/biz/ - Business & Finance

In the third genuine attempt to get a single valid reply:
ETH is taking the wrong route to scale, Or at least the incomplete and lazy route (Basically gave up on trying to scale and let 3rd parties do all the work). The roadmap isn't future proof, And by that i mean in terms of elegance and security, Scaling through L2s is a very bad idea long term, I can't even imagine a whole financial system worth trillions of dollar being at such a risk of:
>Running on the most complex contract known in cryptography, This open the floodgates for the sophisticated hackers to find endless vulnerabilities
>Unconstrained circuits means ZK can lead to silent exploits, Meaning hacks that go unidentified, More so, It allow in some cases random proofs who don't even make sense to be accepted. This is dangerous to the point it's irresponsible ever shilling this kind of tech in parallel to "security" let alone one who should run the whole financial system
>Extremely centralized by nature and parasitic on its users, Decentralizing the sequencers will come at cost of scaling and then you get to point zero and ask yourself wtf is even the point of this shit?
>Will face state-bloat problems like any L1 that doesn't scale horizontally, especially ZKEVM which's the most overrated shit the Ethereum community ever shilled
>Countless of additional security assumptions that make this thing inherently more insecure than most garbage L1s out there despite the "shared security" red herring and frankly, sociopathic and delusional narrative i see circulating at the moment

We're pushing scaling narratives that's limited to ETH limitations, This is disgusting and definitely not how this space should progress, I believe the ETH maxis phenomenon is considerably more dangerous and juvenile than BTC maxis

ETH is taking the wrong route to scale, Or at least the incomplete and lazy route (Basically gave up on trying to scale and let 3rd parties do all the work). The roadmap isn't future proof, And by that i mean in terms of elegance and security, Scaling through L2s is a very bad idea long term, I can't even imagine a whole financial system worth trillions of dollar being at such a risk of:
>Running on the most complex contract known in cryptography, This open the floodgates for the sophisticated hackers to find endless vulnerabilities
>Unconstrained circuits means ZK can lead to silent exploits, Meaning hacks that go unidentified, More so, It allow in some cases random proofs who don't even make sense to be accepted. This is dangerous to the point it's irresponsible ever shilling this kind of tech in parallel to "security" let alone one who should run the whole financial system
>Extremely centralized by nature and parasitic on its users, Decentralizing the sequencers will come at cost of scaling and then you get to point zero and ask yourself wtf is even the point of this shit?
>Will face state-bloat problems like any L1 that doesn't scale horizontally, especially ZKEVM which's the most overrated shit the Ethereum community ever shilled
>Countless of additional security assumptions that make this thing inherently more insecure than most garbage L1s out there despite the "shared security" red herring and frankly, sociopathic and delusional narrative i see circulating at the moment
>Upgradeability risk

We're pushing scaling narratives that limited to ETH limitations, This is disgusting and definitely not how this space should progress, I believe the ETH maxis phenomenon is considerably more dangerous and juvenile than BTC maxis.

Especially appchains that can communicate with each other fast and achieve fast state transition. I've read a lot about Rollups and came to the conclusion that they're only good for very specific use case, In practically 90% of the use cases Appchains seem to come on top, It's all about efficiency, Appchains finalise in seconds/minutes compared to hours/weeks on Rollups, No storage wasted on DA, No delays, *Much* less complexity (thus far less susceptible to implementation bugs which correspond to 98% of all bugs, as much as design enthusiasts want you believe otherwise), No centralised sequencers issue, no MEV overload, Better UI (Rollups require many steps which go over the head of your average transactor) And most importantly, No fragmentation issues (Rollups can't communicate with each other, Leading to fragmented liquidity).

I just don't see the appeal, To me it seems like Ethereum only solution was L2s, A forced solution due to technical debt (Changes to the protocol itself at this point are extremely risky+tough to pull, So third party solutions like L2s are more convenient), And because Ethereum community dominate the sphere they pushed half baked, inefficient "solution" (more like narrative) which everyone accept thanks to the authority ETH have on this space.

What's the future look like ETH bros? Is ZKsync the L2 to take over all L2s?

https://twitter.com/zmanian/status/1539656767679844352

And help AVAX rise against this blatant BCS scam, We all know ETH isn't in position to progress things but AVAX is in prime position, We need to inject the same philosophy that this space even arise for (The one that lead ETH to get adopted to begin with) rightnow more than ever, If the BCS disgusting scam will continue to a point it'll be more valuable than those same projects who serve the same philosophy i'm talking about it may very well signal the end of crypto or at best the end of this cycle.

Swallow your pride, We need a decentralized protocol that can scale (Avalanche is the only one btw, despite what many others claim), We need a decentralized DEX that can stop braindeads from flowing into CZ ponzi and we all know that UNI can't do that with the current limitation of ETH 1.0, It's just the logical choice in barely logical space, I hope the good guys will win for once.

Personally I think we're looking at 2250 or so

>Ethereum:1.2M. 6 years old.
>Cardano:10K. 3 years old.
>Avalanche:45K. 5 months old.
>Polkadot:5.5K. 1 year old.
>Cosmos:14.4K. 2 years old.
>Celo:3.3K. 8 months old.
>Elrond:1.8K. 4 months old.
>Fantom:5.1K. 2 years old.

The idea that only 1 chain will stay standing is retarded, Not only because there isn't any chain that can fulfil every niche but because the risk of 1 chain functioning is big, System always have bugs, They go through forks, Hacks etc. Imagine putting the world finance in the hands of 1 chain, What if Ethereum experience another network stall (Not even hacks like it had in the past), Even if it'll be back on track soon and there's no security risk you can't just stall large portion of the world economy, and that's where multiple chains solution come in handy, If 1 chain stuck temporarily then the other one will fulfil the rest, Funds will be diversified across multiple chains so traction couldn't be halted even for a couple of hours.

What you really need to think about is what purpose each chain bring that the other don't or just do better than the others, For example you can separate it for smart contracts, payments, NFT's, IOT etc etc.

Go look at Zilliqa network sharding, As somebody who held this shit for years, I can tell you sharding doesn't work and buggy as hell, Zilliqa chain stuck for more than 50 times already, The block time is long af too.

Sharding just overcomplicate the system to a point you'll see a new bug in ETH 2.0 every three days, It's not a solution.

Between February 13 and February 16, one ETH will be between $1490 and $1540.

And maxis here even dare to propose this solution kek

What is Ethereum's future? It seems like it's where Bitcoin was 5-6 years ago, and bearing that in mind is it safe to assume that in that same time it could be where Bitcoin is now? I dropped 3k on some ETH a few days ago and am good for another 3 once the price goes down a bit, but I'd like your opinions.

Also redpill me on Monero. It seems like as long it stays private it will always have a place, but that privacy aspect will also prevent government acceptance,and thus a value increase. Thinking of buying 20 XMR based on what I hear here.

>He think eth 2.0 is actually a good platform to drive us into 20T+ market with their 6m finality, unreliable centralized L2 and overly complex sharding that's yet to be even understood (meaning each problem will be more significant)
>He think eth 2.0 is a better long term solution than just switching to dfinity or avalanche
>He think the market "should" wait 3+ years for this incomplete theoretical solution to come into fruition
>He think it's ok that ETH currently halt this whole space growth

At this point you're emotional investor because investing in ETH is clearly short sighted and full of meme reasoning like "network effect" , fucking 99% shitcoins that at best created a meme cat game which btw can ported as soon other L1 will develop their easily portable bridges.

>He think eth 2.0 is a better long term solution than just switching to dfinity or avalanche
>He think eth 2.0 is actually a good platform to drive us into 20T+ market with their 6m finality, unreliable centralized L2 and overly complex sharding that's yet to be even understood (meaning each problem will be more significant)
>He think the market "should" wait 3+ years for this incomplete theoretical solution to come into fruition
>He think it's ok that ETH currently halt this whole space growth

At this point you're emotional investor because investing in ETH is clearly short sighted and full of meme reasoning like "network effect" , fucking 99% shitcoins that at best created a meme cat game which btw can ported as soon other L1 will develop their easily portable bridges.

You know who you are. Your chance might come soon. Watch carefully! Watch BTC carefully! If BTC begins dumping before ETH reaches 1400, then forget about the "1400" figure and sell just below it.

How low will it go?

They're now switching focus from state sharding to L2, Is this the tech we want to carry the whole space going toward during the most important years for adoption? We're very early, much earlier than historical flippening of market leaders, Ethereum just isn't future proof and can never be.

A fresh base is REQUIRED, Who would it be it's debatable, But i narrowed it down to 2 options.

Because it's not future proof, We need a fresh base, ETH just wouldn't be able to keep up with blockchain developments in the upcoming years, As you can see with how much time it takes for ETH 2.0 to be live, And even that wouldn't top the best platforms in the market rightnow, What's next? ETH 3.0 in 2035 for an upgrade that will still put it in inferior position to platforms we've rightnow? Decorating the chain with Layer 0/2 ISN'T future proof, It'll halt the whole progress of this space, If you believe in the same vision ETH offer then you should be against Ethereum being the face of smart contracts as it'll doom this whole space.

This space is too young to think Ethereum will be hard to replace, It's naive and very short sighted

And the beginning of the flippening of Avalanche and Dfinity.

Ethereum might halt this whole DeFi and crypto run in its current state, Whales know that and they won't let the bull market slip away. Exactly by the time the 2 best projects that ever graced the market are finally launch/mature. You heard it here first. Cap this.

And the beginning of the flippening of Avalanche and Dfinity.

Ethereum might halt this whole DeFi and crypto run in its current state, Whales know that and they won't let the bull market slip away. Exactly by the time the 2 best projects that ever graced the market are finally launch/mature. You heard it here first. Cap this.