Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

Post by hanniabu » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 12:12 AM UTC

rawtxapp wrote: post #63

hanniabu wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that the developers have very significant control on the blockchain The case for BTC in this regard is no different from ETH. In both cases developers put together an upgrade, then miners can either upgrade or not.

Except in this case, this is going against presumably 51% of the miners and changes take much longer to implement and activate on Bitcoin (taproot activation for example will be done over a very long period and needs a very high threshold). Going from PoW to PoS in such a small timeframe is pretty aggressive no matter how you look at it. As a user, I really hope it works out without major issues.

Post by hanniabu » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 12:20 AM UTC

xiphias2 wrote: post #64

DennisP wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point Vitalik is one researcher among many. He's taken care to remove himself from the "benevolent dictator" role he had at first. He is very productive though, and the other researchers and devs tend to find his ideas convincing.

If you look at what Pieter Wuelle is doing, he's also doing amazing work, but when it comes to make decisions, he goes to the background even if he has an opinion. I don't see the same thing happening to Vitalik. I'm not saying it's a problem, as Ethereum is a different network with different advantages and disadvantages, but he still looks like the final decision maker to me at this point (which is OK for me).

Post by rawtxapp » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 12:26 AM UTC

hanniabu wrote: post #71

rawtxapp wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in this case, this is going against presumably 51% of the miners and changes take much longer to implement and activate on Bitcoin (taproot activation for example will be done over a very long period and needs a very high threshold). Going from PoW to PoS in such a small timeframe is pretty aggressive no matter how you look at it. As a user, I really hope it works out without major issues.

> and changes take much longer to implement and activate on Bitcoin That's a funny way of saying BTC doesn't innovate. > Going from PoW to PoS in such a small timeframe is pretty aggressive no matter how you look at it. It's been the plan for years. I first heard of it in 2017 and if I'm not mistaken I think it was also in the whitepaper. So it's neither coming out of the blue or an aggressive timeframe.

Post by hertzrat » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 12:27 AM UTC

chizhik-pyzhik wrote: post #23

typest wrote: post #12

I'm not an expert, but if 51% of the existing hashpower doesn't want a change, it sounds less a 51% attack and more like miners voting against something that isn't in their interest. The whole point of blockchains is that the incentives are supposed to be aligned between miners and users. If that isn't the case here, it sounds like a problem.

It is a problem. That's a big reason for moving from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake- to more directly make the _holders_ of Ethereum in charge of the chain. It's a difficult thing to do, though. Hashpower based mining is easier to get going. Proof of stake has issues like the nothing-at-stake problem, where theoretically you could stake-mine on multiple chains: https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2402/what-…

Post by drcode » Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 12:40 AM UTC

gus_massa wrote: post #42

If the fee are going to be (partially) burned, can the miners just ask that everyone pays the fees by a side channel? Perhaps make a smart contract that holds the same value of the fee until the transaction is included. The miners can just ensure to include both or neither, and get paid.