https://twitter.com/indosat/status/1570322826363559936
What's more worrying is that people are sending ETH to the scammers wallet: https://etherscan.io/address/0x266cfB7f9c908591FD69d79Dd46B4...
Currently at: $57k USD!
Someone recently sent $12k USD! https://etherscan.io/tx/0x30661485e12c1e3991369110b6a511f9c2...
From a technical perspective, I don't know how a consensus mechanism moving from a system for which slowness/hardness is the mechanism...to instead moving to a system for which slowness need not even be a factor, could possibly not result in faster transaction speeds.
Network capacity isn't affected because the amount of data exchanged is the same.
Gas prices isn't affected because gas price is only correlated with the transactions per second (which isn't changed as transaction time isn't changed) and demand and supply for transactions. When lots of people need to make transactions, demand goes up and price goes up. Vice versa. This is the same with other chains too.
Some chains intentionally lower the transaction time to increase throughput to achieve a lower gas fee, but the disadvantage is that only fast peers can verify the transactions fast enough which leads to centralization.
That's good software engineering practice when you have hundreds of billions at stake. Minimize the bug surface.
Furthermore there are other concerns, Ethereum prides itself in running on the most modest of hardware. Many stakers are staking on Raspberry Pi 4.
A blockchain with large transaction speed require very powerful machines. It becomes impossible to sync with less than 1Gbps of bandwidth and storage cost becomes prohibitive.
Doing so before implementing state expiry/rent to reflect the cost of storing data in a blockchain will reduce decentralization as hardware requirements require professionalization of node operators.
Furthermore there is the rollup-centric roadmap for future scalability: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/r26hhv/rollupce...
Decentralization is good and is challenging to scale. I see eth making the right moves to keep the chain decentralized and accesible to those running nodes at home.
Slowness is not the mechanism, ETH had ~13 second block times before the merge. Bitcoin is slow because the difficulty is targeting longer block times, not because of inherent need for slowness. Difficulty is only required so that adverserial agents (with less than 51% of hashpower) can't rewrite the chain and change transactions.
22000x less energy consumed than Youtube or gold mining and 10000x less than Netflix.
It's so barely different to an actual twitter thread where the same person is saying all three parts.
It would decrease engagement. A significant portion of Twitter is bots and fake profiles/scams and Twitter isn't best known for caring about users or being honest.
More engagement (even if from fake profiles) = more ads to show = more money.
This would decrease trust in the platform in the long run for sure but they probably think they're too big to fail without a good competition anyway.
I'm surprised bots actually load ads.
Seriously why isn't there a UN summit to tackle the Crypto problem?
If any major crypto project has the chance of one day becoming useful at anything, my bet would be on this one.
I am with Hal Finney here: Any successful replacement of the Bitcoin block chain will forever undermine the credibility of any successor. How is an investor to know that it won't happen again?
Rebooting now may benefit a few thousand early adopters. What happens when hundreds of millions use Bitcoin 2? They'll be just as jealous and envious of you as you are of others. Given the precedent you want to set, how will you argue against yet another reboot?
There is no point in ETH except making money.