HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

pa7x1

933 karma · joined May 7, 2020

submissionscomments
pa7x1··on Turning Ethereum into a Community Project
Very weird submission, the linked post is 2 years old. Received no attention whatsoever, then the Copyright is updated to CC0 4 hours ago and suddenly gets posted to Hackernews.

Furthermore, the proposal is a bit non-sensical. It's still possible to fork Ethereum, as a staker you must choose which chain you want to stake. You cannot stake in both because you would get slashed. But if you decide that Ethereum-fork is your preferred version of Ethereum you can turn-off your Ethereum validators and only validate on Ethereum-fork. That's OK.

The market will decide which network is most valuable.

pa7x1··on Turning Ethereum into a Community Project
There are no miners on Ethereum for years already.
pa7x1··on The World’s $100T Fiscal Timebomb Keeps Ticking
The money is owed to our future selfs or generations to come, who pay the interests.

If the money obtained through debt is well invested such that it creates growth that outpaces the interest rate then all is good, as future tax payers will have a larger economy to be taxed in order to pay that debt. But if it's not, we are just stealing from the future.

When a country acquires debt to finance its pension system, that's just plain and simply inter-generational robbery. It's pensioners voting to give themselves money at the expense of the younger generations. It will become more and more pervasive across the west given our demographics and is crippling entire economies across Europe.

pa7x1··on Possible futures for the Ethereum protocol, part 2: The Surge
Stagnate in what sense?
pa7x1··on The deconstructed Standard Model equation
What you are missing...

Physics is practiced by hand, pen and paper or chalk and blackboard. There is no IDE or auto-completion.

The short hands, abbreviations, and obscure syntax raise the difficulty to enter into the field but simplify its practice a lot. In fact, it would be nightmarishly verbose if you had to use more explicit terms to the point of making it almost not feasible.

Furthermore, the complexity of learning a few shorthands is incomparable with understanding the underlying concepts. Just because you name things in a more verbose manner and used a more explicit type system you wouldn't be any closer to understanding what any of this means. The effort of learning a short-hand notation to express a concept that takes years of advanced math to grasp is negligible in comparison with the speed up it offers day to day.

The notation is not what is stopping you from understanding it.

pa7x1··on Stable Audio Open
> That's just a more polite way to say tax. Being permissionless is cool, but it's still tax in my dict.

It most certainly is not. They are doing a work for the network and getting remunerated for it. That's not a tax. That's what is commonly referred to as a job. A kid that delivers newspapers over the weekend is not taxing the kid that decides not to. Both make a free decision on what to do with their time and effort given how much it's worth to them. Running a validator takes skill, time, opportunity cost, and you assume certain risks of capital loss. You are getting remunerated for it.

> And, who is going to be able to have a larger percentage of their funds staked, a poor or a whale? You need a (mostly) fixed amount of liquidity to use the thing.

Indeed, the protocol cannot solve wealth inequality. That's an out of protocol issue. It cannot cure cancer either.

> In short, I don't see anything preventing me to run 10000 validators with 32 ETH each with very similar cost to running just one. It's certainly not linear.

There are some fixed costs, indeed. But they are rather negligible. You need a consumer-grade PC (1000 USD) and consumer-grade broadband to solo stake. Or you can use a Liquid Staking Derivative which will have no fixed costs but will have a 10% cut. The curve of APY as a function of stake is very flat. Almost anything else around us has greater barriers of entry or economies of scale.

pa7x1··on Stable Audio Open
> Sure, friends also won't let friends skip the fact that circulating supply of ETH is now decreasing instead of increasing.

This changes absolutely nothing of the calculation. Furthermore, the change in circulating supply last year was of 0.07%.

> Also, only ~30% tokens are staked.

Correct.

> The 30% who chose to stake essentially tax the other 70% in use.

There is something called opportunity cost. With the existence of liquid staking derivatives the choice to stake or not is one of opportunity cost. Plenty of people may consider the return observed by staking insufficient given the opportunity cost and additional risks. Participating in staking is fully permissionless, stakers are not taxing non-stakers. They are being remunerated for their work.

> Each of the validator do exactly same amount of work (that's the point, right) except what they receive is proportioned to how much they stake.

Incorrect. A staker does proportionate amount of work to its stake. That's why it gets paid more. A staker gets paid for fulfilling its duties as defined in the protocol (attesting, proposing blocks, participating in sync committees). For each of those things there are some rewards and some punishments in case you fail to fulfill them. If a staker has more validators running you simply fulfill more of those duties more often, hence your reward scales linearly with number of validators.

pa7x1··on Stable Audio Open
How do the rich become gradually richer under PoS? I'm flabbergasted by the level of math education.

Assume we have 2 validators in the network; the first one owns 90% of the network, the second one owns 10%. Lets call them Whale and Shrimpy, respectively.

To make the numbers round let's assume total circulating supply of ETH is 100 initially and that the yield resulting from being a validator is 10% per year. After the first year, 10 new ETH will have been minted. Whale would have gotten 9 ETH, and Shrimpy would have gotten 1 ETH. OP is assuming that as 9 is bigger than 1, Whale is getting richer faster than Shrimpy. But, let's look at the final situation globally.

At year 0:

Total ETH circulating supply: 100 ETH

Whale has 90 ETH. Owns 90% of the network.

Shrimpy has 10 ETH. Owns 10% of the network.

At year 1:

Total ETH circulating supply: 110 ETH

Whale has 99 ETH. Owns 90% of the network.

Shrimpy has 11 ETH. Owns 10% of the network.

Whale has exactly the same network ownership after validating for 1 whole year, the network is not centralizing at all! The rich are not getting richer any faster than the poor.

TL;DR: Friends don't let friends skip elementary math classes.

pa7x1··on Ethereum has blobs. Where do we go from here?
In case you are curious BlackRock launched last week a money market fund on Ethereum. You can see it onchain here: https://etherscan.io/token/0x7712c34205737192402172409a8f7cc...

And here the press release: https://securitize.io/learn/press/blackrock-launches-first-t...

pa7x1··on Ethereum has blobs. Where do we go from here?
Very likely, but if they get it sorted out one day he will be using it without knowing.

If you have no interest whatsoever and they start explaining to you all the cryptography behind establishing a secure connection to your bank most people would dismiss it as mumbo-jumbo. But now you can tell your grandma to look out for the little green lock on the web that makes her account secure.

pa7x1··on Ethereum has blobs. Where do we go from here?
Providing global instant settlement for sub-cent fees? Doubt it.
pa7x1··on Ethereum has blobs. Where do we go from here?
If you ascertain some value to the permissionless and self-custodial value of cash. And you see value in the internet's ability to connect the entire world. Then it follows immediately that you see value in cryptocurrency.

Because you cannot use cash to transact globally, and you cannot use digital forms of central bank issued currency permissionlessly or have self-custody. Cryptocurrency gives you all those three properties.

So you must give up something. HNers typically are willing to give up the permissionless and self-custody properties. After all, most of HN audience lives in developed democratic countries where personal freedoms are considered fundamental pillars and protected. But at a minimum you should consider that, not all the world lives under those circumstances. And that there are no guarantees that those circumstances will always be preserved in your cozy first world country. Certainly if you are willing to give them up so easily.

Don't be so quick to assume it cannot happen where you live. One day they may go after some fringe truckers protesting in Canada. Another day they may go after some camgirls earning a living in ways that some executive board of a payment processor considers reprobable. Maybe one day they will tell you in what you can or cannot spend your money or where you can invest it and how much.

pa7x1··on Ethereum has blobs. Where do we go from here?
You can backup your account with passkeys.
pa7x1··on Ethereum has blobs. Where do we go from here?
I'm going to leave here a few dashboards that might be interesting:

See Ethereum scale day by day (today Ethereum is doing 160 tps, more than 10x its initial throughput): https://l2beat.com/scaling/activity

You can now settle your transactions on rollups for mere cents: https://fees-growthepie.streamlit.app/

Neat dashboards regarding blob usage: https://dune.com/hildobby/blobs

What's coming... With the current number of blobs Ethereum will likely be able to do up to ~500 tps on average. ~1000 tps in burst mode. But in coming upgrades the blobs will be sharded through Data Availability Sampling, allowing validators to verify only a subset while being sure that the rest of blobs are validated and available by the rest of the network. This will allow to scale Ethereum up to 256 blobs. Which will give Ethereum a throughput of around ~100K tps.

pa7x1··on Ethereum has blobs. Where do we go from here?
https://github.com/daimo-eth/daimo
pa7x1··on Ethereum's next upgrade to go live March 13th, 2024
This upgrade will bring among other things significant scalability improvements. You can see Ethereum's increase in scalability in action with the following dashboards:

- https://l2beat.com/scaling/activity

- https://www.growthepie.xyz/fundamentals/transaction-count

pa7x1··on Social networks are getting stingy with their data
That feels a bit like throwing the baby with the bathwater. Ethereum provides a global, permissionless public key infrastructure. Then on top of that it has the token for payments, and the smart contract functionality to build whatever.

Farcaster simply taps onto the PKI part, to assign an identity that the user can own. That seems to be pretty legitimate use case. And you don't get any exposure to a token. In fact, you don't need to know any of those technicalities. Besides knowing that your identity and social graph (who you follow, who follows you, likes, etc...) cannot be rugpulled from you. Which seems pretty neat.

pa7x1··on Social networks are getting stingy with their data
Your identity is on Ethereum (a rollup on top of it being a bit more precise). So stuff like this https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/26/twitter-now-x-took-over-th... cannot happen.
pa7x1··on Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
The Schrodinger equation is just restating something you may already know if you studied physics. The Hamiltonian is the generator of time translations.

Look at it again with that understanding in your head: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MathWikib...

H acting on a state gives you the time translation of the state. That's the crux of it.

pa7x1··on Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
I'm gonna give it a shot and give an analogy with a comp. science audience in mind.

All Quantum Field Theories are effective theories. Effective means that they work up to certain energy-range, they do not intend to be fundamental.

For example, the Fermi theory of beta decay is an effective theory that works only up to the energy of W and Z bosons. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), the theory of electromagnetism and photons, is an effective theory which is valid up to the electroweak scale (~250 GeV). So on and so forth. All of them are effective, and therefore break at some point at higher energies or, equivalently, shorter distances.

Renormalizable theories are such that we can abstract away the physics beyond that breaking point where the theory doesn't make sense anymore. And capture the physics beyond that point into a redefinition of a few fundamental constants that we can take from the experiment. To rehash the basic idea, the theory doesn't work beyond certain energies. In principle physics beyond those energies impacts our predictions, because in QM you must account for all the processes. But renormalizable theories are nice enough that we can put physics beyond that energy scale behind a black box and we just have to redefine a few fundamental constants like the mass of the electron.

Comp. science audience analogy: It's as if renormalizable theories gave us a neat API that does not leak the ugly internals of what happens at super high energies (short distances). Like you don't need to know machine code or assembly to import Pytorch and build a neural network in a few lines of code.

For gravity this doesn't work. Gravity is mediated by a massless spin-2 field (Einstein's theory). If you try to quantize this theory you will find that it explodes at second order. We can calculate the first quantum corrections to Einstein's gravity but then it explodes. And when we attempt our tricks to hide all the short distance/high energy stuff inside a black box (renormalization) it just doesn't work. It's as if the API was leaky. It leaks the internals to the high level.

To give you a couple of examples of this leakiness. Dark energy, the energy of the vacuum, causes an expansion to our universe at the largest scales possible. So it's a phenomena of super loooong distances and yet, it's dominated by the super small distance (high energy) interactions that contribute to this energy of the vacuum. Another example, black holes are typically hyper massive, huge beasts and yet... they are inherently quantum gravitational objects for which we need the full theory of quantum gravity to understand them.

This is a blessing and a curse. The curse is that it makes our jobs of getting a theory of quantum gravity so much harder. The blessing is that it gives us a chance of peeking at a more fundamental theory of physics. If we could have worked out everything with effective theories we may never know what's beyond those black boxes that hide the internals. Gravity gives us the chance to peek through and understand something deeper.

pa7x1··on Citation cartels help mathematicians-and their universities-climb the rankings
And the same was done for LIGO and the discovery of gravitational waves. 2 observatories, one in Hanford and one in Livingstone.
pa7x1··on On the dimensionality of spacetime (1997) [pdf]
Yes, and even 1+1 gravity theories, like JT-gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackiw%E2%80%93Teitelboim_grav...).

But 2+1 Einstein's gravity is locally trivial (i.e. there are no local degrees of freedom) and is purely topological (i.e. holes and global structure of spacetime is what matters).

pa7x1··on Two physicists who correctly predicted the mass of Higgs boson [video]
And here a prediction from M-theory/string theory on that same mass-range that also predates the Higgs discovery.

Prediction: https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1059 Review and discussion: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2231

pa7x1··on A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
The basic difference is pointing that there is something more fundamental and it doesn't have to do with physics. It has to do with math, with calculus, and with approximating complex functions via perturbative expansions. This is very general and applies to other kinds of systems, not necessarily physical. That's the key insight.

The first relevant term is quadratic in the potential around a stable equilibrium but linear in the force. That's why they are called linear harmonic oscillators, I thought that was obvious in my description.

pa7x1··on A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
Yes, near a stable equilibrium you can always linearize a system to model its behavior quite accurately for small perturbations. That's the crux of what it was pointed above.

Outside of equilibrium things get more complicated. In principle, you can still do a first order expansion to understand the dynamics in a vicinity of that regime, the problem is that outside equilibrium you are not going to stay near the point of the solution space you started at. You will keep drifting, at least until you reach another stable equilibrium if there is one.

Systems outside equilibrium are much harder to study because we cannot linearize. Basically.

pa7x1··on Stern-Gerlach experiment used to probe the clash of quantum theory and gravity
This is not true, but I can see how one can lead to think this is the case given the poor journalistic reporting on the subject.

At the time being we have no experimental access to the regime where quantum gravitational effects are relevant. So no theory of quantum gravity has been falsified experimentally. That is, none have failed because they didn't match the experiments. The experiments have not been carried out yet because we don't have the technological ability to do them or we haven't had the ingenuity to infer how to retrieve experimental data from available sourced.

pa7x1··on A new quantum algorithm for classical mechanics with an exponential speedup
This is overly complicated. The reason harmonic oscillators pop up everywhere is even simpler and more general than that.

It models first order perturbations over a stable equilibrium. For sufficiently small perturbations around a stable equilibrium everything is an harmonic oscillator.

It's basically taking the first order perturbation of a Taylor expansion around a local minima.

pa7x1··on Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? (2020) [video]
Without entering into an endless debate about semantics and metaphysics I would simply say that if you want to use the word discovered for the axioms then you must acknowledge that the theorems are not the same kind of discovered.
pa7x1··on Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? (2020) [video]
It's both. The axioms are invented, the corpus of theorems is discovered. As once the axioms are chosen the provable theorems are already fixed.

But the axioms are a choice, and we can pick different ones. The common choice of axioms is utilitarian, they lead to interesting math that helps us describe the universe.

pa7x1··on My primality testing code is faster than Sir Roger Penrose's
Is the Poincaré disk, a compact hyperbolic 2-d manifold. A space with negative curvature and maximal symmetry, the equivalent of a sphere but with negative curvature if you will.

You may have seen something similar in holography and AdS/CFT context. Or in an Escher painting.

Page 1 of 10Next →