Windows 3.0 brought "3d" styling to windows, actually - where available at least. Windows 2.0 had some simple shading or rather "complex borders" if you had colour display, but nowhere close to 3D shading of 3.0
Moreover, Google said they did a study when they first released their minimalist homepage design and when people saw lots of white space below the search bar, they assumed the page wasn't finished loading yet and more content was to come.
People were accustomed to long pages like Yahoo's homepage with lots of content below the search bar.
They solved it by adding a footer section with typical copyright text and people understood that the page was finished loading.
Like all web apps it depends on how much you want to do on the client side vs. the server side. With blockchain apps it is now client side vs. server side vs. blockchain side.
At one extreme, apps like UniSwap are mostly blockchain side and server side code and a little client side.
At the other extreme, it is possible to use boilerplate code to write a minimal blockchain part and then have most of your business logic on your own server and then the UI on the client side.
> the cryptobros realize that the reason for interest rates isn’t the transaction cost or the paperwork but the enforcement arm to get people to complete the whole transaction through to the end.
It's interesting you brought that up because crypto has a similar mechanism to get people to complete the whole transaction and resolve disputes without involving interest rates.
For example, imagine person B was buying a product from A. Should A send the product first or should B pay first.
When both sides don't want to take the initiative, they use an escrow contract on the blockchain where both sides have to lock up 150% to 200% of the value of the product in crypto inside the contract.
A then sends the product.
B receives the product.
If B accepts the state of the product, he can press a button to release the relevant amount of crypto in the contract to A and refund the extra 50% to 100% he had to put up.
If B sees the product is fraud, he presses another button and both sides lose all their crypto. This disincentives both A and B from committing fraud.
There are more nuanced conditions involved so I won't bore you with the details, but the main concept is there and it doesn't involve interest rates.
> If B sees the product is fraud, he presses another button and both sides lose all their crypto. This disincentives both A and B from committing fraud.
That can't possibly be right. It would mean that if person A defrauds person B, person B would lose 150-200% of the asking price, rather than just 100% if no "crypto escrow" were used at all.
If that's not a scathing indictment of the kinds of simplistic thinking that cryptobros think can solve real world problems, I don't know what is.
Of course, the fact that it makes it impractical to buy any kind of expensive product is merely a detail. As is the extreme cost of non-fraudulent delivery failures in this scheme.
Interest rates exist to incentivize loans in a universe where there’s a risk borrowers might not pay them back. The Roman Catholic Church decisively proved during the middle ages that no interest = no loans
You just described escrow with extra ~steps~ risk which has nothing to do with loans unless you’re suggesting borrowers put up 150-200% of the capital they want to borrow? (!?!?)
Transaction time was arbitrarily set to allow time for a majority of parties on the Internet to verify transactions. It is a trade off of speed versus security. It was picked as a common denominator so that people on the opposite side of the globe and on slightly slower connections can participate in the verification process. That's why changing to PoS doesn't affect it.
Network capacity isn't affected because the amount of data exchanged is the same.
Gas prices isn't affected because gas price is only correlated with the transactions per second (which isn't changed as transaction time isn't changed) and demand and supply for transactions. When lots of people need to make transactions, demand goes up and price goes up. Vice versa. This is the same with other chains too.
Some chains intentionally lower the transaction time to increase throughput to achieve a lower gas fee, but the disadvantage is that only fast peers can verify the transactions fast enough which leads to centralization.
Forking requires consensus among the decentralized miners. If the majority of the minors didn't agree to fork, they wouldn't have been able to fork the chain.
Anyone can fork any chain, nothing more than a single miner is required on the new chain. In fact the pre-rollback chain lives on as ETC. A parallel universe where code actually was law.
One entity decided they were sad about code being law and decided to roll back the outcome of a faithfully executed smart contract using their influence. When one person can influence enough miners to make it the principle chain simply to undo what is in their opinion an outcome they disliked, that's centralization. Or at least a plutocracy.
Today that power rests principally with Jeremy Allaire since of course only one chain can represent the real world dollars in his bank account (USDC).
The rules of a blockchain protocol are not immutable, they can and often do change. Users decide to follow the new rules, or they decide not to. The 2016 fork showed that the majority of users and the market chose to follow ETH instead of ETC. In a few days we will probably see another fork, and most likely the majority of users will follow the PoS chain instead of the PoW chain.
If you want to rollback things build that into your smart contract and stop pretending. If you think your code is mature enough to survive attacks then disable the rollback feature forever.
Smart contracts can add rollback and revert functions but it won't save them from an exploited code path. At that point the only way to 'revert' exploited funds is rolling back the entire blockchain by creating a new fork. The market will decide whether to follow the fork. It has happened once, and might happen again one day, but only at the will of the majority of users.
Not the majority of the users, the majority of the miners, influenced by leadership/the wealthy. This is plutocracy. And very much not an improvement over the status quo.
In Ethereum's proof of stake model, validators do not control the rules and cannot force a change in the protocol. People choose to run nodes, these nodes may or may not be validator nodes, and this software is what enforces the protocol rules across the network. A majority of nodes would have to come to consensus on a change for it to be successful - this happened with DAO, EIP-1559, and probably soon the PoS merge.
It is free to run a node, and the market can freely decide to not support a chain. This is how you end up with ETC being relatively worthless even though there was a group of "rich plutocratic elites" that tried to make it succeed.
There are "influencers" like Vitalik, EF, several client teams, and thousands of hobbyists who work on research and development for the protocol, and these people do lead the direction of the technology moreso than the average user. But this is how all open source works: a small number of people make decisions, and a much larger group of people opt-in to those choices, becoming users. This is also how you end up with multiple blockchains: not everybody was happy using Bitcoin, so some people started to develop Ethereum instead.
There is no rollback feature. There is social consensus, which is sort of the whole point. No one can tell you and your friends which fork of the chain to use. Good luck to you. We might call this freedom.
The ENS domain system is similar, but they added a few rules to benefit the domain holder:
1) When the domain expires, it still remains active and still linked to the previous owner. People can still use it as normal.
2) When it expires, the price is set to a very high price for a few weeks. Anyone can buy it at the higher price. If no one buys it, it still remains active and linked to the previous owner.
3) If the previous owner wants to buy it back after it has expired, they just need to pay their original price (not the high price), provided that someone else hasn't already bought it.
4) At the end of the initial few weeks, the price drops a little and remains at this price for a few more weeks.
5) The price eventually drops to the regular price after many weeks.
6) At any time anyone can pay to extend the registration for another year.
