Live data from Hacker News

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

our.status.im

461–470 of 532 posts

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

#461
post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Delegated proof-of-stake is worse than Proof-of-Stake or Proof-of-Work from a decentralization perspective as the "delegators" can bribe their way to stay in power.

Some resources (they link to DPoS alternatives and discuss them):

- https://vitalik.ca/general/2016/12/29/pos_design.html

- https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/12/17/voting.html

- https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html

- https://vitalik.ca/general/2019/04/03/collusion.html

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

#462
post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a big government seized control of a coin's development, it would surely lose most of its value and users would likely just create a fork which is not under that government's control.

Miners would try to fork it. Users would be overjoyed, and the user base would grow dramatically. People aren't using bitcoin day-to-day because it lacks a government backing.

Venezuela has a government-backed cryptocurrency, the Petro, which failed spectacularly:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_(cryptocurrency).

In fact colleagues at Status went to Venezuela to check how payments worked there:

- https://www.figma.com/community/file/780788775246577039?prev...

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

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 s…

Then devs should research and develop PoW which is more efficient and takes less energy and come up with solution that does additional useful work on top of verifying transactions.

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

#464
post #149

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 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…

> 1] https://github.com/TCGV/DeFiOptions

so you _did_ end up buying a boat load of ethereum i presume?

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

#465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing-at-stake is a solved problem in Ethereum's PoS. The basic idea is that stakers' deposits act as security bonds. If a staker commits to two conflicting chains, any other staker can see that they did so, and get rewarded for publishing a proof of that. Then the cheating staker gets their stake destroyed on both chains.

There is a deeper problem with PoS, which is about where the value of the staked token comes from in the first place. PoW ties this to the burning of real-world value, specifically electricity which is about as close to distilled economic value as you can get. Ethereum is trying to bootstrap value with PoW and then switch, but I have strong doubts that this is a sustainable solution.

It's the same when currencies around the world stopped using the gold standard and became floating across each other.

I'd say the value of currencies is that you have to pay your taxes in one that is legal tender. In that case, the value of Eth is that you have to pay transaction fees in Eth. You decided how valuable those transactions are.

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

#466

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…

What really surprises me is how in bad faith the PoW miners are acting. Ethereum was, from day one, planning to transition to PoS once the research and proof-of-concept was working. If anything the Ethereum PoW miners have been very lucky in that Ethereum is kinda late on its roadmap to switch to PoS (at least compared to when first announced).

You're saying a significant number of people who gathered behind the maxim "code is law" for money may have signed onto what the code was doing and not what the long-term social plan was? Quelle surprise!

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

#467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does Bitcoin still have one main implementation, which is considered the standard in place of a spec? Because ETH2 has four production implementations, developed by different teams in different languages. ETH1 has two in common use, one written in Go and one in Rust. All open source of course. If Bitcoin still runs on a single implementation then I'd argue its development is more centralized.

Great response

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

#468
post #441

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).

Optimism also isn't rent seeking with their own coin. All gas is still paid in ETH.

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

#469
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Bitcoin decisions are made on the principle of one CPU, one vote This is how it works in Ethereum as well > They decide what gets pushed to miners via the All Core Devs call. Blockstream does the same, it's literally no different.

> This is how it works in Ethereum as well So is Ethereum not going to PoS if miners say no? > Blockstream does the same, it's literally no different. Every soft fork was voted on by miners. Developers provide the code, but it only activates with miner consent.

> So is Ethereum not going to PoS if miners say no?

Correct

> Every soft fork was voted on by miners. Developers provide the code, but it only activates with miner consent.

Again, it's the same process with Ethereum.

Not sure if this is just a misunderstanding or if you're reading something that says this isn't the case, but if it's the latter then I suggest taking a good hard look at continuing to use this source for information.

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

#470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 s…

Then devs should research and develop PoW which is more efficient and takes less energy and come up with solution that does additional useful work on top of verifying transactions.

'PoW which takes less energy' is an oxymoron. The whole point is to demonstrate cryptographically a certain amount of effort (combination of energy and efficiency of hardware implementing a deliberatly inefficient function) has taken place. The network adjusts the difficulty dynamically depending on the amount of effort being put in (basically the rewards are fixed: miners simply compete for a bigger slice of the pie by trying to put in more effort than their competitors). The only limit is when the miners stop making money off of it (and with the price of bitcoin they can buy a lot of energy and still make a profit). This is all by design and the whole point is to make it a lot more profitable to secure the system than to attack it. The only way to really reduce the energy use of coin is to reduce the block rewards or reduce the price. But at a certain point it's more profitable to attack the system than secure it, so it's a difficult balancing act. This one which bitcoin makes no attempt at: the block reward is set to automatically decrease over time at a fixed rate and this hasn't and isn't likely to change. There's no particular reason bitcoin's rewards are either not overkill or sufficient to secure the network against an attacker. Etherium takes a more practical view: because the currency has built-in adjustments which can be made by the foundation, in theory it can adjust the block reward dynamically to the right amount, though there's both political issues in terms of appeasing the miners when you cut their profit and technical issues in actually working out what is good enough.

Likewise 'doing additional useful work' is not something you can actually do in a trustless manner like with proof of work (at least not most useful work: certainly there's no task which you could use for mining which anyone actually needs the kind of energy bitcoin uses throwing at it). You need something which is easily distributable relative the to the amount of computing power needed to do it (and even SETI/Folding @ home are really struggling at this point with modern hardware: computing power has outgrown bandwidth substantially), and easy verifiable that the work has been done. There are cryptocurrencies which try to distribute coins based on contributions to distributed computing, but they rely on a central authority to do so, defeating the whole point of cryptocurrencies.

Post reply on HN