Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

our.status.im

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 532 posts

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

#211

Post by 3np »

Taek wrote: post #155
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.

You should think of miners as bodyguards. They aren't intended to be active participants on the network, they are intended to provide the service of securing the network and serving the interests of the users of the network. If a group of bodyguards at a concert vote democratically and 51% of them decide the singer shouldn't be allowed to go on stage and sing (because of a grudge or whatever), is that a problem? Yes…

That bodyguard narrative is yours and I think it makes little sense. Hash power is required to form consensus. If anything, non-mining full nodes run by users would be the closest to “body guards”.

Miners would be the ones who settle and publish the lineup.

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

#212

Post by chrisco255 »

xiphias2 wrote: post #76
hanniabu wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree in factually but I agree in optics and I think him being so active makes it easy to get that impression.

Can you give me an example where he purposefully declined to give his opinion to make sure that people are impartial?

Does this happen in other open source software projects? My understanding is that Linus Torvalds was pretty opinionated as well. Linux is better off for it.

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

#213

Post by chrisco255 »

AzzieElbab wrote: post #16

I actually like all things crypto, but why does this tech have to suck so much

Because this tech is not just about tech, but also game theory, consensus and economic incentives to align completely disconnected parties with completely different motives in a trustless manner.

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #121
jki275 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. Vitalik wants to fork ETH (as he's done before when they rolled back the DAO hack) to make a new version of ETH that is proof of stake. The miners, as I've predicted here before, disagree, because this fork obliterates their entire business model. Shocking.

As an ETH user and holder (and former miner), I want Ethereum 2.0. Describing it as a fork is ridiculous. Proof of stake is the future and miners have known that for years. Proof of work is a dead end that ends with a Dyson sphere harvesting all power from the sun to process a few transactions. If miners want to make another Ethereum Classic dead chain let them do so. The innovation, the users, and all the developers…

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by _7fvc »

Barrin92 wrote: post #122
_7fvc wrote: post #118

Bitcoin, Ethereum, and cryptocurrency spawn a generation of people who worship Austrian economics. This ETH upgrade is making ETH even more deflationary. People are obsessed with price and want to pump the numbers. These wars are not doing anything to advance adoption and bring freedom to people. Crypto builders are pumping the coins under the banners of freedom and decentralization. The problem with crypto is volati…

If you already come to the very sane and correct conclusion that deflationary and volatile cryptocurrencies are effectively useless as a means of exchange and as a primary tool to run an economy then you should just ditch decentralized currencies altogether because then you also get rid of the meaningless complications around mining, energy efficiency or user-friendliness and go to a digital central-bank currency dir…

I don't think cryptocurrencies will replace fiat completely. They're still crypto. They have fixed rules. We still need currency "bridge" between crypto and the real world. Cryptocurrencies offer decentralized options which can address problems with money distribution.

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

#216

Post by dmichulke »

seibelj wrote: post #110
jaimehrubiks wrote: post #21

Regardless of the current issues with the updates, gas prices, different opinions on the community, devs vs miners vs users... Am I the only one who thinks people underestimate Ethereum and its EVM invention? In 2013 this guy (who I think is a visionary) wrote a document with a proposal that led to the creation of a world-wide turing-complete distributed computer. And still, people are just starting to realize its po…

There are many people who understand Ethereum and the larger blockchain / cryptocurrency ecosystem. I have made my career and wealth in this space. What you won’t find are tons of people like me on Hacker News. This website has a toxic reputation in the crypto world given its intensely negative attitude towards this industry. I love HN. Probably the website I check most. But I have tried so hard to understand why the…

My take is you have to understand finance, central banking, its abuse by banks and governments, and so on in order to see the utility of the crypto industry.

If you never got lost, you might not see the value of GPS.

Others don't need to get lost, but they are better at seeing the economic implications like increased efficiency when navigating roads, waterways, airspace, ...

Instead, the disbeliefers consider it expensive, unecological, and related company stocks as in a bubble.

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

#217

Post by antpls »

Doesn't Vitalik/the dev team own the "Ethereum" name, which means they decide what get called "Ethereum" ?

If there are two versions of the chain, because of a 51% attack or a fork, there always will be only one dev-approved chain called "Ethereum" on the exchanges, and that's what the users will buy.

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

#218

Post by malikNF »

Taek wrote: post #155
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.

You should think of miners as bodyguards. They aren't intended to be active participants on the network, they are intended to provide the service of securing the network and serving the interests of the users of the network. If a group of bodyguards at a concert vote democratically and 51% of them decide the singer shouldn't be allowed to go on stage and sing (because of a grudge or whatever), is that a problem? Yes…

Tbh, I don't get your analogy, why should the miners be looked at as bodyguards? While I agree the miners are responsible for protecting the network, I don't think you can draw a distinction that easily between an eth holder vs a miner, because anyone can become a miner and anyone can become a holder and an entity can be both a miner and a holder. Everyone who participates in the eth network should have the power to vote in this blockchain, if its actually decentralized.

The problem here is with the design of eth, eth was a rushed blockchain from the start, now vitalik is trying to rush the release all of a sudden because the people managing his network are not happy with the up coming changes?

What the hell kind of decentralization is this if vitalik can escalate major decisions about network? Eth is not a decentralized project if one individual(or a few) can decide to go against 51% of the stakeholders of the network.

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

#219

Post by 3np »

jaimehrubiks wrote: post #21

Regardless of the current issues with the updates, gas prices, different opinions on the community, devs vs miners vs users... Am I the only one who thinks people underestimate Ethereum and its EVM invention? In 2013 this guy (who I think is a visionary) wrote a document with a proposal that led to the creation of a world-wide turing-complete distributed computer. And still, people are just starting to realize its po…

If by the document you mean the original Ethereum yellow paper that first formalized it, the main author was actually Gavin Wood, not Vitalik :)

Both were crucial in laying down the technical and theoretical foundation of Ethereum.

Gavin is working on other things now. Vitalik is not the thought-leader he was in the early days (which is a good thing as he’s not a SPoF and decision making is more decentralized)

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

#220

Post by xiphias2 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #212
xiphias2 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give me an example where he purposefully declined to give his opinion to make sure that people are impartial?

Does this happen in other open source software projects? My understanding is that Linus Torvalds was pretty opinionated as well. Linux is better off for it.

Yes, but Bitcoin is special in that it aims to be as decentralized as possible. Ethereum aims to move fast, that’s why it needs a leader. Both are great projects, and both approaches have tradeoffs.
Post reply on HN