Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • Jun 20 2016 02:11
    @alexvandesande banned @algotrader2013
  • Jun 05 2016 10:31
    @alexvandesande banned @adamskee
Daft-Wullie
@Daft-Wullie
maybe it turns out that progpow really was a trojan horse spearheaded by Wright, Ayre et all to litigate and shakedown the eth community even tho it seems exceedingly far fetched and i will do a mea culpa in that case for having been a progpow supporter
Peter Salanki
@salanki

@MicahZoltu: "TL;DR: I'm against the bashing of @OhGodAGirl on the grounds that she spoke at conferences put on by people who you personally disagree with, and I think that kind of excommunication/censorship is not a good path for Ethereum (or the world) to follow."

I give you a lot of respect for this comment. We should not accept this type of treatment of anyone trying to contribute to Ethereum.

Greg Colvin
@gcolvin
I know Kristy only through these channels and Magician’s forums. She has been admirably professional through many months of controversy and provocation. That’s all I have to say about it.
Bob Summerwill
@bobsummerwill
@Daft-Wullie Thanks for the Reddit link.
Geoffrey Callaghan
@GolangGuy
is it safe to make a plug in here for disposable numbers at http://textita.com or am i going to get yelled at
Kazunori Seki
@sekisanchi
Not sure if this right place and sorry to cut-in, but currently a hacked youtube channel is running fake EF giveaway, gathering $50k or so in 2-3 days summarized in a csv here. https://pastebin.com/6NTNAEm2 but youtube is lazy to kill it. I'm looking for practical hackerone style autonomous anti-exploits under pseudo pegouvian taxization, covering all kind of assets not just cryto.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
Thanks for pointing this out. What can we do to help? I'm not understanding what you mean by "practical hackerone style autonomous anti-exploits under pseudo pegouvian taxization, covering all kind of assets not just crypto."
Kazunori Seki
@sekisanchi
Technology assets as a whole, in speculation-hedging context, would be the largest chunk of granularity I can think of, in the same class of environmtal experiment of hydro-carbon ledger on Kyoto protocol or Paris agreement. Hackerone targets medium-small granularity where current institutional brand actors and legacy high-tech hacker favors, where prevention of erode as external negativity of brands and hacking fame value are traded off. Crypto giveaway scamming, others call it as trust-trading scam though, would be similar conflict area in size and characteristic, but much easier to apply cryptographic asset valuation in the modeling of dynamics. The $50K is just in a YouTube channel in a days, but I have manually sampled about $1M BTC exploits in a half year, while applyig anti-exploits efforts as much.
Kazunori Seki
@sekisanchi
We may have much larger challenge gathering fraudulent attempts for other crypto assets, and class actions upon liability holders including anonymous entities, by the social dynamics mechanism we used to build. I’ve been put pretty enough evidence on IPFS as my benchmarking records, and trying to make that formalized at comming Ethglobal online hackason. I put them onto other public repositories before, but those were removed by some reason possible claims from platformers. https://fortune.com/2020/04/21/ripple-sues-youtube-scam-videos-crypto-garlinghouse/
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
You have to do something about transaction costs, going to miners. Paying a fee 0f 0.2 ETH on a transaction of 0.5 ETH is TOTALLY unacceptable. It is not good for business in general. My business paid a cost of 276 USD for a single transaction. https://eth.sparkpool.com/ who mined the transaction must pay it back. Previously i tried to limit the costs by manually setting the maximum cost (to average cost of the time), but then the transactions got dropped ("fail"), several times, and the costs were paid. Out of desperation i allowed a larger fee and then the miner mined it in a second, taking a huge fee, after the standard fee was paid a few times for failed transactions. Mining is manipulated wrongly, which is not good for business. Example transaction: https://etherscan.io/tx/0xf8b70ec9f9094347874e867f824a377298f2f0e5513487b6381414db228d45bf. Again; you have to fix this. It is theft to take a fee of 276 USD for a single transaction. It is possible, therefor you have to stop the possibility.
Greerso
@greerso
@mdpienaar im not sure that you’re understanding how a decentralized network functions or who your message is aimed at.
If you have a solution for the traffic on the network, it should be presented in an EIP.
The high fees are a result of many users bidding for block space.
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
there's something else going on. i have been ripped off with network fees more than once recently. i have relatively a lot of experience doing transactions. there is no way taking a transaction fee of 276 USD per transaction should be allowed. the blockchain worked better previously. i don't have a programming solution but know what must be done. maximum fee per transaction should be excluded by limiting the maximum. the developers must determine an acceptable maximum fee per transaction and disallow miners to take more. when transaction fees reach the maximum, it should be first come first serve.
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
when i tried to set the maximum it did not work. miners failed my transactions whilst others' transactions were mined with lower fees than on my failed transactions. when i formed a Moyom (MYM)/ETH pool on Uniswap V2, for example, i looked at the fees charged, at the time on the Uniswap transactions. i allowed for more than that. the transaction failed about three times and every time a large fee was taken. then eventually the pool was formed after taking an exhorbitant fee. it was not the transaction above. the above transaction was for a pool at Sushiswap. another stupid thing is, why do i have to pay large fees, several times for failed transactions. if the developers cannot do something to stop that, i am again sorry to say, it's a big problem. being forgiving because it is new technology, reached the limit with me.
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
why do we have to pay even for one failed transaction on the Ethereum blockchain? it should not happen. users should not pay for failed transactions. imagine a bank charging for a failed transaction. i know it is decentralized, but there are things, which are un-acceptable period. decentralization will never make it acceptable.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
If there are enough people to completely fill the next block, willing to pay $276 to get their transaction in that block. Should you be able to push one of them out, making room for your transaction, while paying less than $276?
Developers are working, furiously, to resolve this bandwidth problem, that is the main goal of Ether 2.0
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
a low maximum transaction fee should be set. at that rate it should be first come first serve. i am sure what you describe is not what happened. withou, if you check the transaction fees, i am sure, atthe contract mentioned, it will show the 276 USD was much higher than other fees. i read about a CLIENT who once paid an astronomically high fee - much higher than 1000 USD.
maximalism is a mistake. the Ethereum blockchain will self-destruct if maximalism is the policy. Boeing's recent woes showed how maximalism is destructive.
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
imagine a bank, when people are queuing to do transactions; they all to go to the front of the queue because they can pay a higher fee.
st
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
letting a queue form, to do "banking" transactions, based on fees. that policy was faulty from the start and the result is now visible.
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
i guess the policy of maximum fees made the quick expansion of the network possible, which counts in the policy's favor.
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
if the problem is primarily about making it pofitable e.
enough to be a miner, rather print more ETH. don't let users carry the burden. if more ETH is printed investors will carry more of the cost because then the ETH price will increase less. something like that.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop
OK, yea, now I’m understanding better. I’ve heard of other people ending up paying obscenely high fees. It sounds like what you experienced is a real problem Vitalik, and others are attempting to fix with EIP 1559. https://medium.com/@TrustlessState/eip-1559-the-final-puzzle-piece-to-ethereums-monetary-policy-58802ab28a27. However, some people are objecting to this change, so we just started a petition topic https://canonizer.com/topic/170-EIP-1559-Topic/1-Agreement to help build and track consensus on this as a solution. You could help us immensely to push this through, by supporting the consensus camp. It does require registration, to guarantee unique identity of supporters.
Greerso
@greerso
This isnt how any of this works. 1559 doesnt fix it either, the fees still need to be paid, they just get burned.
If a block has enough space for 100 tx and there are 1000tx the 100 highest bidders get in, the others go to the back of the line.
Miners arent setting the high gas fees or trying to extort more from you. If one miner did, another miner would step in.
this probably isnt the place for this discussion
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
i don't know of another place to raise serious problems about ETH governance. i seriously use the blockchain but am not a programmer with solidity etc.. using the infrastructure as supplied. please bear with me. had a look at canonizer, but did not use it. it seems too far out of my sphere of influence. please take note: i saw nothing in EIP 1559 to stop paying fees for failed transactions. that should stop without any doubt. whether a tip system should be implemented: a tip system should not be implemented because one of the main reasons cryptocurrency came into being is to counter the current fiat system's stealing of "intelligence" and transferring it to the powerful and rich, who develop others' ideas. a tip system will continue that because it will effectively place power in the hands of the rich, not in the hands of the innovative. a low fee per transaction should be the same for everyone.
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
first come first serve is the best policy. everyone must queue and wait to transact, being treated as equals. if it becomes relevant at investing, for example, selling/ buying etc., those who first get the good ideas will transact first; not the "intelligence" community, after "imparting of ideas", a fallacious utilitarian human right in utilitarian country Constitutions.
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
i opened a canonizer account and posted about EIP 1559 at: https://canonizer.com/forum/170-EIP-1559-Topic/1-Agreement/threads/365
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
Brent Allsop, i read the whole whitepaper of Canonizer. I qualified as Chartered Accountant (CA(SA)) during 1994 and researched "Accounting of/for Ideas" completing a Master of Philosophy in Philosophy degree during 2015. My work on the Ethereum blockchain grew out of 3 degrees, a professional accounting qualification, 10 years of financial management experience, 10 years of entrepreneural experience and 10 years academic research about my previous work experience. I left academia to develop Ipparts Exchange (IPPAEX) and a new political party (Federal Party SA - FPSA), aiming to unite left and right in one party in South Africa. FPSA could be the first political party benefitting from issuing of ERC20 tokens to raise funds and motivate politicians to act morally. I see you co-wrote the whitepaper and it seems you also have a philosophy background. It was the first paper i read fully in a long time. My views are based on my philosophy Intequinism. Intequity is a new word meaning capital of ideas. For 1000s of years, capitals of ideas have been important but a word never formed to name capital of ideas (intequity). Would you please let me know if my comment about EIP 1559 is not presented correct on canonizer's website. Philosophy about intequity is important in this regard, as it is very relevant with regard to EIP 1559.
Greerso
@greerso
“First come first served” isnt possible on a p2p network. The first tx my node sees in the US isnt the first tx, f2 pools node sees in China.
This isnt a governance issue it is a scaling issue.
The design of the network is such that there is a fee market for transactions to make it into blocks.
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
Does that mean the closest node to a customer, sees the customer's transaction first? Does it mean, if an enemy neighbor is a miner, he can identify enemies' transactions and influence mining negatively for those transactions.
Brent Allsop
@BrentAllsop

This isn't a governance issue it is a scaling issue.

I bet that if there were enough people to build and track a near unanimous consensus for anything like this, someone would find a way to make something at least close to this, work. Building enough consensus is the only hard part. Everything after that is easy.

And I bet the first crypto to achieve the ability to do things like that, without governance or censoring, just building and tracking consensus, will not only out compete all other cryptos, but will finally be able to scale large enough to start taking down HUGE established hierarches.
As long as cryptos keep forking, we won't be able to scale large enough to compete with much larger hierarchies.
Marquard Dirk Pienaar
@mdpienaar
The 276 USD fee was mined in China as far as i can see. It raises questions. Why wasn't the big fee mined in South Africa, where i initiated the transaction, reading that nodes in SA saw the transaction first. It was mined quickly. I'd guess in less than 20 seconds. Could it be a faster computer in China? I don't know. It's kind of de'moral'izing.
Greerso
@greerso

The 276 USD fee was mined in China as far as i can see. It raises questions. Why wasn't the big fee mined in South Africa, where i initiated the transaction, reading that nodes in SA saw the transaction first. It was mined quickly. I'd guess in less than 20 seconds. Could it be a faster computer in China? I don't know. It's kind of de'moral'izing.

Miners order transactions by bid price, every miner has access to every transaction in the mempool (each node has its own mempool), the order is just different between nodes. There is nothing nefarious happening, it is how the network is designed.

The problem you're having is blocks are full and DeFi creates a lot of traffic. People have CDP's worth millions and when price is volatile blocks fill with transactions. those people will pay hundreds in fee's to not lose thousands or millions and the rest of us can wait or pay high fee's too.
Greerso
@greerso
Actually start with the Bitcoin whitepaper, it does a great job of explaining the nature of p2p transactions and the problem of timestamping

As long as cryptos keep forking, we won't be able to scale large enough to compete with much larger hierarchies.

you'll never get 100% consensus. As long as there is 1 guy that wants bigger blocks you'll have a fork with bigger blocks.
Bitcoin solved trustless consensus with Proof of Work already.
Another interesting example of people coming to consensus over real world things is Auger, look past the gambling and at how the protocol works. It is a great way of finding the truth according to the majority while disincentivizing bad actors.