON RPC | interface. Ethereum is general purpose so you'll need to know | how a particular contract works to get information out of it | but some contracts adhere to standards like ERC-20. | | Ethereum launched six years ago, by the way (not a decade). | cryptica wrote: | Does geth provide a basic search/querying feature? For | example like searching for a list of transactions sent to and | from a specific account. | | But doesn't geth require me to setup and sync my own Ethereum | node from scratch? I heard it consumes 300GB minimum. It | would be great if I could just query some random node on | testnet for example for testing my service before I commit to | launching a node. | treelovinhippie wrote: | Was expecting to find a mention of Metamask and Infura. They both | run on AWS and are the infrastructure bridges powering the | majority of dApps. Oh and 50% of both are owned by Joe Lubin. | | So without mentioning mining/staking pool centralization, you've | got centralization of both infrastructure and ownership. | vmception wrote: | There are plenty of smart contracts where the admin destroyed | their access, and where the admin never had any privileged | access. | | Are people so out of touch on this topic that they would ask | "source?" after being presented with negative information that | matched what they wanted to read | woah wrote: | This blog post is pure nonsense. Nobody can alter an Ethereum | smart contract unless they control all full nodes, or can | convince all full node operators to install a fork of the | software that reaches into the database and modifies that | contract. | | It is possible for smart contracts to contain code that allows | them to update themselves when receiving a message signed by a | certain key, but if this is the case, then it is obvious to | anyone inspecting the contract. | | Most heavily used Ethereum contracts such as Uniswap and Compound | for example do not contain any updating code because users do not | trust it. | [deleted] | arisAlexis wrote: | Compound had a huge bug which lead to the CEO (lol | decentralized) to threaten users that got the airdropped tokens | he will report them to the IRS. This is decadence at the | highest level of this "new era". | everfree wrote: | Robert Leshner backpedaled on that statement later that same | day, telling everyone that what he said was "bone-headed". | | > I'm trying to do anything I can to help the community get | some of its COMP back, and this was a bone-headed tweet / | approach. That's on me. | | > Luckily, the community is much bigger, and smarter, than | just me. | | > I appreciate your ridicule and support. | | > -- Robert Leshner (@rleshner) October 1, 2021 | bob229 wrote: | Crypto/blockchain is garbage without a use case. Stop wasting our | time | factorialboy wrote: | The moment a small group of people bailed out their friends' DAO, | Ethereum lost all credibility. I am referring to: | https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao#sec... | | Since then Eth has proved to be a successful investment, so this | is not a commentary on the performance of this digital asset. But | rather a comment on the false immutable, decentralized claims of | this blockchain. | bsamuels wrote: | Social consensus should _always_ override rule of law. Society | is not formed around people's relationship with the law, it's | based on people's relationship with each other. The hard fork | required social consensus to trump rule of law, and they got | it. | | "but what about eth classic?" | | The ETC chain exists, yes, however it is not "Ethereum". | There's a timeline where the majority was against the fork, and | ETC would have remained "Ethereum", with the forked chain | taking on a new name like Ethereum Cash or something. | thebean11 wrote: | They didn't do so unilaterally. The users of Ethereum | collectively chose to bail it out. | mountainboy wrote: | not all of them. Hence the eth classic fork. | | A majority of eth miners and users decided to change the | rules and ignore the promises of immutability previously made | to all. | | Having a majority does not make an action ethical. Hence the | term: tyranny of the majority. | | This serious breach of faith soured many people on the | project, and the mis-trust continues to this day. | thebean11 wrote: | Right, my statement wasn't super clear but I meant the | users of present-day Ethereum which is the bailed out | version. | | I don't see how ethics plays into it; it's a judgement call | and the existence of the forked Ethereum isn't an attack on | ETC. | whimsicalism wrote: | > Having a majority does not make an action ethical. Hence | the term: tyranny of the majority. | | Pricing is not "tyranny of the majority." If nobody wants | to buy what you are selling, you are not being oppressed. | | Given that people decided they would much rather buy the | coin with the altered ledger, it is more valuable. | | As a meta note: Crypto seems to bring out the most low-brow | critiques on either side. Maybe because it has become | popular with a mass audience? | sva_ wrote: | More or less: | | > On 15 July 2016, a short notice on-chain vote was held on | the DAO hard fork.[8] Of the 82,054,716 ETH in existence, | only 4,542,416 voted, for a total voter turn out of 5.5% of | the total supply on 16 July 2016; 3,964,516 ETH (87%) voted | in favor, 1/4 of which came from a single address, and | 577,899 ETH (13%) opposed the DAO fork.[8] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic#Carbon_vote | ccamrobertson wrote: | It's bizarre to me that one would gauge the credibility of | Ethereum today based on an event that occurred less than a year | into the existence of the protocol, and despite massive | performance with respect to digital assets since then | (algorithmic stablecoins, AMM's, etc.). | | It's certainly fair to debate the strength of immutability | guarantees with respect to a given blockchain, but in practice | no blockchain is perfectly immutable given that humans still | write and deploy the clients that run them. Consider the 184 | billion Bitcoin hack from 2010, a similar straw man about the | _current_ immutability claims of Bitcoin. | capsulecorp wrote: | It's bizarre to me that one would NOT gauge the credibility | of Ethereum today based on what the developers actually did | vs what they said they would do. What exactly have they done | to redeem themselves from their previous scandal? | arisAlexis wrote: | That action was pivotal and a blunder and Vitalik was not | mature enough to realize it. I believe he wouldn't do it | again today. | Animats wrote: | How many miners control 51% of the Etherium hash rate? That's the | key issue. | | For Bitcoin, it was at one time 5, all in China, and there's a | group photo. | wmf wrote: | https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.10699.pdf | vmception wrote: | Odd and inaccurate take. Some or many services have admin | control. But it doesn't matter. | | If you are exchanging time for food and shelter, you need to be | building smart contracts. That's where we are right now, it is | the most lucrative use of time possible. | | Put down the Shopify widget development book, put down the | dropshipping tutorial, and start deploying smart contracts. | nootropicat wrote: | >If an owner of a smart contract publishes a new change, nodes | will mindlessly run it. | | Utter nonsense, contracts can be both immutable and mutable. | There's inbuilt owner capability, code has to explicitly | implement upgrade capability. All nodes do is run code. | | Uniswap for example has no upgrade capability. | Geee wrote: | True decentralization means that every end user can choose which | version of the software they want to run and how the software | runs. This is only possible if they _can_ run the software on | their own hardware, in the event that they don 't agree with the | remote service provider. | | That's why general purpose blockchains like Ethereum are doomed | to fail. They can never be both competitive with centralized | trust-based services and lightweight enough to be run by end | users. | DennisP wrote: | Ethereum researchers have worked very hard to meet both | requirements, for exactly that reason. You can run the beacon | chain plus execution node on very modest hardware, and L1 | scaling will be based on sharding to keep it modest. | | It's looking like L2 scaling will end up mostly zkrollups, | which are easy for modest clients to verify. The only | heavyweight hardware then would be zkrollup block producers, | who could potentially engage in censorship, but the nice thing | about zkrollups is that users have a cryptographic guarantee | that they can exit with their funds without a waiting period. | | All this together would take Ethereum well into transaction | rates comparable to legacy banking. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Find people that are skeptical about the benefits of | blockchains/cryptocurrencies AND have a strong technical | understand is so rare. This is not one of them. | | So far the best person that has that intersection I have found is | Angela Walsh. | newacct583 wrote: | This wasn't making sense to me, then I got to the meat: | | > _The real risk is that blockchain Twitter will begin to censor | dubiously defined "hate speech", or that blockchain Mastercard | will add support for chargebacks._ | | This is just culture warism. In fact moderated discussion | forums[1] and reversible payments are _DESIRED FEATURES_ of | products in the real world. Of course that 's going to happen. | But to the author that constitutes "centralization", but what it | really means is "not the libertarian utopia I imagined". | | [1] We're posting on one! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-12 23:00 UTC)