Current Events > I'm glad we've finally stopped talking about blockchain

(+) Yeah! (+)

Bullet_Wing posted...

I'm pretty heavy on the development side, not just the basic copy/paste crank out a token s*** either. Full stack solidity/web3 dev who has made countless smart contracts and dapps. I see the potential of the technology, but beyond that, I see the inevitability of it to be abused, which will undermine that potential.

Good good good, I'm working on breaking into the industry full time as a Web3 developer (can't say fullstack since my front end experience isn't strong but ChatGPT exists....). I won't deny we have these issues where developers will walk back on their promises and the community as whole doesn't do their due diligence on a project. I take it you've heard of Bancor? The project was fundamentally flawed in its protocol where it facilitated yield farming and had a strategy to prevent impermanent loss; printing out tokens to sell to cover the loss. But what kept giving it attention and customers were its connections to Chainlink and being the only major protocol you could stake Link tokens. People operated on trust and affiliations and got burned for it.

The industry needs to be more vigilant to gatekeep and socially scorn projects like this or the more obviously broken projects like the Terra Luna blockchain.

Bullet_Wing posted...

L2 chains that have low gas also have much lower volume than eth. I'm skeptical of their ability to scale.

Shameless plug but a lot of eyes are on Chainlink's Cross Chain Interoperability protocol to connect all blockchains together, whenever it releases (hopefully after I get a job). At the end of the day, no one (in the costumer base) gives a shit about where or how their transaction was verified, as long as it's publicly verifiable and their transaction goes through with no hassle. Just like how no one cares about what cloud provider Netflix uses; they just want their show streaming with no lag. With a seamless bridging protocol, volume on a specific blockchain isn't a problem because the dapp will seamlessly allow communication and transferring on different blockchains. Granted, this is an ideal scenario. I've looked into a few different bridging protocols, even used one for a hackathon, but they haven't proven their worth on the security side which makes it quite difficult to convince big name protocols like Aave or Uniswap to consider them over waiting for Chainlink's solution.

So what some people are expecting is to see are more L2s pop up, specifically ones geared specifically and exclusively for each dapp that is big enough to facilitate its own chain; ex. an Aave chain or Uniswap chain.

Deafening silence on the 51% attack vulnurability. I can only assume most people either aren't aware or are but pretending not to notice because it's a fundamental flaw in the underlying technology that nobody wants to talk about.

yet here you are talking about it

s0nicfan posted...

Deafening silence on the 51% attack vulnurability. I can only assume most people either aren't aware or are but pretending not to notice because it's a fundamental flaw in the underlying technology that nobody wants to talk about.

It is a flaw, but what does it take to execute a 51% attack? How likely is it to execute a 51% attack? For the BTC network, it requires some extreme resources or extreme collaboration between miners to execute.

What some protocols do to prevent this is to flat out centralize their protocol (for example by whitelisting node participants) until their network gets large enough where it would be too expensive to make attacking the network worthwhile. Of course this introduces the new concern of centralization. But it does generate the discussion and understanding that centralization-decentralization is a spectrum with the vast majority of projects having some levels of centralization. So what level of decentralization and centralization is good enough?