Grin might by design not be dysfunctional trash

I read an interesting article about cryptocurrencies.

tl;dr: Crypto is dysfunctional trash. The main area of criticism are, that it is hard and expensive to use, unforgiving, and sometimes even just ridiculous (burned fees for failed computations).
In particular:

  1. The article states:

Back in the 2010s, when normal people foolishly thought that bitcoiners were talking about a currency , and tried to use Bitcoin like it was a currency, a lot of them had the Bitcoin Experience. Everything is complicated, and basic functionality you’d expect of a payment system just isn’t there. Irreversibility screws up everything — all frauds, thefts and fat-finger errors are final, and customer service is literally impossible by design.

Grin may be more complicated to use in comparison to Bitcoin, but its not that of an issue imho. However, we don’t have the fat-finger-error problem, right? If you type in a wrong address, nothing bad happens.

  1. It further states:

The NFT and the ether they had left over from this exercise are sitting there in their Metamask. Moving the ether out would be another expensive transaction — today’s average fee is $20.71, it was $60 a couple of days ago [ YCharts, archive ] — so they’re just going to give the recipient the Metamask wallet, private keys and all.

The horrible fees have been what annoyed me about Bitcoin and ethereum to no end. This year i was literally forced to pay ~ 80 € fees to move BTC and ETH. Absolutely ridiculous.
Grin does not have these issues and would not get them as fast as bitcoin since it can roughly throughput 3x more transactions per block. Lets hope for Grin this will become an issue one day that needs to be addressed :slight_smile:
A second layer solution like lightning could help and since the first layer is interactive already, using it would likely not make things more complicated. But thats future-music.

  1. the article further states:

if a normal person trying to use Ethereum guesses wrong about today’s transaction fee, the transaction fails and their fee literally goes up in smoke. If your Ethereum transaction fails, then the ETH or the NFT doesn’t move — but you still lose the fee. Because it’s a computation that failed.
So try again! But guess a bit higher or something.
Or use an actual-money payment system instead of this dysfunctional trash.

I read a lot on reddit about these type of issues (example: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/mt7pya/lost_94_in_fees_for_nothing_in_metamaskuniswap_if/)
With Grin, if a transaction fails for whatever reasons, it does not get into the Block, therefore no fees are charged, right?

I really think Grin has nice attributes and as long as peeps are around and work on it, time will work in Grins favor.

7 Likes

We don’t, unless the wrong address is an address from another user. But even that might be solved in the future, eg. sender asks receiver for an invoice, sender gets the slatepack, verifies receiver’s signing pubkey and then it’s 100% you’re sending to the right person (maybe receiver would need to sign smth with his signing key to verify it’s actually his but you get the point).

Imo that entirely depends on whether we embrace itx or try to have nitx style experience

Yes, i imagine it’s the same with eth when it comes to normal txs and that the mentioned fee issue is related to eth being a smart contract platform but that’s just a guess

3 Likes

[Exactly! specially if you’re using Grin++ just wait until your address goes green and you’re good to go :wink: damn! Grin++ devs are awesome!]

Seriously. I hope I’m not too biased, but I would say Grin isn’t hard to use, but we could make it simpler. To explain the interactivity thing of Grin I use the next analogy to regular joe’s: “You just need to open your wallet and wait until both wallets confirms that everything is OK, after that the changes in both balances will be reflected. Like cash, but better (and slower)”. I believe we can make things easier, cleaner and clearer but we need more people involved.

In the future, I think people will get used to the idea of Signatures sooner or later, but we can improve how we do explain this to the users aka educate them; I don’t expect people will fully understand the concepts, but we can insist on the why’s because these are solutions of real-world problems people will get it.

I get the idea of the article, and he’s trying to make a point exposing the extreme scenario: Ethereum fees. They’re working to solve the issue, maybe after ETH 2.0 will be better. I think 10 years is a lot, for sure, but it isn’t enough yet. I like to use Android as an example.

I get the idea of the article, and he’s trying to make a point exposing the extreme scenario: Ethereum fees. They’re working to solve the issue, maybe after ETH 2.0 things will be better. I think 10 years is a lot of time, for sure, but it isn’t enough yet. I take the Android example. Android was sort of good at the beginning, but it took 10 versions, 15 years and millions or billions of dollars to build what Android is today. Now, Imagine a technology so disruptive and complex like the Blockchain. It will take longer, maybe 15 or 20 more years or even more, but it will completely change the way we live right now in an unimaginable way. It is hard to tell how the future will look like.

8 Likes

we need to have adoption until we cant buy real service or product with grin nothing will change.
and my comment on itx and nitx is i prefer nitx and i assume most people does it is simple crypto not only should be better in freedom privacy and decentralization but being EZ to use what do u think people prefer? they prefer to easily make transaction without waiting for other guy become online? and when he became online they might nor be so i think this is a big roadblock for user experience im not too familiar with SBBS but we can consider something similar as well.
it does not matter how much a coin has a good technology it is a shitcoin if you can use it like a normal currency like you do with Fiat:)))

1 Like

Most people don’t understand crypto itx so they can’t like it (i said crypto itx because they do use itx everyday - eg in store). Why do you think itx has worse privacy? I don’t see how itx and nitx influence decentralization

Mimblewimble doesn’t allow creating transactions without both parties doing their parts (it requires 2 communications). If both parties are online those 2 communications can happen immediately, if not then you need to find a way to share the generated slatepack message with the other party. This can be done through email, chat systems or some other way, eg. SBBS. So SBBS is just a way to share slatepack message with the other party when you can’t reach it through tor. But that doesn’t make transactions nitx, it just makes it easier for parties to communicate slatepack messages (incomplete transaction data) when they’re not online at the same time. Nitx would be if the sender could create a valid tx by himself but default mw doesn’t allow that

i did not said better in privacy but in user experience

not nitx but make the experience similar to nitx can help.
A Secure Bulletin Board (SBBS) system solves this problem, enabling offline transactions, which makes the user experience the same as other cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. With SBBS, client wallets can exchange messages by store-and-forward nodes. The messages are encrypted with public key cryptography, over elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) algorithms.

I see, i read it the wrong way, my bad :slight_smile:

I don’t think it makes it similar to nitx since with SBBS your tx would be in one of N states (in comparison to nitx only having 2 states, valid tx landed on chain or valid tx is still in mempool). SBBS also doesn’t allow the sender to “do his thing and tx will land on chain” since it requires the sender’s wallet to be online once after the receiver does his part. You also can’t teach people that txs in mw are the same as in btc because they need to know what slatepack messages are and because btc has nitx such a concept doesn’t exist there

1 Like