Will ETH killers like SOL, AVAX, ATOM, DOT pump more than ETH during ETH merge?

[Anonymous No.50442875]

historically they pump even higher during ETH run, will this time be different?

[Anonymous No.50442953]

>>50442875
Let ask you...

>Do you seriously ask the question if SOL AVAX and other shitcoins will moon more than ETH during a event that people have been waiting for 3+ years

[Anonymous No.50442980]

>>50442953
Yes they will anyway, they are basically a levereged eth.

[Anonymous No.50443183]

>>50442980
>they are basically a levereged eth.
In a hype cycle, but in reality they are VC pump and dumps, Insiders hold well over 40% of avax supply, you think they care about the future of their meme unscalable speed chain? Fuck no, it's all a ruse to make retail think that it's leveraged eth and when you buy, they sell.

[Anonymous No.50443241]

>>50443183
I absolutely agree with you, but the point still stands that they will most likely pump more and then rug like a motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.50443366]

>>50442953
>avax, shitcoin
just spent a weekend in Brooklyn detailing how they are have already eaten up the defi space. it's a bluechip now anon. Merge will be a nothing burger for the network because it doesn't solve the consensus issues, the market cap will flow in Avalanche.

[Anonymous No.50443371]

>>50443241

[Anonymous No.50443416]

>>50443366
>just spent a weekend in Brooklyn detailing how they are have already eaten up the defi space
They are a fucking EVM chain where people copy pasted contracts into fueled by VC capital, my guy if you are this new and are not willing to listen to reason I'm not sure what to tell you

>... if you think a huge budget to paper over a lack of real product with marketing hype matters most, if you think huge ostentatious "community events" are all that matter (and yet nothing new can ever be built because the product has the same limitations as the projects it was supposed to surpass), if you think that POW was so last decade and that POS's march towards digital feudalism is for the best because the feudal lords will treat us well...

[Anonymous No.50443526]

>>50443416
Avalanche isn't an "EVM chain" you mongoloid retard, it supports any VM and isn't comparable to any L1. It's pretty much Cosmos V2.

[Anonymous No.50443553]

>>50443526
Cosmos is a hub-and-spoke chain, Avax are 3 chains while larping as cosmos even though subnets are no better than L2, in fact, they are much worse than L2, now they admit that it's just side chains (which historically has never worked mind you)
I'm not sure what people see in this joke of a VC scam

[Anonymous No.50443675]

>>50443416
>They are a fucking EVM
oh you poor boy, about the loose all his mETH money.

[Anonymous No.50443766]

>>50443553
>subnets are no better than L2
Cringe Meffereumnigger detected, opinion invalidated

[Anonymous No.50443814]

>>50443766
Are you retarded, L2 takes security from the L1, it is it's own blockchain much like a side chain and bridges without issue thanks to also being a smart contract on the L1.
Side chains have their own security properties and require a bridge to work, you might solve bridging with some avax dogshit solution but you cannot solve for security.

By all metrics, side chains are infinitely worse than L2. And I personally think L2 isn't even that great to begin with.

[Anonymous No.50444301]

>>50442875
What exactly is giving the notion that these are Ethereum killers?
>SOL, AVAX, c'mon give me a break.
These tokens have their utilities and so does mid caps like RIDE which are placing metaverse, NFTs, Web3 all in itself.

[Anonymous No.50444737]

>>50443526
>>50443675
show me any contract chain on avalanche that isn't running EVM

[Anonymous No.50445289]

>>50444737
https://twitter.com/ItaCraft/status/1508041807044694023

[Anonymous No.50445478]

>>50445289
good proof of concept, but he's running it locally and it's not on avalanche's network itself

[Anonymous No.50446805]

>>50443416
avax is vm agnostic. emin has said he think the evm is kinda shit and they made many terrible decisions when developing it. he is making an improved one for avax, they just want to yoink all the network effects from eth first. the failure or underwhelmingness of the merge will be a great time for this

[Anonymous No.50446888]

Polygon is dropping a zkEVM tomorrow bitches, there will literally be no use for these other shit chains anymore.

[Anonymous No.50447298]

>>50442875
I doubt if that's happening. I'm more confident on Polkadot though. Its massive ecosystem is heating up with project such as subsquid that recently launches its firesquid product. That's fire indeed as it can index the likes of Kusama in 15 minutes and it's fucking done. Next...

[Anonymous No.50447327]

>>50446888
Dotsama has been dropping powerful parachains out there with super data indexing protocols. Watch it out

[Anonymous No.50447410]

>>50444737
It's nothing. There's nothing. Don't waste your time

[Anonymous No.50449088]

>>50443814
>and require a bridge to work
Chainlinks CCIP solves this, a Chainlink Subnet is already in the works too.

>some avax dogshit solution
The ETH and BTC bridge use improved SGX technology and are secure, have moved billions of Dollars already and werent hacked once unlike all the other shitty bridges made by other loser L1s.

[Anonymous No.50450972]

>>50443553
ATOM is a just bunch of chains bridged through IBC. DOT is the real hub-and-spoke chain, but it's limited to 100 parachains and small validator sets because of Nakamoto consensus. Avalanche takes the best of Cosmos and DOT and uses Avalanche consensus' unlimited validator cap to remove limits on the hub size.
Every validator is part of the hub (in AVAX's case the 3 primary networks), but it's not really a hub because the 'spokes' sit inside of it. Subnets sit inside the hub, rather than outside. Pic explains it better.

[Anonymous No.50451212]

>le merge
will not decrease fees
will slow finality down to 14 minutes

[Anonymous No.50451587]

>>50449088
>The ETH and BTC bridge use improved SGX technology
Meaning It's centralized and one guy has the fucking key

[Anonymous No.50451749]

>>50443183
>do you think investors care about avax hosting a part of real world tokenized finance and reaching 4 digits?

[Anonymous No.50451784]

>>50451587
there are 8 keys held across 8 different companies and 6 of them are needed to modify the Intel SGX enclave where the bridging code sits.

some info on how bridges work and how AVAX's Intel SGX bridges work specifically
>https://youtu.be/Pe4NNonC4oA?t=8197

[Anonymous No.50451807]

>>50451784
Firstly, theoretically intel has the keys, you can't deny that, they might not use them because avax is a dead chain walking but worth keeping in mind.
Secondly, like I said it's a centralized chain, 6 keys controlling billions in tvl. Disaster waiting to happen.

[Anonymous No.50451948]

>>50446888

[Anonymous No.50451980]

>>50451807
>intel has the keys, you can't deny that
lmao, do you think that SGX is like AWS, a cloud service? you really are clueless. You should have done a 3 second google search and got this
>hardware-based memory encryption that isolates specific application code and data in memory
this means that the code running the bridge is in a locked down enclave completely segregated from the rest of your server/computer.
>6 keys controlling billions
it's only growing in decentralization, started as 3/4 and now 6/8. And the majority of bridges are already less decentralized than this. They are also more expensive. There is no perfect bridge, but AVAX has the best bridge. Also no one has to use bridge if they don't want to, feel free to go through centralized exchanges to swap tokens if you find that safer. But currently AVAX has the most secure, cheapest. and fastest bridge via exploiting breakthroughs in encrpytion.

[Anonymous No.50452103]

>>50451980
>do you think that SGX is like AWS, a cloud service?
Are you retarded, that is not what I said, Intel is making the fucking CPU, so you're relying on the company that manufactures the TEE hardware (typically a single CPU manufacturer) with the keys to everything.

[Anonymous No.50452253]

>>50451784
>>50451980
> there are 8 keys held across 8 different companies and 6 of them are needed to modify the Intel SGX enclave where the bridging code sits.
> it's only growing in decentralization, started as 3/4 and now 6/8.
Intel SGX or not It's still just a glorified multisig bridge, we've move beyond those due to their obvious weaknesses:
- https://blog.connext.network/the-interoperability-trilemma-657c2cf69f17
- https://blog.connext.network/optimistic-bridges-fb800dc7b0e0

[Anonymous No.50452362]

>>50449088
>>50451587
>>50451784
>>50451980
>>50452103
Considering AMD SME/SEV and ARM TrustZone also exist, then surely Intel SGX isn't the only supported TEE, right?

[Anonymous No.50452383]

>>50452103
You said "intel has the keys" as in the company Intel itself has access to the keys. I chose to interpret that as the less retarded version of you thinking that SGX was a remote service provided by Intel.
But from what you are saying it was actually the more retarded option, that 'Intel has backdoor access to all TEE it has ever manufactured'. Well pardon me for overestimating you intelligence. Won't happen again.

>>50452253
yes, in the end it's multisig and obviously a trustless bridge would be ideal, but those don't exist yet and may never exist.

[Anonymous No.50452413]

>>50452383
> But from what you are saying it was actually the more retarded option, that 'Intel has backdoor access to all TEE it has ever manufactured'. Well pardon me for overestimating you intelligence. Won't happen again.
The backdoor theories don't come from nothing, anon: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/what-the-government-shouldve-learned-about-backdoors-from-the-clipper-chip/

[Anonymous No.50452429]

>>50452383
You are retarded if you think they don't have a backdoor.

[Anonymous No.50452495]

>>50452362
I don't know why they chose Intel SGX over the others. All those mentioned have technical differences. From this paper
>https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3214292.3214301
It seems that Intel SGX is best for "strong memory integrity protection
and it is suited for small but highly security-sensitive applications" compared to its competitors

>>50452413
>>50452429
Of course I recognize the (small) possibility, but Intel backdoors break just about every security assumption. If that were the case then all of crypto is in danger, not just 6/8 multi-sigs. That's why it's not really worth thinking about when comparing crypto to crypto. They are all equally fucked and fucked in ways that go far beyond bridges.

>>50452429
if this were discovered you would see Intel collapse. It's incredibly dangerous for a company like Intel to place backdoors because all it would take would be for a disgruntled employee to leak the backdoor to hacker groups, or sell it to them, and that would be the end. Imagine all the government and military computers that would be made vulnerable. Intel would get fucked so hard it would be biblical. Think about it, profit incentive to risk ratio of adding a back door just isn't there.

[Anonymous No.50452581]

>>50452495
>Intel backdoors break just about every security assumption
Intel backdoor has nothing to do with Proof of Work hashing (for example), you are retarded.
>Imagine all the government and military computers
The government are the ones with the key

[Anonymous No.50452602]

>>50452495
> It seems that Intel SGX is best for "strong memory integrity protection
and it is suited for small but highly security-sensitive applications" compared to its competitors
As a decentralized network they could have all three and continuously add whatever comes later, so why wouldn't they?

[Anonymous No.50452614]

when will people realize that there's no eth killer. there's ethereum and Matic scaling its network to make it faster and cheaper for everyone. how are we considering solana an eth killer when its network is down the majority of the time

[Anonymous No.50452629]

>>50452495
> It seems that Intel SGX is best for "strong memory integrity protection
> and it is suited for small but highly security-sensitive applications" compared to its competitors
As a decentralized network they could have all three and continuously add whatever comes later, so why wouldn't they?

[Anonymous No.50452656]

>>50452614
> how are we considering solana an eth killer when its network is down the majority of the time
Picrel.
Inb4 "SOL haters only have one joke": Your network is the joke.

[Anonymous No.50452801]

>>50452629
I think that would only expand the attack surface since you would just be creating multiple versions of the same TEE. Hack one and you hack them all, but I'm not sure. Maybe they could implement it in a way where you would need to back door every TEE. Then again, no one in the crypto space takes backdoors seriously, so they probably didn't bother to even think about that threat.

>>50452581
doesn't matter how secure PoW is when the wallet keys can be looted by rogue CIA spooks. Not even ledger can protect you if your CPU is compromised. Back door scenario is doomsday.

>The government are the ones with the key
In the scenario I described where a rogue actor gets the backdoor keys then the government becomes the victim as well. They would throw Intel under the bus even if it was the government's idea in the first place. This is why 'back door theory' is retarded. And if the government had the keys then they would probably be the ones leaking them, if you know anything about intelligence community culture then it's essentially guaranteed. They are paid liars with zero loyalty. You would also have a few Snowdens come out as well.

[Anonymous No.50452930]

>>50452801
> I think that would only expand the attack surface since you would just be creating multiple versions of the same TEE.
Imagine a different kind of attack, like an extension of the US export restrictions for advanced cryptography. Specifically, usage of TEE now requires a valid license, much like some API access does.
Supporting multiple TEEs would make this kind of sabotage much more difficult, hell a future RISC-V TEE could even completely prevent it.

[Anonymous No.50453086]

>>50452930
>usage of TEE now requires a valid license
I think this and a lot of what you mentioned would be near impossible to enforce effectively, especially if it was just the US. Maybe some kind of organized worldwide encryption crackdown could do it.
But, if it does happen it's good to know we have options to circumvent it and maybe the fact there are circumventions is a reason why governments won't be bothered to even try.