Token Daily

2

3

2

3

2

3

2

3

2 2

25 3

spannerfilms 18 mins ago

Airborne aids

2

Imadethis4things 21 mins ago

Who owns the Coronavirus patent?

1

mmm_toasty PhD Student | Data Science | Population Health Inf 24 mins ago

Hi Aleister_Beast, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

It does not reference new peer-reviewed research and is therefore in violation of Submission Rule #1. Please consider reposting in our sister subreddit /r/EverythingScience.

If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to message the mods.

1

Regenerative_Med_Bot Submission Bot 26 mins ago

This is a crosspost from /r/science. Here is the link to the original thread: /r/science/comments/fah2yc/coronavirus_far_more_likely_than_sars_to_bond_to/

1

DogMeatTalk 1 h ago

When did it undergo this HIV mutation ?

2

SadSoggySandwich 1 h ago

Someone posted on here that it affects the male reproductive system.

1

WhiteDarknight 1 h ago

"HIV-like mutation," well that's comforting!

1

broglesby74 2 hs ago

Mad scientists doing mad things. I'm not stating it was created in a lab but if not, nature has no sense of humor.

1

barrett133 2 hs ago

My son came to me in December and told me there was a virus with no vaccine or cure. I laughed. I started watching the World Clock climb really fast. That scared me as a mother. I watched Donald Trump go against CDC advice and dump the passengers of the Diamond Princess into the United States. That man should not be allowed to make a decision regarding Public Health. I am a PUBLIC EDUCATOR and know how quickly viruses spread and how hard they can be to contain.

If one American dies from coronavirus. I will hold Donald Trump personally responsible. Always listen to the CDC.

3

chosenlyquarks 1 h ago

While trump is meh on a good day, The likelihood of containment rests not only on the US but other countries. Statistically the more epicenters the less likely it will be contained. Also the cost in lives of an economic downturn should not be unappreciated. This will already have far reaching effects supply chain wise and will take a long time to correct.

2

steelreal 1 h ago

So will you also hold him responsible for all the infections he prevented by cutting off flights to china early on?

2

barrett133 2 hs ago

I have something to say and I want everyone in the United States to know. I sat right here on my couch in Alabama and watched Donald Trump dump an entire boat off that had the virus into our country. The Diamond Princess. He ignored CDC advice...and as a mother that makes me very mad. China was falling apart..I watched the World Climb very, very fast...and that scared me.

If one American dies from coronavirus. I will hold Donald Trump personally responsible. That man should not be allowed to make a decision regarding Public Health. As a public school teacher..I understand how quickly viruses can spread and how difficult it can be to contain them.

1

Sour_Octopus 2 hs ago

“Mutation”

We all know it was spliced in.

1

CruiseChallenge 2 hs ago

This was made at University of North Carolina in 2015 here is the paper on it.

By 2015, conducting research that was met with an enormous amount of concern, scientists at UNC had successfully created a “chimeric, SARS-like virus” by altering the viral genome of a Chinese bat coronavirus’s spike-protein genes – sequences that code for the spikes that poke out from surface of viruses and allow them to unlock entry into hosts, in this case making the bio-engineered coronavirus incredibly contagious.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/lab-made-coronavirus-triggers-debate-34502?archived_content=9BmGYHLCH6vLGNdd9YzYFAqV8S3Xw3L5

The same person was working in the P4 lab in Wuhan in 2019

https://harvardtothebighouse.com/2020/01/31/logistical-and-technical-analysis-of-the-origins-of-the-wuhan-coronavirus-2019-ncov/

6

Purplem00535 1 h ago

That lab-made Coronavirus was a gain of function study, meant for observing how the virus can evolve. Although it is irresponsible to do such studies with a live virus, it is NOT the SARS-CoV-2/CoVID-19. That is a conspiracy theory peddled by insufferable hacks like Alex Jones and Mike Adams to drive sales of survival food buckets. Also, preprints are bullshit. They have NOT been peer-reviewed nor subjected to the scrutiny required to meet the standards of medical journals such as New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet.

1

HipsterCavemanDJ 1 h ago

This is... unsettling

1

lisa0527 3 hs ago

This article has been posted numerous times. Here’s a link to the original paper. It’s not peer reviewed so take it with a grain of salt:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.20.958272v1

Here’s the really concerning bit: longer incubation and higher viral load.

“Interestingly, we found that the slower association between virus and receptor can result in LONGER INCUBATION PERIOD, while still maintaining a relatively HIGHER LEVEL OF VIRAL CONCENTRATION in human body. Our computational study therefore provides, from the molecular level, one possible explanation that the new disease by far spread much faster than SARS”.

4

throw---away55 3 hs ago

SARS is a coronavirus. There are 100s of types of coronavirus, from the common cold to covid-19

4

ruphysical 3 hs ago

There had been previous research, published a few weeks ago, pointing to a similar amino acid sequence in COVID-19 to that of HIV's gp120 & Gag protein. There is active discussion in the scientific community that for this mutation to have occurred "naturally" there would need to be a very "unique" set of circumstances occurring at the same time. Taking this into consideration along with the information that COVID-19 did not come from the Wuhan seafood market, as was first reported, does conjure up many questions. Whether or not these questions are being posed behind closed doors by leaders in government, that is the question.... if not, then they should be. Life often imitates art....there are many historical fiction novels that have explored just this type of manifestation occurring, what if anything are we prepared to do about it to prevent future, perhaps even more lethal scenarios, from playing out?

7

seanotron_efflux 3 hs ago

For fuck sake, stupid misleading titles like these reignite all the conspiracy theorists to derail every conversation about this virus into "xD bioweapon!!!!!!"

2

MichaelBridges8 4 hs ago

Oh great its flying aids now/s

16

Ecclipsio 4 hs ago

I really wonder what this does to the body long-term. Time will tell...

3

TunaCandy 4 hs ago

That title is lowering the article's credibility.

10

th3allyK4t 4 hs ago

I hate to break it to you. This is sars in a brand new mean leather jacket.

0

trippknightly 4 hs ago

If you’re going to attempt hyperbolic metaphor you need to do better. Try SARS with a battering ram.

2

th3allyK4t 4 hs ago

Your metaphor is better.

1

ReservoirPenguin 4 hs ago

A couple of weeks ago there was a preprint from a rather obscure Indian research institute that found unexpected HIV like insertions into the Coronovirus genome. They also found that these mutations were inconsistent with natural evolution and basically hinted they were man-made.

1

ItsBobsonDugnutt 4 hs ago

So this is PROJECT BLUE/Captain Trips

3

XAos13 4 hs ago

So it might be a bio-weapon ?

3

den-kun 4 hs ago

Although most would say that’s a conspiracy theory it’s looking more plausible day after day. My theory is that level4 bio lab in wuhan was developing it for release in the Uighur population. Some lab attendant must’ve gotten sauced on Coronas and dropped the vial.

0

Wappa69 4 hs ago

yes i also believe that china was tuning the virus and that it was released by an accident and way too early.

1

BelieveInYourShelf 4 hs ago

They've made it to contagious, oops. .

0

Redpikes 4 hs ago

I thought it was more likely to be used for Hong Kong but they weren't supposed to release it until theres a cure

0

Chuzac1499 4 hs ago

These cleavage sites occur naturally as well especially in zoonotic diseases. So no jumping to conclusions yet lol

11

magicalmusketeer22 4 hs ago

And people were dismissing that Indian article and study

1

Sebastianx21 3 hs ago

I know the feeling, I got downvoted to hell yesterday for saying basically the same thing this article does, just in pleb-talk so the average person understands, but apparently I was "fear mongering" ? ? ? When after saying that I also specified that unless you're a newborn, extremely old and/or weak, or suffer from immunity or lung issues, then there's nothing to fear, common cold that usually leads to pneumonia, so if you ever had pneumonia once in your life (and most people had) then you've got nothing to fear

1

omnirai 4 hs ago

Rightly so, because that study was deeply flawed. Even if new findings vindicate their conclusion (and it does not, please read the Twitter thread by Dr Rasmussen posted somewhere in this thread), it doesn't change the fact that the study is junk.

11

slappingkick 4 hs ago

I don't think people were dismissing the study, but dismissing their conclusion that this new virus was man-made.

2

[deleted] 4 hs ago

[deleted]

0

thisismyeighthtry 4 hs ago

No, I clearly remember people dismissing it because everyone was concluding it was a bio weapon

2

Chuzac1499 4 hs ago

a good explanation by a virologist

Other viruses besides hiv and Ebola have cleavage sites like thisanother clear explanation

46

Acceleratio 42 mins ago

So this is like superaids. without all the irony?

1

Chuzac1499 41 mins ago

Not at all its nothing like aids or HIV

2

szzzn 4 hs ago

you had me at cleavage.

27

gamaray101 2 hs ago

😂😂😂 for the win!

0

omnirai 4 hs ago

This is the most important post in this thread.

18

Kenshin1283 4 hs ago

Stunning admission, really. All the Epidemiologists and virologists on Twitter had been yelling at anyone on Twitter that even mentioned it could have links to HIV just days ago.

Edit: quick edit, just to say check out the response below me. They obviously know more about Virology / microbiology than I do.

5

_codex_ 4 hs ago

Actually, it is a poorly worded article written by someone who doesn’t understand the science and is deliberately trying to get clicks by using the term “HIV-like”. People still need to be yelled at. Fact of the matter is, many types of viruses need something like furin to activate themselves. Furin is a protease, meaning something that cuts proteins. Usually the surface protein of a virus needs to be cut by such a protease before it can be used to enter cells. The special thing about furin is that it is present inside many types of cells. Viruses with surface proteins that can be cut by furin can therefore potentially infect a lot more types of cells. Take influenza viruses for example. The influenza surface protein is generally cut by proteases that are released by cells in the respiratory pathway. It can’t go elsewhere because other places, such as the bloodstream, doesn’t have those proteases floating around. On the other hand, dangerous H5N1 avian influenza viruses have what is called a “polybasic” site (RRKKR ... only about five amino acids! Not rare enough to require any relation to HIV) that allows their surface proteins to be cut by furin. This means that infection can spread out of the lungs and into the rest of the body, as long as those other cells also have the required receptor (the cellular protein that a virus recognizes and uses to enter a cell). And unlike for the COVID-19 virus, the H5N1 receptor is found in most organs of the body, EDIT: This [paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083689/) links to a furin cleavage sequence database containing “126 sequences from mammals, bacteria and viruses”. So highlighting HIV for the shock factor just demonstrates poor journalistic integrity.

21

Kenshin1283 3 hs ago

Thanks for this well written response. Very informative!

2

cumetar 4 hs ago

They said that Corona got links to HIV weeks ago

2

Mr_Snowfucker 4 hs ago

I remember late January whenever anyone even asked about the HIV links they got just a bandwagon of hate I even asked a question about it and was downvoted to absolute Oblivion And now..

0

Kenshin1283 4 hs ago

That Indian research paper got so much pushback from the epidemiology community it got taken down.

8

thisismyeighthtry 4 hs ago

It got taken down because it concluded the virus was a bio weapon

4

Kenshin1283 4 hs ago

I may be wrong, but I thought they just concluded that it was man-made, not that it was necessarily a bio weapon. You could man-make it for vaccine research purposes, not just for bio weapon purposes.

1

cumetar 4 hs ago

I got a trip to do in Italy on april.Do you think i should cancel it?

0

bikutorusan 3 hs ago

If I were you, I will.

5

SomeCoolBloke 4 hs ago

I don't know, should you?

1

2

16 3

scotty321 Yesterday

I love anything like this that makes cryptocurrency easier for new users! 😊🙌

Sadly, this Coinbase Wallet app (which is different than the normal Coinbase app) doesn’t really have the best user experience. In fact, it’s a pretty terrible experience that I would never recommend to anyone.

I sent some BCH to myself into this wallet app to test it out, and it took about 6 minutes before my successful transaction even APPEARED in this wallet. The transaction was still at 0-conf when it appeared 6 minutes later, so it’s not like the wallet app was waiting for 1-conf or anything like that. There was just a very, very long delay for this app to recognize that a transaction was completed. I tried refreshing the app and quitting & relaunching the app... but I still had to wait about 6 minutes for my received transaction to appear. This experience could be very unnerving for many users, because it could make them feel like their transaction got lost and their funds got lost.

Also, this wallet app only “recommends” BTC or Ethereum — but not BCH — in their list of “recommended crypto currencies”. So that’s another major fail.

Although it does send & receive BCH. If you wait long enough for the transaction to show up.

This wallet app from Coinbase makes me appreciate the stellar bitcoin.com wallet even more than I already did! Those guys at bitcoin.com really did an amazing job on their wallet app. Best of breed.

11

senpaiStevo Redditor for less than 60 days Yesterday

I’ve tried out the coinbase wallet and had the same issue. Constantly waiting. Looks nice but doesn’t feel like money. Electron while a desktop app mostly with lots of features and privacy is great for hardcore users. The bitcoin.com wallet is the fastest and most cash like experience for wallets I’ve tried. Let’s hope coinbase can learn from that.

11

scotty321 Yesterday

“Doesn’t feel like money.” This is such a fantastic point!! Even Venmo and PayPal are instantaneous. When you’re sitting around waiting for 6 minutes, that defeats the whole experience of what makes this technology so special. The Electron Cash wallet for iOS is great, too! But like you said, it’s mostly for advanced users.

5

saddit42 Yesterday

Cool and all. But I'd never give someone my ENS address instead of my eth address. Imagine someone pays you money several years in the future and you did not renew your ENS domain at that point..

2

265 Yesterday

AFAIK, you don't loose your ETH, it's just locked for a year. So, renewing should be trivial or automated.

1

saddit42 Yesterday

If you don't renew it at some point someone else can buy the ENS domain.. if not what would be the point of requiring a renewal?

1

BooksAndBooksAnd Redditor for less than 60 days Yesterday

That's why I refuse to use email.

2

saddit42 Yesterday

I don't usually receive cash by email. Also most mail providers don't have an expiration date

1

AutoModerator Yesterday

Join CryptSter - Crypto Social Network +MarketPlace | +Business Pages | +Groups | +Forums and more! Crypto Business Directory, list your business now!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

senpaiStevo Redditor for less than 60 days Yesterday

Anyone know if they’re using cash accounts or something else? I remember hearing about some other name services that were taking off with eth

5

scotty321 Yesterday

They are using their own internal database of usernames, as far as I can tell. Not sure what the backend is.

0

sid_toshi Yesterday

Wallet supports both the internal username system and the public ENS system.

9

scotty321 Yesterday

Thanks! I wonder how they link the internal username system to a specific wallet, if it’s supposed to be a **non-custodial** wallet?? How can they link a username to the set of seed words which comprise the wallet’s addresses? Or maybe it’s a semi-custodial wallet.

0

throwawayo12345 Yesterday

It's ENS (Ethereum Name Service) https://www.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/f9j36l/coinbase_wallet_launches_ens_support

16

Egon_1 Bitcoin Enthusiast Yesterday

The Coinbase Wallet app is Coinbase’s user-controlled cryptocurrency wallet. With Coinbase.com, you can buy crypto and Coinbase stores it (along with your private keys) for you; with Coinbase Wallet, you store your own crypto (safeguarded by a private key that only you know).

4

wtfCraigwtf Yesterday

and the wallet has a bonus feature: all of your transactions are automagically reported to the IRS! /s

5

ourielohayon Yesterday

problem with ENS is that everyone will know exactly what you do after they know your ENS

6

Zitto93 Yesterday

wouldn't they know that with you 0x.. address too?

4

ourielohayon Yesterday

Good point. But you can easily move to another 0x. Your ens follows you no matter with 0x it’s paired with

0

Zitto93 Yesterday

you could also easily move to another address from your ENS? No matter what, public chains are public, and everyone can see your activities, unless you coinjoin.

6

ourielohayon Yesterday

https://decrypt.co/19423/we-tracked-133000-ethereum-names-and-exposed-their-secrets

0

brantlymillegan Yesterday

ENS doesn't solve, and doesn't attempt to solve, chain analysis, which is something that exists without ENS.

2

ourielohayon Yesterday

This is not the point. Once a ens is set it s much more complicated to reset to a new address and therefore likely to be more easily traced. In addition many ens are nominative. See research above

0

cstarq Yesterday

Whats the difference between the normal Coinbase App/Website and the Coinbase Wallet app?

2

MagoCrypto Yesterday

Custody. Coinbase Wallet is a non-custodial wallet where the user owns its private key.

3

cstarq Yesterday

Thanks. Can one use their Ethereum address from this Coinbase Wallet on their existing ens address to receive?

1

MagoCrypto Yesterday

I think so but I prefer .crypto domains as they support around 60 cryptocurrencies and only have a one-time fee.

1

brantlymillegan ENS, Flippening.Watch Yesterday

ENS is also multi-coin. Most ENS .ETH names cost just $5 a year and can be paid ahead (making them a one time fee), or you can get subdomains for free, or you can use a .XYZ name for free. The biggest difference is ENS names have many more features, are integrated into an order of magnitude more wallets and dapps (ENS = ~110, UD = ~15), ENS views itself as basic Internet infrastructure and has been open source and run by a non-profit since the beginning (UD is a for-profit copy cat).

0

crypSauce Yesterday

Eh. Fine. I’ll sign up for an ens again. Cool little feature I’ll enjoy renting out subs for lol.

2

k3surfacer Yesterday

Ok. So who pays the $5 rent per year?

2

ApoIIoCreed Yesterday

Argent will give you a free one when you get their free wallet, they’ll also pay your gas for transactions. ENS will be: YourAccount.argent.eth

3

k3surfacer Yesterday

That belongs to argent. We are talking about yourname?.eth

1

ApoIIoCreed Yesterday

Ah, that would have to be paid for by you. This article isn’t saying that the Coinbase wallet is creating an ENS domain for you, it’s just saying that you can finally send money to people by sending it to their ENS name instead of being forced to use their public address.

3

MagoCrypto Yesterday

Feel free to try out a .crypto domain :) one-time fee and yours forever as it should be.

0

WeLiveInaBubble 1 day ago

Yet Bitfinex has supported ENS since it's inception..

Good on you Coinbase but keep up.

1

sammybraveyard 1 day ago

Wow. One of the more useful features Coinbase rolled out lately.

7

DBwatt 1 day ago

wow I like that. I would actually use this service a lot more

13

hashtag_wills 1 day ago

Finally

2

aSchizophrenicCat 1 day ago

I know people love to shit on Coinbase, but the CB Wallet is actually dope. Haven’t found a mobile that beats it tbh.

20

Shadoninja Yesterday

Argent is actually amazing. When I got that wallet, I got my first glimpse into the version of Eth that will earn mainstream adoption.

2

brodeh Yesterday

Have you tried argent yet?

6

aSchizophrenicCat Yesterday

I haven’t. Have you tried both wallets? I’d be interested to hear comparisons. Or, do you have a ‘golden token’ I could use? Never bothered asking anyone for that yet, but figured I’d ask now since we’re on the topic - I’m still on the ‘waitlist’.

3

Linvkz Yesterday

I actually use both, and meta mask on mobile. Coinbase wallet has the advantage of support more currencies and has a web3 browser. The wallet it self opens much faster than metamask in my phone. Metamask in my phone is very slow when opening, also doesn't work well with the fingerprint and I usually have to use the fingerprint and the password to unlock. The main problem with coinbase is that you can't adjust gas price. So when I want to actually do something,I browse in coinbase wallet, copy the url, paste it in metamask and execute in metamask with the gas price I want. Argent is cool because you don't pay gas for the transactions and for stacking in the wallet, the guardians for backup and gives you an ens name but it has not web3 browser and some people prefer a seed for backup instead of the guardians. I am not very sure what is more secure. Also it requires more gas for incoming transactions.

1

brodeh Yesterday

PM’d you. I haven’t tried both wallets no, just Argent. But it’s seamless. Has integrations with MKR and compound, which I’m imagining is a little more than the Coinbase wallet offers.

1

aSchizophrenicCat Yesterday

CB Wallet actually has a Web3 Browser that I use for Dapps all the time. Only use Fulcrum (rip to me with a long stuck open on there), Kyber, Bancor, Zaps, Uniswap, and Degen betting. I will say, that sign up process was smoooth, real nice UI, if the app is always like that then Argent is gonna have 1 more DAU :) [And thanks for the quick PM!!](https://i.imgur.com/KodQD8X.jpg) - you da man. Lookin forward to trying this out.

1

komodoman1 1 day ago

Not a fan, had to reset my Face ID because it stopped working and it wiped my private key, thankfully only had a few hundred dollars on it, but still hurt. Also their support was terrible and took 4 months to respond

3

Mkkoll Degenerate hodler Yesterday

You get provided your private key to back-up as soon as your wallet is created. Didn't you do that?

9

komodoman1 Yesterday

I was on vacation at the time planning on backing up when I got home, had no idea resetting my Face ID would wipe my private key. Not saying I’m 100% fault free, but it’s just bad UX to not have a passcode alternative or to warn people that setting up bio security can screw you out of your private key

2

Swiss_Confederate 1 day ago

eli7

5

infernalr00t 1 day ago

Basically the China surveillance state but built on ethereum.

0

hashtag_wills 1 day ago

Instead of numbers you send to a username :) More user friendly :)

4

timedrepost 1 day ago

Ethereum name service

9

brantlymillegan ENS, Flippening.Watch 1 day ago

https://medium.com/the-ethereum-name-service/everything-you-can-do-with-your-ens-name-right-now-9a66763e970a

3

hashtag_wills 1 day ago

Edit

1

toxic_badgers I Like Bears 1 day ago

neat

7

2

9 2 2

2

25 2

haSG_ 5 hs ago

Sorry if this seems a bit off-topic but since ProgPOW is so contentious, it's reasonable to assume there will be a hardfork... So what will happen to DeFi contracts and tokens? Maker and DAI for example. Sudden supply x 2? What would that mean for DeFi? I doubt anybody really knows.

My point for bringing this up is I see huge risks and unknowns and little (if any) benefit from introducing ProgPOW.

Edit: typos...

2

haSG_ 5 hs ago

It's probably bad style to reply my own message... anyway I was thinking that actually, as long as ProgPOW is not contentious for the miners, there shouldn't be any fork, right? I mean, it's miners that build blocks. As long as they roughly agree to accept/reject ProgPOW, there shouldn't be a fork. Yes? No? Am I missing something here?

1

jasz3217 6 hs ago

Copypasta from my comment on r/ethereum

I read the statement from both anti-ProgPow, pro-ProgPow and ProgPow audit for Ethereum community by Bob Rao (anti statement from the linked github doc and pro from annon letter to core devs).

My personal understanding is;

Yes - ProgPow may work well to hinder existing ASICs' computation for Ethhash.

But ProgPow is not the ultimate answer to stop ASIC-driven centralization as memory hard algo, such as ProgPow ,may be threatened by other designated, fabricated rigs different from current ASICs, which can address the memory hardness ProgPow has to offer.

I haven't checked the last dev call and today's dev call hasn't started yet. So;

Why bother to change the core algo if the current one has ASIC and the new one will also likely to have dedicated rigs?

Plausible answer;

- Applying ProgPow may delay the fabricators and large mining cartels to come up with optimized rigs for Ethereum, thus, buying some time for Ethereum to stay as much decentralized as possible until transition to PoS is completed.

And what I think of the consequence once ProgPow is applied;

- Network in general would work slower since the algo works differently and many ASICs for Ethhash will lose its advantage which could result lower network hashrate. According to the report by Bob Rao, about 10% of the hashrate as of Sept 2019 comes from ASICs. So we will immediately lose that. Less security at the start.

I'm quite neutral to the topic. But just my thought;

If we wanted to implement this, it should had been done quite some time ago.
If it would indeed come to life (ProgPow), miners would need enough time to adjust to the new mining environment.
If my thought no. 2 is true, then I think Ethereum 2.0 can hardly avoid the delay.
Still, if many people still despise so much the change, forking is a possible scenario. Or migrating to ETC.

If we want this ProgPow to be really a worth, then;

New algo environment must be established as fast as possible and root down deeply for the sake of network security.
Transitioning to Ethereum 2.0 as soon as possible before the centralizing corps start to release rigs that can do both computation intense, memory hard algo solving at a decent efficiency.

Just Me cigarette thought.

2

jasz3217 6 hs ago

I read the statement from both anti-ProgPow, pro-ProgPow and ProgPow audit for Ethereum community by Bob Rao (anti statement from the linked github doc and pro from annon letter to core devs).

My personal understanding is;

Yes - ProgPow may work well to hinder existing ASICs' computation for Ethhash.

But ProgPow is not the ultimate answer to stop ASIC-driven centralization as memory hard algo, such as ProgPow ,may be threatened by other designated, fabricated rigs different from current ASICs, which can address the memory hardness ProgPow has to offer.

I haven't checked the last dev call and today's dev call hasn't started yet. So;

Why bother to change the core algo if the current one has ASIC and the new one will also likely to have dedicated rigs?

Plausible answer;

- Applying ProgPow may delay the fabricators and large mining cartels to come up with optimized rigs for Ethereum, thus, buying some time for Ethereum to stay as much decentralized as possible until transition to PoS is completed.

And what I think of the consequence once ProgPow is applied;

- Network in general would work slower since the algo works differently and many ASICs for Ethhash will lose its advantage which could result lower network hashrate. According to the report by Bob Rao, about 10% of the hashrate as of Sept 2019 comes from ASICs. So we will immediately lose that. Less security at the start.

I'm quite neutral to the topic. But just my thought;

If we wanted to implement this, it should had been done quite some time ago.
If it would indeed come to life (ProgPow), miners would need enough time to adjust to the new mining environment.
If my thought no. 2 is true, then I think Ethereum 2.0 can hardly avoid the delay.
Still, if many people still despise so much the change, forking is a possible scenario. Or migrating to ETC.

If we want this ProgPow to be really a worth, then;

New algo environment must be established as fast as possible and root down deeply for the sake of network security.
Transitioning to Ethereum 2.0 as soon as possible before the centralizing corps start to release rigs that can do both computation intense, memory hard algo solving at a decent efficiency.

Just Me cigarette thought.

2

g_squidman 7 hs ago

I dunno who you're hoping to sign this exactly, but if you just want names, heres an interesting idea: post this to r/pcmasterrace and some of the gaming subs. A lot of crazies in the comments here for progPOW don't hold a candle to the crazies there who hate crypto for stealing their GPUs.

3

blockchainunchained 9 hs ago

I do agree with Nick Johnson that this should not have been an EIP. This should have been a gist linked here, on the comments section for the progPOW EIP and maybe brought up on the agenda for the next dev call.

3

DCinvestor Long-Term ETH Investor 8 hs ago

It was not my choice to post it as as an EIP, but we were advised by two knowledgeable members of the EF to adapt the post as an Informational EIP. At this point, I don’t think it really matters where the letter exists. What is important now are its contents. Perhaps here is now better precedent for how to manage this for next time, but I cannot provide further justification or endorsement for its publishing an informational EIP.

2

iammagnanimous Yesterday

YesProgPoW If not now the split later will be much more contentious as there will be many more asics coming online in the next few months. Most asics are only available in china.

1

Always_Question 2 hs ago

The switch to POS is uncontroversial.

1

SuddenMind Yesterday

Should add every twitter and moloch poll ever done to this too

1

Ruzhyo04 Yesterday

I'm pro-ProgPoW. ASICs encourage centralization - they aren't available to most people, and the companies that produce them mine on them more than anyone. In my opinion they're a waste of natural resources too. GPU's can be used to play games on and do research and rendering, and can be resold or repurposed after they're done mining. ASICs just go in the garbage after they've outlived their usefulness.

16

ahmedcoe 1 h ago

Most of the GPU hash is in the hands of big farms not independent small minners. It is foolish to remove the smaller hash power of ASICs just to give it to GPU farms. This is centralization and will in essence cause an easier resistance to the transition to Eth2.

1

Ruzhyo04 50 mins ago

And who do you think ASIC power is in the hands of? Why do you assume what their hash power is? Big farms may have a lot of GPUs, but so do gamers and researchers who may choose to participate. Maybe even more people would participate if the earnings were more fair.

1

ahmedcoe 47 mins ago

Well at least now we have two contending parties and this eip is trying to give it to one party. And you are realy in the worng if you think that gamers have ever mattered.

1

Ruzhyo04 36 mins ago

I am a gamer that mines in my spare time, and everyone I know with a capable graphics card mines too. Maybe we dont matter to you, but we exist and we're helping secure the network. Which party do you think would be eliminated? The big farms or the little guys?

1

Nayge 10 hs ago

I don't believe it's up for debate whether ASICs themselves are bad or not. From what I can tell, there's a pretty clear consensus that GPU mining is better for decentralization. The question is whether we need to discourage the development and production of ASICs for Ethereum until the full switch to PoS.

0

Ruzhyo04 7 hs ago

It should have been done 2 years ago.

3

blockchainunchained Yesterday

I see your point but arguably you don't see many 5 year old graphics cards in the wild, particularly ones that have been mined on.

1

Linvkz 11 hs ago

A R9380X still can do about 23 mh/s. Consuming 3x triple the power or more than actual cards. But definitely can mine if you have solar panels or free energy. Also is a competent card for gaming. A lot of cards from the 2017 mining mania are still arround. For gaming

4

blockchainunchained 11 hs ago

It's not just raw performance to consider though, there is wear and tear too, are people honestly replacing the fans on these things when they run out? > But definitely can mine if you have solar panels or free energy. That's a pretty huge caveat right there, also OP claimed the cards are repurposed, I would imagine most people don't have free power. In the UK our power costs are nearly 20 cents per KW in some areas. > A lot of cards from the 2017 mining mania are still arround. For gaming I find that hard to believe when you can pickup a GTX 1060 for $80 and it will pay for itself in power costs in next to no time (with double the performance too). I don't doubt there are still some around but I'd still argue this is a moot point.

2

Linvkz 10 hs ago

I don't understand you very well. My point is that GPUs from 2017 are still valid today for gaming,(and even for mining they not are irrelevant). Seems that you are saying that a card that was used for mining won't hold to today. Like they have a 100% failure rate or something. I must be a lucky guy. 4 GPUs mining more than 2 years straight and not single failure. I stoped mining a year ago and still use 4 of them for gaming in two different pcs in crossfire mode.

3

Fufanuu Yesterday

Look at that list of NO's.. pretty much anyone important that's not a miner.

2

Killit_Witfya Yesterday

I agree with this (maybe not making an EIP but the sentiment) because of the conflict of interest with corporations involved in progpow. I want my EIPs to have 0 corporate involvement.

1

Darius510 6 hs ago

You realize you are agreeing with a sentiment voiced by a multitude of corporations?

0

Killit_Witfya 6 hs ago

voicing a sentiment is not the same as being involved with creating the technical specifications of the algorithm

2

Darius510 2 hs ago

The technical specifications speak for themselves.

1

boringfilmmaker ❤️ + Yesterday

Just chucking 2 cents in here - I don't see any particularly strong arguments for OR against ProgPoW on a technical level. I feel confident that Ethereum will be fine with or without it.

The real debate to be had is about governance, and rather than entrenching further on either side of a fairly benign technical issue we should be laser-focused on how some devs thought this was agreed ages ago while the community at large thought it was dead. It should have been obvious that bringing up this handout to GPU miners out of nowhere would raise eyebrows. I'd argue the division this has caused is a greater threat to the ecosystem than ASIC centralisation.

With that in mind, I believe ProgPoW should be shelved until such a time that core devs reach a consensus that ASICs represent an imminent threat to the network, and everyone should smoke a joint and chill the hell out.

24

suren_ethereum 8 hs ago

>than entrenching further on either side of a fairly benign technical issue we should be laser-focused on how some devs thought this was agreed ages ago while the community at large thought it was dead. It should have been obvious this is exactly right. It's not really about the progpow, it's about the miscommunication between all parties. Also, in a decentralised world, how do we come to consensus about issues like this? who has the last say?

2

Crypto_Economist42 Yesterday

I support ProgPoW. ASICs should not be mining ethereum

6

265 Yesterday

I wrote a few times about this months ago. Here is one example. And some additions:

Mining is about competition. If you are outcompeted you aren't supposed to change the rules. No one will feel safe to invest if you constantly change things. And don't forget: Investment = Security
GPU production is centralized too (to 2 companies).
ProgPoW brings unnecessary risk (search Monero PoW change).
Even if ASICs are in use AND they make significant difference this isn't a bad thing. ASICs are more secure because they are useless otherwise. There are no ASIC botnets and supercomputers that can mine.
Pro ProgPoW arguments: ASICs are evil + China 😆

8

OrigamiMax 5 hs ago

What risk has there been in Monero PoW change?

1

JGUN1 Yesterday

AMD and NVIDIA have a global distribution network that does not discriminate. ETH ASICS are sold to 10-20 people in China.

4

SilkTouchm Yesterday

> GPU production is centralized too (to 2 companies). To two companies that target to gamers and do not give a single shit about crypto. You could say that once we get really popular they might want to do something, but by then PoS will already be there.

0

px403 Yesterday

I'd love for someone to give me one single argument for why ProgPoW is a good idea? It has been shown empirically that Ethash is ASIC resistant. Check out this graph:

https://etherscan.io/chart/hashrate

I started mining with Ethereum ASICs in October 2018, and the hashrate today is LOWER than it was back then. There is no secret ASIC cabal taking over the Ethereum network. EtHash is working. There is zero urgency to change the PoW at this point in time.

0

KoreanJesusFTW 5 hs ago

Do you notice that the downvotes that logical posts like this gets is equal to the very active proponents for ProgPOW that is running rampant in ETH subs? Not a coincidence since they are the same people doing it.

3

lntrospectre Yesterday

How can so many presumably smart people on Reddit and Twitter be wrong about ProgPoW? Here's a simple theory for you: social media poisoning. It's a bonafide thing. It happens when people consume misinformation cooked up by deluded thought leaders on social media.

It goes something like this: Vitalik said ProgPoW was a waste of time like 2 years ago. Insiders blindly adopted the same stance, without ever questioning his opposition. They proceeded to promote their thoughtless, irrational Anti-ProgPoW dogma to their followers. Their followers then did the same thing to the ignorant masses here on Twitter/Reddit. Meanwhile, the ASIC lobby and their friends have been secretly disseminating even more propaganda, fueling an ever-greater social media delusion. The end result is an extremely twisted perception of community sentiment.

The people who didn't get poisoned are the ones ignoring this drama, the ones sitting on the outer fringes of this little cult. They see the delusion, but just don't care anymore. They are the quiet majority. The ones who are busy doing work; or who want to avoid conflict and maintain privacy. The vast majority, which tuned out of crypto media a long while ago due to all the ridiculous nonsense being shoved down their throat by liars, shills, and maniacs. Maybe you didn't notice, but many of them have already left this empty-shell of a community. They're not assimilating to your values and they actively reject you on many counts. The first group would not likely realize this as the second is actively avoiding them on account of the social media poisoning.

The time for arguments is over. The infrastructure is controlled by the miners and core devs, as well as the largest coin holders, by a very wide margin. The visible social media brigade on this issue is just a small slice of the actual community. They're loud, but relatively insignificant. They can do nothing more than make ignorant noises and chase after a dead end fork. Their contention will evaporate once they see the infrastructure has sided with ProgPoW.

0

laninsterJr Yesterday

I assume both sides do propaganda not just one side. Biggest question I have with changing mining algorithm to be pro GPU doesnt guarantee network will be more decentralised than it is now. Large companies can always can buy huge amount of GPUs and have more hashing power than ordinary minor. Second issue is given the financial power of AISC companies there is no guarantee that there will be no AISC chip available next morning. This will then become endless hard forks. Third issue is why favour GPU mining? Can't the avarage minor buy AISC? Fourth issue is drop in hashrate and 51% attack vanurable. Given all these issues I oppose this change. Risk to avarage individual holding ETH is too great than benifts its suppose to archive.

5

InquisitiveBoba Yesterday

Why are people even still mining with GPUs in 2020? Just give up and buy asics already.

0

JGUN1 Yesterday

Please point me to the place where I can buy ETH ASICS.

4

px403 Yesterday

Mining with GPUs is a huge pain in the ass. Most professionally built ASICs are awesome at just being able to plug them in, and leave them alone for years.

3

JGUN1 Yesterday

That's great! If you were lucky enough to get one before they were hoarded by manufacturers and no longer sold to the public!

4

px403 8 hs ago

Eh, I just went to the site and bought one back in the day. It was nice, so I bought another one a month later. I never saw them sold out. They're old and discontinued now, but there seem to be a ton of them on ebay.

2

throwawayB4emailLol Yesterday

The level of ASIC capture in this community scares the shit out of me. Imagine when we go to PoS and really challenge them

1

Always_Question Yesterday

The switch to POS is uncontroversial.

5

px403 8 hs ago

As an ASIC miner, I agree. I really don't understand this concern, but I see it all the time. Vitalik has been saying Serenety would be PoS since long before the original mainnet launched. Someone somewhere will likely make a coin that we can point our Ethash ASICs at when the time comes, or maybe not.

3

KoreanJesusFTW 5 hs ago

Plenty of ETHash coins out there.

3

OvermanWannabe Yesterday

I dont know bros, I'm not convinced this isn't just being way overblown.

12

FaceDeer Yesterday

I think it is overblown, which is exactly why I oppose it. I don't think we should be making changes like this without demonstrating that there's a good reason to do so and that it will definitely improve things.

1

JGUN1 4 hs ago

EIPs are passed based on technical merit. Politics should be ignored as much as possible.

2

FaceDeer 4 hs ago

This isn't about it being an EIP, this is about it being *scheduled for activation*. EIP-999 got "passed based on technical merit" too, but was thoroughly shot down by community sentiment as being something that should never be implemented.

1

throwawayB4emailLol Yesterday

It's a simple PoW upgrade that forks ASIC miners. It's been done and ready to go for 2 years. Anyone who opposes that deserves your mistrust.

9

FormulaKimi Yesterday

Shouldn’t it be PoS by now anyway

3

[deleted] Yesterday

[removed]

0

hermanskledar 8 hs ago

Lol

1

KuDeTa Yesterday

I’d like to understand the implied technical arguments against progpow. I appreciate that the timing is less than desirable, but I do believe the core devs are best placed to make the decision on it’s technical merits. Having followed the discussion closely over the past year, I can understand why they have. Any suggestion of some hidden motivation or bias is totally unreasonable.

12

917redditor 56 mins ago

Technical aspects aside, it hurts mining groups heavily invested in ASICs. Who's opposing ProgPow? Follow the money ->

1

throwawayB4emailLol Yesterday

> I’d like to understand the implied technical arguments against progpow. Understanding them would require that they exist and can be described. This is not possible.

0

psswrd12345 Yesterday

Very well said

0

argbarman2 Developer Yesterday

Can someone (anyone, please) explain the ProgPoW opposition side for these points:

Ethereum DAG is about to reach 4 GB. I know a lot of GPU miners who only bought 4 GB cards back in the day, expecting ETH to transition to PoS faster than hitting 4 GB. Won't a lot of mining hardware be unusable to mine ETH soon?
If so, why wouldn't people prefer to buy the newest generations of ASIC's which are 5x more efficient than GPU?
If [1] and [2] are valid, isn't there a good chance that the eth1.x chain could be ASIC-dominated by the time the transition to PoS comes around (probably 1-2 years at best)?
If ASIC's account for more than 30% of the network hash rate in the months leading up to the PoS transition, aren't they sufficiently incentivized to profit from attacking the network before the eminent deprecation of their hardware?

Please also understand I don't have a dog in this fight (not a miner), I just want to understand both sides better. Personally, I always thought ProgPoW was unnecessary since we would have PoW finalization by the PoS chain for some time before completely discarding the PoW chain. But now that this is no longer in the road map, I'm worried the attack vectors are more real and hoping someone smarter than me can explain what I'm missing.

13

decibels42 Yesterday

Arg, I think you raise valid concerns, but before we get to answering them, I think we first need to figure out a threshold question of whether ASICs truly are a threat. To determine that I think we need to all be talking about: How can we best measure/estimate/collect data on what share of the mining pool is made up of ASICs? Until everyone in this discussion can agree on such a process, why should we all speculate and assume that we need ProgPOW? — To address your questions generally, I’d say, why speculate on any of these answers? To answer, I’d like to know the following: 1. How many is “a lot” of GPU miners? How can we determine the portion of GPU miners that are actually affected by this? 2. This is a difficult assumption to make. If that person wanted to continue mining on Ethereum, why not buy a new GPU and then later mine another chain or sell it/use it for another purpose? Also, does this hypothetical buyer want to buy an Ethereum ASIC, knowing POS is coming? 3. How can we determine if and when the eth1 chain becomes ASIC dominant? 4. Not necessarily. For example, how can those miners be sure that their attack won’t result in a split version of Ethereum where both factions end up worse off? Is it worth the risk (even if they get to 30%)? Also, how can we assume all and every ASIC miner will collude and agree to cannibalize the network, with other ASIC miners?

1

argbarman2 Developer Yesterday

It's a lot of mental gymnastics to do to conclusively prove that ProgPoW is absolutely necessary, but here's my reverse ask. Can you produce anything that shows there is any technical risk associated with ProgPoW? If the attack vectors are not a high probability, but definitely possible - why fight ProgPoW if it is not inherently risky?

6

decibels42 8 hs ago

> It’s a lot of mental gymnastics to do to conclusively prove that ProgPoW is absolutely necessary Well, don’t we need *something*? Some data? We can’t just say: see, look, ASICs are coming/here, therefore we need to push through this muti-year controversial update for it without making *some* effort to prove it up. Right? > Can you produce anything that shows there is any technical risk associated with ProgPoW? I don’t think we are there yet. And to be honest, the desire to oppose the anti-ProgPOW crow by saying “no, you show us why ProgPOW shouldn’t go through” just doesn’t make sense to me. I think the proof here is that the network is working every single day. If there’s a threat to a functioning network, show us. *Why* change that current network that works and functions every day? Pro-ProgPOW people should start a github and collect all the data that they want people to consider. If they can’t do that, then they are guessing and should be more forward about that instead of just saying “we need it! Trust us!” If we’re going to guess, then let’s stick with the functioning network that we have.

3

NSErrorWtf 2 hs ago

> We can’t just say: see, look, ASICs are coming/here, therefore we need to push through this muti-year controversial update for it without making some effort to prove it up. https://medium.com/the-capital/13-questions-about-ethereums-movement-to-progpow-e17e0a6d88b8 Answers a lot of your questions. That said, how do you feel about the fact that GPU miners can mine anything and ASICs are stuck with ETHHash? Do you see that this is a risk when we finally transition to PoS? These people have invested (and made) a ton of money on very special hardware. Do you think ASICs will simply do nothing when we try to shut them off? What is their incentive look like? I propose that allowing the slow takeover of the mining pool by people 100% mis-aligned with 2.0 is very risky and asking for trouble.

1

decibels42 5 hs ago

/u/Souptacular please see my comment above, and please organize the pro-ProgPOW people with James to start a github or write an article that summarizes and explains the data they’ve collected to support why ASICs are a threat today and/or will be a threat in the near future. What are the pro-ProgPOW people looking at besides (1) ASICs are commercially available and (2) it’s written in the whitepaper? How does that add up to, we need this multi-year controversial EIP added now?

2

NSErrorWtf 2 hs ago

Please see my [sibling comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/fa00n0/formal_position_statement_against_the_activation/fixk876/), as I've addressed some of your points and don't want to copy/paste spam.

1

psswrd12345 6 hs ago

>I don’t think we are there yet. And to be honest, the desire to oppose the anti-ProgPOW crow by saying “no, you show us why ProgPOW shouldn’t go through” just doesn’t make sense to me. Everything this. Concerns are based on social risk, not technical. Why is this so hard to understand? Make a good argument backed by data, not hypotheticals. I think mots of us are open to ProgPOW if ASICs indeed start looking like a real threat. But no evidence supports this notion today, so status quo rules out.

3

NSErrorWtf 2 hs ago

Please see my [sibling comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/fa00n0/formal_position_statement_against_the_activation/fixk876/) I think it addresses your point.

1

KoreanJesusFTW Ξ Cryptonian Yesterday

The same reason why Lamport Signature scheme is not in place yet. Ethereum is currently vulnerable to attack vectors using Quantum Computing - not highly probable but definitely possible.

0

FlashyQpt 10 hs ago

> The same reason why Lamport Signature scheme is not in place yet. If we had this all working, tested and ready for merge then it would be in place. Not a great argument...

2

KoreanJesusFTW Ξ Cryptonian 7 hs ago

You are not serious, are you? Geez! You can't just change anything in the base protocol in a "just because" basis at the expense of its success short term or long term. This is proven on many occasions not just in the blockchain arena.

2

DCinvestor Long-Term ETH Investor Yesterday

>Ethereum DAG is about to reach 4 GB. I know a lot of GPU miners who only bought 4 GB cards back in the day, expecting ETH to transition to PoS faster than hitting 4 GB. Won't a lot of mining hardware be unusable to mine ETH soon? Yes, and this will be true for many ASICs, too. [https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitmains-antminer-e3-will-allegedly-stop-ethereum-mining-in-1-month-report](https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitmains-antminer-e3-will-allegedly-stop-ethereum-mining-in-1-month-report)  >If so, why wouldn't people prefer to buy the newest generations of ASIC's which are 5x more efficient than GPU? Maybe they will. Or maybe they'll realize they have a limited shelf-life and they'll just buy graphics cards though because the lifetime of the ASICs for a highly profitable chain like the Ethereum main net is likely to be limited.  >If \[1\] and \[2\] are valid, isn't there a good chance that the eth1.x chain could be ASIC-dominated by the time the transition to PoS comes around (probably 1-2 years at best)? Yes, it is possible. Fighting ASICs is also long-term a losing battle. And in the near-term, there is not real evidence to conclude that even having a majority of ASIC hash power puts the network at risk.  >If ASIC's account for more than 30% of the network hash rate in the months leading up to the PoS transition, aren't they sufficiently incentivized to profit from attacking the network before the eminent deprecation of their hardware? First of all, this would imply that they are coordinated enough to attack the network. This is not necessarily a given, and the reality of GPU mining is that it may also be centralized among commercial providers and could result in the same vulnerability. Also, what kind of attack are you expecting? Double spends? These could be thwarted by long confirmation times. What else? In all likelihood, I actually expect whatever PoW chain is left as we transition to eth2 to continue. [https://twitter.com/iamDCinvestor/status/1232002833169424384](https://twitter.com/iamDCinvestor/status/1232002833169424384) The reality is that ASICs (or GPUs) *will not* suddenly stop mining eth1 (either in a ProgPoW fork, or in a future fork as we move to eth2). Instead, what is more likely is that they'll find a way to give the ASIC fork chain value (eth state is useful / valuable, and some may prefer a PoW fork, and create a dev fund). It's possible some may go to ETC, though supposedly they plan to abandon ethash, though no one can say when. At best, the attack vectors are very unclear and very poorly specified as eth moves to eth2. Miners (of any time) are incentive to keep mining real ETH and not compromise it (because they want non-tainted ETH). This will give them a "clean" state to continue a PoW chain from. Also, I do not believe either ASIC-miners or GPU-miners could stop the social contract around Ethereum moving to eth2. Trying to cause some short-lived shenanigans would be self-defeating in the end. Nothing will stop Ethereum from moving beyond PoW to PoS.

4

throwawayB4emailLol Yesterday

Why is someone so stupid and so clearly a biased member a mod? >Maybe they will. Or maybe they'll realize they have a limited shelf-life and they'll just buy graphics cards though because the lifetime of the ASICs for a highly profitable chain like the Ethereum main net is likely to be limited. I have lost IQ reading this post. Please reimburse me for such. >and the reality of GPU mining is that it may also be centralized among commercial providers and could result in the same vulnerability. You dumb motherfucker. There are 10000 GPUs for every GPU in the largest farms in existence. >The reality is that ASICs (or GPUs) will not suddenly stop mining eth1 PP will decimate them. Jesus why are mods this stupid. >Instead, what is more likely is that they'll find a way to give the ASIC fork chain value Shill detected. >At best, the attack vectors are very unclear and very poorly specified as eth moves to eth2 Again, you stupid poo in the loo. ETH 1 not being secure is a direct attack on ETH2 until ETH2 takes over. We are many years from this. >Nothing will stop Ethereum from moving beyond PoW to PoS. If anything does, it will be your profound and incredible ignorance.

1

argbarman2 Developer Yesterday

>Yes, and this will be true for many ASICs, too. The point is that there's about to be a lot of hardware turnover. With no threat of ProgPoW, the chain will only become more ASIC-heavy. An ASIC-dominated chain is not without systemic risk, especially since it will not remain PoW indefinitely. >Also, what kind of attack are you expecting? Double spends? These could be thwarted by long confirmation times. What else? I don't mean this antagonistically in any way, but it's a bit concerning that vocal opponents aren't better informed of the risks. Double spends is just one. There are a number of DeFi attacks that could threaten the stability of the ecosystem. The eth2 deposit contract itself could also be attacked. Myself or u/NSErrorWtf can elaborate on this more if it isn't clear. >At best, the attack vectors are very unclear and very poorly specified as eth moves to eth2. The technical risks of ProgPoW are extremely poorly specified. The attack vectors are much more clear by comparison.

5

DCinvestor Long-Term ETH Investor Yesterday

> There are a number of DeFi attacks that could threaten the stability of the ecosystem. The eth2 deposit contract itself could also be attacked. Myself or u/NSErrorWtf can elaborate on this more if it isn't clear. And a chain split, or a continued ASIC chain does not pose a risk for DeFi? Even a minor fluctuation in value where people are trying to guess "which one is the real Ethereum" will severely damage DeFi. Further, I am not convinced of the incentives (or concentration risk) for a colluded attack are actually very different between GPUs and ASICs. I think either will continue a PoW chain. I will eat my hat if they do not. If these the concern and ProgPoW is the remedy, the has not been properly articulated in a case for ProgPoW.

2

NSErrorWtf 3 hs ago

> And a chain split, or a continued ASIC chain does not pose a risk for DeFi? Even a minor fluctuation in value where people are trying to guess "which one is the real Ethereum" will severely damage DeFi. I still see a chain split as highly unlikely. You signing on to this has only increased the odds of this happening. >Further, I am not convinced of the incentives (or concentration risk) for a colluded attack are actually very different between GPUs and ASICs. I think either will continue a PoW chain. I will eat my hat if they do not. This is ridiculous. We'll all have to eat our hats if you're wrong, because we'll have lost a lot of money. By blocking ProgPOW you're opening a huge attack vector that can damage the beacon chain when PoS is still linked to 1.x via deposit contract. A decentralized GPU pool is much harder to attack, and there is less incentive for GPU farms to attack it. PoS will nuke the ASICs and completely wipe out their investments. By not forking them now you're teeing them up for a full on assault on 1.x once the deposit contract is up so that PoS will never happen.

0

argbarman2 Developer Yesterday

> And a chain split, or a continued ASIC chain does not pose a risk for DeFi? Even a minor fluctuation in value where people are trying to guess "which one is the real Ethereum" will severely damage DeFi. There is not a significant presence of ASIC's on the chain now, even less after we pass 4GB. Passing ProgPoW now will ensure that ASIC's will not dominate the chain for the next 1-2 years, which minimizes the risk of an ASIC chain split. > Further, I am not convinced of the incentives (or concentration risk) for a colluded attack are actually very different between GPUs and ASICs. I think either will continue a PoW chain. I will eat my hat if they do not. It's axiomatic that n GPU miners are significantly less likely/capable of colluding than n/10 or n/100 ASIC miners. Are you really disputing this? > If these the concern and ProgPoW is the remedy, the has not been properly articulated in a case for ProgPoW. Again, please name a single technical risk of ProgPoW. Yes, the risks of maintaining the status quo are not 100% clear, but they are there. Ignoring them for not being completely apparent in favor of something whose risk is purely social (non-technical) just seems irresponsible to me.

5

argbarman2 Developer Yesterday

> And a chain split, or a continued ASIC chain does not pose a risk for DeFi? Even a minor fluctuation in value where people are trying to guess "which one is the real Ethereum" will severely damage DeFi. There is not a significant presence of ASIC's on the chain now, even less after we pass 4GB. Passing ProgPoW now will ensure that ASIC's will not dominate the chain for the next 1-2 years, which minimizes the risk of an ASIC chain split. > Further, I am not convinced of the incentives (or concentration risk) for a colluded attack are actually very different between GPUs and ASICs. I think either will continue a PoW chain. I will eat my hat if they do not. It's axiomatic that n GPU miners are significantly less likely/capable of colluding than n/10 or n/100 ASIC miners. Are you really disputing this? > If these the concern and ProgPoW is the remedy, the has not been properly articulated in a case for ProgPoW. Again, please name a single technical risk of ProgPoW. Yes, the risks of maintaining the status quo are not 100% clear, but they are there. Ignoring them for not being completely apparent in favor of something whose risk is purely social (non-technical) just seems irresponsible to me.

9

ItsAConspiracy 5 hs ago

> n GPU miners are significantly less likely/capable of colluding than n/10 or n/100 ASIC miners True, but two people owning 1000 GPUs each are just as capable of colluding as two people owning 100 ASICs. What percentage of GPU mining is small home miners rather than large operations? Has there been any analysis, and if so, where is it? Also, GPUs can be rented for short periods of time on AWS, and ASICs can't. During the issuance discussions, some people looked at what it would cost to rent enough GPUs for a 51% attack, and it was surprisingly low. Shouldn't this figure in to risk assessments?

1

NSErrorWtf 2 hs ago

> True, but two people owning 1000 GPUs each are just as capable of colluding as two people owning 100 ASICs. The problem is the dude owning 1000 GPUs can mine *any* coin, and that's exactly what they do: Use bots to mine whatever coin is the optimal one on a minute by minute basis. PoS is no threat to them since there are so many other coins to mine. That ASIC though can *only* mine ETHHash, and when we switch to PropPOW becomes a worthless piece of junk. This is also true when we switch to PoS. The anti-progs want to give the entire network's mining pool away to people 100% incentivized to make sure **PoS never happens**. Think about how risky that is.

1

ItsAConspiracy 2 hs ago

Well they could mine ETC. Supposedly ETC is going to change their hash function someday but I don't think they have anything scheduled. ASIC miners can't keep PoS from happening. At best they can split the chain. Meanwhile, when Monero forked away their ASICs they got a chain split from that. There appear to be ASICs on Ethereum right now. How do we know that going with ProgPow won't just move the chain split forward a year?

1

NSErrorWtf 11 mins ago

>ASIC miners can't keep PoS from happening. At best they can split the chain. PoS is a *fundamental threat* to ASIC miners investment. GPU miners don't care since they can (and do) switch chains in real time. If ASIC miners own 51% by the time the deposit contract is live they could censor all transactions to it, potentially steal transactions sent to it, and basically chain split again and again to keep the deposit contract from function. GPU miners have 0 incentive to do this, ASIC miners have hundreds of millions of dollars in reason to do this. >Meanwhile, when Monero forked away their ASICs they got a chain split from that. There appear to be ASICs on Ethereum right now. How do we know that going with ProgPow won't just move the chain split forward a year? I was under the impression there is only one XMR. What's the pro-ASIC split called?

1

FlashyQpt 10 hs ago

This is a good comment, well done. This point is missed by most: > > Further, I am not convinced of the incentives (or concentration risk) for a colluded attack are actually very different between GPUs and ASICs. I think either will continue a PoW chain. I will eat my hat if they do not. > It's axiomatic that n GPU miners are significantly less likely/capable of colluding than n/10 or n/100 ASIC miners. Are you really disputing this? The comment you're replying to here simply doesn't add up.

3

throwawayB4emailLol Yesterday

No one is going to going to give you the thoughtful reply you want. Not here. We're like 80% the way to idiocracy now.

1

Stobie Yesterday

How can you have any idea what proportion of mining comes from asics? I don't think there's much difference between gpus and asics, it's not like gpus are being run by users at home. Places like core scientific will have too much control with gpus just as asic manufacturers may have otherwise.

5

argbarman2 Developer 10 hs ago

Obviously there's no way to know for sure, but info has been teased out from the nonce distributions for the big pools.

2

ItsAConspiracy 6 hs ago

Can you link an article detailing that analysis?

2

argbarman2 Developer 4 hs ago

https://coinmetrics.substack.com/p/coin-metrics-state-of-the-network-04a

2

ItsAConspiracy 3 hs ago

Thanks, that was pretty interesting. But I don't see how it supports your claim above, that "there is not a significant presence of ASIC's on the chain now." If anything, it appears to show the opposite. Something else interesting from that article: Monero had a chain split when they forked their hash function to get rid of ASICs.

3

Stobie 8 hs ago

Sounds like nonsense. How do you determine the probability a nonce was generated by an asic or GPU? You don't even know what software they're using

1

NSErrorWtf 4 hs ago

> Sounds like nonsense. Aka: I don't understand

1

Stobie 1 h ago

Impossible to tell the difference between using a new version of mining software or asics

1

argbarman2 Developer 4 hs ago

Coinmetrics published an article on it a couple months back: https://coinmetrics.substack.com/p/coin-metrics-state-of-the-network-04a It's not concrete analysis, but it's better than nothing.

2

Stobie Yesterday

1. Both asics (e3) and gpus will be knocked down so these have no impact on decision. 2. Yes probably. 3. We can't know the proportion of asics but I would be surprised if they're not already the majority. 4. Same would be true of attacking before progpow switch. There are other factors like progpow increases validation time and uncles do negatively effects 1.x scaling. I'm neutral on this too but to me the expected cost of splitting community by going ahead is greater than the expected cost of miner attack on ethhash + cost of forking and implementing.

1

NSErrorWtf 2 hs ago

> Both asics (e3) and gpus will be knocked down so these have no impact on decision. *Some* will. The trick is it requires 4GB of RAM. That's not a lot, and next gen ASICs are on the way with an up to 16x advantage over modern GPUs. We need to act. >We can't know the proportion of asics but I would be surprised if they're not already the majority. If so we are in serious trouble for 2.x. ASICs have invested a lot of money in their hardware that will become junk post-POS. We need to reduce their influence as soon as possible.

0

Stobie 1 h ago

They will become junk post progpow too, what's the difference?

1

NSErrorWtf 23 mins ago

The difference is we fork them now, weaken their position, and keep moving full speed towards PoS. This move buys us time. We **do not** want to enter the PoW -> PoS transition period with ASICs owning >51% of hash power. They will have every incentive to try and fuck with the migration.

1

Stobie 18 mins ago

GPU miners will have the same incentives, they can't move to other coins because everything will be flooded and unprofitable. You could also argue they won't attack the chain because the chain as they'll want it to continue as a fork.

1

psswrd12345 Yesterday

Great questions, some quick thoughts: 1. Seems like it 2. Possible, but also possible that people choose to avoid the risk and spend their capital on mining other cryptos 3. This is one possibility, but hardly an inevitability 4. All depends on number 2 I like idea of ProgPOW as a break in case of emergency. There isn't an emergency yet, so wait and see.

4

NSErrorWtf 2 hs ago

> This is one possibility, but hardly an inevitability I disagree. In fact I think the main push back by the anti-progs is because ASIC manufacturers have already paid a lot of money for a 7nm tapeout and are terrified we'll fork before they recoup their investments. They've gone all out attacking this. And if you think this isn't that bad, wait until they control >50% of the hash power in 2020 when we try and rollout phase 2/merge eth 1.x into 2.x

1

[deleted] Yesterday

[removed]

1

[deleted] Yesterday

[removed]

1

throwawayB4emailLol Yesterday

Call daddy because I was mean. Do it again. Meanwhile, please prove you're just more bitcoin small blockers by demanding censorship

1

NSErrorWtf Yesterday

While I'd love to be wrong, I don't expect a point-by-point reply to any of your positions from the anti crowd. Feel free to look at my post history on this topic over the past few days to see an example of what you're in for.

0

argbarman2 Developer Yesterday

u/DCinvestor - you've signed your name to this, what do those opposed to ProgPoW say to the points I outlined above?

2

WeLiveInaBubble Yesterday

So anonymous signatories are somehow considered valid when proposing an important argument against an EIP?

8

NSErrorWtf Yesterday

What's amazing is the EIP provides either false or misleading technical claims >Later this year, Ethereum will begin to transition away from proof-of-work consensus towards proof-of-stake via the eth2 beacon chain launch. **BEGIN TO**. Left out the whole Phase 2 thing didn't they? >Some stakeholders have suggested that ProgPoW offers no clear benefit to Ethereum’s transition to PoS and may centralize hashpower. Imagine suggesting that hundreds of millions of GPUs are somehow more centralized than 10's of thousands of ASICs. >More important than these claims is the reality that EIP-1057 has failed to achieve consensus in the Ethereum community after two years of debate which has consumed a significant amount of developer attention and community bandwidth. It was done on the 1.x team, not 2.x. Even then it was an outside group... this stupid developer bandwidth meme needs to die. >Forcing through this contentious change would only widen current rifts, negatively impacting Ethereum and its community for years to come, all without any clear reason for doing so. AKA bow to the mob or we leave. Incredible. As a community, perhaps we're better off without these kinds of people. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true no matter how many "signatures" you get.

4

FlashyQpt 10 hs ago

Yes, I know a lot of people are simply against it because of the noise it's creating (and forks are scary) but these kinds of posts are showing something more insidious.

2

NSErrorWtf 3 hs ago

Yep. This smells of organization. ASIC manufacturers have likely spent a *lot* of money on 7nm tapeout and are terrified we're going to fork them before they can recoup their investment.

1

Gamesmac Yesterday

/u/DCInvestor you should be fighting the anti-ProgPoW FUD going around, not adding to it. What the hell?

3

Childsp Lift off in my DCA 4 hs ago

Why? He said he clearly has a stance against it. Why shouldn't he be able to voice that?

1

NSErrorWtf Yesterday

+1. This is absolutely shameful man.

0

aznar Yesterday

I support this statement #NoProgpow

10

throwawayB4emailLol Yesterday

> I support this statement #NoProgpow You attack the core of ETH to support ASICS. Why? Explain yourself.

0

KoreanJesusFTW 5 hs ago

While you attack everyone in ETH subs with your useless nonesense. Why? Explain yourself.

4

McDongger Yesterday

please add me to the list.

3

throwawayB4emailLol Yesterday

Please explain yourself

0

NSErrorWtf Yesterday

For anyone that wants to see the other side

"Rushed" from March 18th, 2019.

7

FaceDeer Yesterday

The position statement doesn't say anything was "rushed", and actually mentions that ProgPoW was first introduced as a proposal in May 2018. You're arguing against a position that is not being taken.

5

NSErrorWtf 4 hs ago

>The position statement doesn't say anything was "rushed" Ridiculous. Read the thread here as well as /r/ethfinance. The proposal being sprung on the community is at the the of the core anti-prog thesis

1

FaceDeer 3 hs ago

From the statement: > More important than these claims is the reality that EIP-1057 has failed to achieve consensus in the Ethereum community after two years of debate which has consumed a significant amount of developer attention and community bandwidth. It's very explicit that this ProgPoW debate has been going on for a long time. I see nothing in here that says it was "rushed", using any terminology. Could you quote something specific?

1

throwawayB4emailLol Yesterday

> The position statement doesn't say anything was "rushed" I've argued with multiple people who thing PP is the devil who all argue this. It's a joke at this point, PP has somehow entered a quantum state in that it was introduced and completed in 2018 and also sprung on the community in 2020 without any conversation at all.

5

Darius510 6 hs ago

lol

0

lmaonade80 Yesterday

Thanks for posting this

7