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

361–370 of 532 posts

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

#361

Post by akimball »

drcode wrote: post #84
hertzrat wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t half of our current money supply controlled by 1% of people? If the asset holders controlled things, why wouldn’t they just demand everyone else hand over their cash? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richest-1-percent-control-more-...

(1) even a 51% attack can't generate fake transactions to transfer that money (2) social power with blockchains (i.e. having people's ears on the social networks) is far more important than $$ power: If nobody wants to install and use your blockchain, no amount of $$ can fix that.

Re (1): True, in that the committed transactions would not be fake. But calling eth “money” is...not accurate. It has value but lacks moneyness.

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

#362

Post by michaelsbradley »

delaaxe wrote: post #337
hjorthjort wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You send your ETH to a specific contract, from which it can't be moved (whether you want to call that "burning" is up to you, but it's probably a bit confusing). Each validator must also run an Eth full node, and uses the state of that contract to determine who can act as a validator on the Beacon chain.

Are there any plans to do staking Polkadot/Cardano style? I'd like to stake my ETH but have no interest in running a full validator

It's possible. See, for example, Rocket Pool:

https://www.rocketpool.net/

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

#363

Post by tcgv »

cachvico wrote: post #183
tcgv wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been keeping up with the developments in the crypto space from the outside for the past few years. Never really invested in any currency as it always felt too risky / speculative for my taste. It wasn't until last year with the upcoming of DeFi (Decentralized Finance) that I decided to get involved somehow, instead of just watching innovation happen. I also think this really has a lot of potential. So I starte…

Impressive!

Thanks!

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

#364

Post by dylkil »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #354
ThePowerOfDirge wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False, the difficulty bomb will kill off eth1.

> the difficulty bomb will kill off eth1 Wouldn’t it make sense for miners to switch to a new Ethereum chain without the bomb?

Then they will be on a fork of a fork of a fork (ETC -> ETH -> ETH_POW -> ETH_POW minus Difficulty bomb)

who will take this chain seriously

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

#365

Post by throwaway4good »

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?

Vitalik and friends can just sell their coins on the proof of work chain and thus make it unattractive.

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

#366

Post by jki275 »

ryanlol wrote: post #360
jki275 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ETH is a fork, ETC was the original chain. ETH 2.0 is a proposed fork. Describing things accurately should be the norm.

Did Ethereum never have breaking updates before the ETC split? If no, it’s pretty disingenious to describe ETC as the “original” chain.

What are you talking about?

The fork that left ETC as the original chain was a rollback of the chain that destroyed the concept of its immutability for the purpose of fixing a massive financial mistake.

There were no other chains left as a result of such a fork. It is a fork, and ETC is the original chain. Those are facts.

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

#367

Post by capableweb »

hertzrat wrote: post #77
chizhik-pyzhik wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

Isn’t half of our current money supply controlled by 1% of people? If the asset holders controlled things, why wouldn’t they just demand everyone else hand over their cash? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richest-1-percent-control-more-...

> why wouldn’t they just demand everyone else hand over their cash?

Because it's not in their best interest. If the 1% pulled something like that off, the price would drop a lot and therefore their ETH would be worth less.

It's one of the core pillars of any blockchain, that the incentives are aligned in a way so the best outcome for people is the one where the gain the most, so it forces them to go for that way.

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

#368

Post by kubanczyk »

samvher wrote: post #222
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…

I largely agree. I think the field is exciting and interesting, and like many crypto fanatics say, there might be parallels with the early days of the internet. I think part of the reason it takes time for people to see the potential is that a lot of it just isn't ready for mainstream yet. The tooling is not uniform and easy, PoW really does not seem like the way to go, and scalability is largely missing. It seems ma…

The existing banking system? Goliath was better than David at fighting and he was not keen to learn rock-slinging. (I'm not implying David will always win though. It's unlikely.)

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

#369

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dylkil wrote: post #364
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the difficulty bomb will kill off eth1 Wouldn’t it make sense for miners to switch to a new Ethereum chain without the bomb?

Then they will be on a fork of a fork of a fork (ETC -> ETH -> ETH_POW -> ETH_POW minus Difficulty bomb) who will take this chain seriously

> who will take this chain seriously

If it has 51% of Ethereum’s current hashpower, somebody. (Ethereum Proof of Stake is the same number of forks away from Ethereum Classic.)

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

#370

Post by throwaway4good »

throwaway4good wrote: post #365
6nf wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Vitalik and friends can just sell their coins on the proof of work chain and thus make it unattractive.

However you could change the protocol / software and block the addresses of people who don't support the PoW chain.

It would be a bit messy.

However if you are sitting with a massive ETH mining rig, you would like to do something with your hardware.

Post reply on HN