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

301–310 of 532 posts

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

#301

Post by ArtTimeInvestor »

rauljordan2020 wrote: post #168

I'm one of the maintainers of one of the implementations of eth2 live today ( https://github.com/prysmaticlabs/prysm ) and can help offer more context on this. Ethereum proof of stake has been live since December 1st and it currently secures over 6 billion USD worth of value https://beaconcha.in/ . Currently, this is a chain that lives in parallel to the proof of work chain we know as Ethereum today. The idea is that…

How did those 6 Billion USD worth of value move to the beacon chain while it is not connected to the old chain?

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

#302

Post by delaaxe »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #301
rauljordan2020 wrote: post #168

I'm one of the maintainers of one of the implementations of eth2 live today ( https://github.com/prysmaticlabs/prysm ) and can help offer more context on this. Ethereum proof of stake has been live since December 1st and it currently secures over 6 billion USD worth of value https://beaconcha.in/ . Currently, this is a chain that lives in parallel to the proof of work chain we know as Ethereum today. The idea is that…

How did those 6 Billion USD worth of value move to the beacon chain while it is not connected to the old chain?

They were burned on the old chain

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

#303

Post by rcxdude »

mrkramer wrote: post #66
viklove wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vitalik going from POW to POS is nonsense Being able to change for the better is not nonsense, it's vital to the survival and stability of a coin. The #1 complaint about Bitcoin (especially on HN) is its excessive use of power. Moving to POS solves this problem. Moving to POS allows ETH to scale transaction processing where BTC cannot. Miners are obviously angry because they spent millions (probably billions) on GP…

>The #1 complaint about Bitcoin (especially on HN) is its excessive use of power. And how much power does Google or Facebook consume? How much power does each Google and Facebook click take? There are good power sources like renewables and nuclear. Power is not a problem. And I'm not sure POS is a good solution because Satoshi would've used it or would've switched to it.

>And how much power does Google or Facebook consume?

In the case of google, almost an order of magnitude less than bitcoin, and it's 100% from buying renewable electricity (though because of the way energy markets work it's not quite like they don't depend on non-renewable sources). Renewable energy is in the minority of bitcoin energy usage (coal makes up a large fraction of this).

> And I'm not sure POS is a good solution because Satoshi would've used it or would've switched to it.

Satoshi is not omniscient. Just because Satoshi didn't come up with it doesn't mean it's a bad idea (in fact many of the ideas now integrated in bitcoin did not come from him).

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

#304

Post by delaaxe »

vletal wrote: post #298
Taek wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralized blockchains are entirely opt-in. If you are a participant in a blockchain that isn't serving your needs, you can opt out of that blockchain and into a new blockchain. A hard fork is essentially a large coordinated migration from one blockchain to a new blockchain, generally with a shared history. Vitalik does not have the sole power to go against the stakeholders of the network and make massive changes…

My grandpa lived in a building with unnecessarily expensive local coal heating. They never plugged into a heat pipe from a nearby powerplant, because the neighbor, who operated the local boiler always vetoed the decision. Why? Because he was being payed for operating it. This is pretty similar situation. Incentives of the miners are not aligned with those of the users.

Does something like delegated/nominated proof of stake solve this?

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

#305

Post by ArtTimeInvestor »

delaaxe wrote: post #302
ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did those 6 Billion USD worth of value move to the beacon chain while it is not connected to the old chain?

They were burned on the old chain

Interesting.

I see how that is possible. Anybody can probably burn ETH they own by sending it to an invalid address or something.

And how was it created on the beacon chain? Was it simiply hard programmed into the software "We start with a bunch of ether at the following address: ..."?

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

#306

Post by svara »

panarky wrote: post #194
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ends with a Dyson sphere ... Just because too much of a thing is bad doesn't mean the thing is bad in lower quantities. Drinking ten liters of water in an hour is bad. That doesn't mean you shouldn't drink any water.

The point is that ever increasing hash power is a consequence of the design of the system.

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

#307

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #305
delaaxe wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were burned on the old chain

Interesting. I see how that is possible. Anybody can probably burn ETH they own by sending it to an invalid address or something. And how was it created on the beacon chain? Was it simiply hard programmed into the software "We start with a bunch of ether at the following address: ..."?

There is a well-thought out and well-designed process for all stages of this. You can read up on that on the https://ethereum.org/en/eth2/

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

#308

Post by ilaksh »

6nf wrote: post #286
rauljordan2020 wrote: post #168

I'm one of the maintainers of one of the implementations of eth2 live today ( https://github.com/prysmaticlabs/prysm ) and can help offer more context on this. Ethereum proof of stake has been live since December 1st and it currently secures over 6 billion USD worth of value https://beaconcha.in/ . Currently, this is a chain that lives in parallel to the proof of work chain we know as Ethereum today. The idea is that…

Question: Will there be a chain split - will we end up with 'ETH classic' and 'ETH proof of stake' after the upgrade or how does it work?

Yes but there is already an 'ETH classic'. So there will be three, and the names should actually be 'ETH' (proof of stake), 'ETH for Miners' (proof of work), and 'ETH classic' (existing, for another group that didn't like a previous important change).

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

#309

Post by casi »

thekyle wrote: post #182
Rapzid wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing but yeah, 40 dollars to swap tokens... You could almost imagine it all being kept track of on paper or punch cards with people manually carrying out every transaction for that price LOL. I'm looking forward to smart contracts costing pennies per transaction. It's going to be a game changer for the utility of it all.

Are the high gas fees something that proof of stake will solve?

The general idea is Layer 2s solve high gas. Most users will be using apps that run on a layer 2 and will make rare trips to the mainnet. The next thing being worked on is onboarding users direct to layer 2, and layer2 interoperability so you can move from one l2 to another

You can already use an L2 DEX to exchange tokens (and have been able to for about a year) https://exchange.loopring.io/

You can send L2 payments with https://zksync.io/

But those are limited to their applications. General purpose L2s arrive this month! with Optimism https://optimismpbc.medium.com/ and to be followed later this year by https://aztec.network/ and others.

With those we can redeploy code from mainnet to layer 2. With the apps on layer 2 the transaction fees will be fractions of cents and almost instant and a lot of the programs we have dreamed about but not been able to make become possible at scale.

Its an exciting time!

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

#310

Post by fallingknife »

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…

Your analogy breaks down at "because of a grudge or whatever." The reason the miners are pissed is because ethereum is proposing to stop paying them. So what if the bouncers shut down the event because management told them they're not getting paid? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Post reply on HN