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

441–450 of 532 posts

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

#441

Post by casi »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #229
hanniabu wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

L2 (second layer) solutions like Optimism will fix the scaling issue. It's live with a limited Synthetix release now and will be open to the general public on the 15th. Many large projects including Uniswap, Compound, and Chainlink have said they will be migrating to Optimism L2. It's very simple to do (little to no changes needed) and with big names committing it seems to be the L2 of choice. WalletConnect, Metamask…

It seems to me that MATIC is making a good play as well.

Matic is not an L2 though, it is a side chain. The reason L2s like optimism are exciting is because they inherit the security of ethereum mainnet. (matic has its own consensus mechanisms).

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

#442

Post by lupire »

psychiatrist24 wrote: post #408
dylkil wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How would they be on a fork, if the "original" dies because of the difficulty bomb? Since the fork that wasn't bombed would survive, it would be considered the original, wouldn't it? How is it defined? Like somebody releases a new version with the bomb removed. Most miners adapt it. Why is it then a fork? Because the bomb is a major feature? Otherwise, wouldn't ever software upgrade be considered a fork?

"original" and "fork" have no meaning inside the ETH universe. These terms are used in the outside social milieu.

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

#443

Post by Spivak »

Zetaphor wrote: post #424
proto-n wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik there's no plan to attack, they are planning a "show of force", i.e. get more then 51% in a pool for a while without doing anything with the power. This is separate from either adapting or not adapting the fork itself and happens before the fork. The original chain has to be forked either way, with or without eip 1559 because the "ice age" coded into the current version (it's in there for this exact reason). So…

"We're not going to 51% attack the network. We're just going to allocate 51% of the hashrate into a single pool to demonstrate that we could 51% attack the network" Why should this threat of violence be treated differently than the act itself? Miners are threatening to do the one thing their entire existence is supposed to prevent. They're cutting off their noses to spite their faces, instead of enjoying another year…

Because whether it’s an attack or not is more to do with the framing than act. If you get all the miners together and can amass 51% of the hash power then you have consensus and have enough control of the network to simply not accept the EIP.

If something like this isn’t possible and you don’t actually need consensus to push through changes then the whole “distributed” part is just a fiction and we’re really talking about a centrally controlled network. Miners are just basically threatening to vote against the EIP if it comes to it.

Threatening to vote against a bill if it reaches the floor in its current form isn’t an attack or violence. It’s just a message that if you want it to pass you should probably change it.

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

#444

Post by lupire »

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.

Everyone acts per their interest. Right and wrong is subjective.

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

#445

Post by RupertEisenhart »

malikNF wrote: post #218
Taek wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

51% hashpower != 51% of stakeholders, this is an important distinction that many comments about democracy are missing.

Hence GP talking about bodyguards at a concert-- who would typically be a minority of persons there.

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

#446

Post by casi »

jki275 wrote: post #317
bibabaloo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little different with proof of stake. If there's a minority group that holds a large stake that "attacks" the blockchain against the majority's wishes, the majority group can decide to roll back and blacklist the minority group. It's much more difficult to blacklist hash power in this same way.

That’s not how it works. The people who hold the majority of the stake are the majority, not the minority.

There is a difference (with the introduction of slashing and user activated soft forks) in 51% attacks that revert finalized blocks. In PoW this type of attack would become cheaper as it persists, in PoS we have some defense that keeps making this attack expensive.

On top of that the costs of attack are much greater in PoS than PoW, making these attacks much harder to begin with.

https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html

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

#447

Post by lupire »

nootropicat wrote: post #267
malikNF wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Miners aren't stakeholders, they are hired to do one job and have no right to get any input. They're already coddled in ethereum. Everyone who actually is a stakeholder wants PoS. Ultimately eth buyers decide everything, as all money flows from them. Miners just mine what's profitable at the moment.

> Everyone who actually is a stakeholder wants Proof of Stake

And everyone doing work wants Proof of Work

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

#448

Post by casi »

moralestapia wrote: post #6

Not trying to be snarky but Vitalik itself is ETH's 51% attack ... What's the point of decentralized cryptocurrency when it falls down on the hands of one person.

This is a tired take, Vitaliks position is not any greater than anyone else and there is nothing stopping anyone who has contributions from having the same level of participation. It is much easier to participate than any other open source project i have been involved in.

Vitalik just happens to be very good at his job, consistently insightful, and a wonderful clear communicator. He contributes a lot because he has a lot to contribute.

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

#449

Post by longngn »

cfcosta wrote: post #393
177tcca wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the first time I've seen someone praising Cardano without me looking for it. Could you elaborate?

Not OP, but I can give some elaboration on why Cardano is a really interesting project: 1. Staking in Cardano does not lock up your funds, and is really decentralized, getting more every day. Because of that, more than 70% of all coins are currently staked. This brings less volatility to the price and ensure longevity of the chain. The interest is not too big too, everything seems as sustainable as it can be. 2. Card…

Is Project Catalyst a Cardano's version of The DAO? I'm newbie in crypto.

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

#450

Post by SubiculumCode »

casi wrote: post #441
SubiculumCode wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that MATIC is making a good play as well.

Matic is not an L2 though, it is a side chain. The reason L2s like optimism are exciting is because they inherit the security of ethereum mainnet. (matic has its own consensus mechanisms).

Matic Polygon is a L2 aggregator. https://www.coindesk.com/matic-network-polygon-targets-ether...
Post reply on HN