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

Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

blog.ethereum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 153 posts

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#21

Post by doomroot »

dcolkitt wrote: post #19
randomhodler84 wrote: post #13

Will the miners accept 1559? It’s an optional space, miners are free to maintain the old chain and split. Of course this would be catastrophic. I know my history, this isn’t anything like the other times.

Because of the existence of stablecoins, forking Ethereum is essentially infeasible. Only crypto assets, namely BTC, exist on the Bitcoin chain. Crypto assets can be forked, but real assets cannot. Whatever chain USDT/USDC recognize automatically becomes the "true chain" regardless of how much hash power the miners throw behind the fork.

Doesn’t that seriously centralize the network overtime?

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#22

Post by doomroot »

michaelsbradley wrote: post #15
mrb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, PoS is 4 years behind schedule. That's the reason the bomb has been pushed back for 4 years.

Fair. But it feels pretty close now. I'm running multiple mainnet ETH2 validators at home, in good company with nearly 200_000 validators worldwide (see https://beaconcha.in ). The teams behind the ETH1 and ETH2 node software (the latter has multiple independent implementations, while for ETH1 go-ethereum dominates the scene) are working hard to make "the merge" (PoS for mainnet) viable ASAP. Disclosure: I work for s…

Do you mind me asking what it costs to run a main net validator?

Also how do you know the number of validators is correct? In other words can’t that be Sybiled?

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#23

Post by Animats »

dcolkitt wrote: post #19
randomhodler84 wrote: post #13

Will the miners accept 1559? It’s an optional space, miners are free to maintain the old chain and split. Of course this would be catastrophic. I know my history, this isn’t anything like the other times.

Because of the existence of stablecoins, forking Ethereum is essentially infeasible. Only crypto assets, namely BTC, exist on the Bitcoin chain. Crypto assets can be forked, but real assets cannot. Whatever chain USDT/USDC recognize automatically becomes the "true chain" regardless of how much hash power the miners throw behind the fork.

Why? The obligations of USDT and USDC are unrelated to what system hosts them.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#24

Post by ascendantlogic »

ithinkso wrote: post #20
Vespasian wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. They would need to coordinate a new hard fork before Mid-End August because of the incoming ice age which intentionally slows the chain to a stop unless a hard fork happens. Simply saying "No I don't want to do that" isn't enough, you need to get together people to form at least one suitable alternative. That's why the ethereum devs could maintain control of the chain and the Bitcoins couldn't. Consequentl…

So it's not up to the miners and the consensus to decide what's best for the network? The leadership can decide the rules of a new fork unless everyone else coordinate to oppose it? Edit: What prohibits the leadership to do an arbitrary fork? How do cryptographic protocols factor the fact that leadership can just say 'no' and do the opposite and the chain will follow. Especially the word 'secure' in every coin looses…

It is up to the consensus. If enough people opposed a release and were able to coordinate their own fork then they are still free to do so.

> The leadership can decide the rules of a new fork unless everyone else coordinate to oppose it?

You are 100% free to not install the latest upgrade on your node(s). Unless you have enough people who agree with you and coordinate their refusal to upgrade you will be a network of one that goes entirely unused. This is exactly how decentralization is supposed to work. You have to obtain some level of consensus to get anything done. This isn't a situation where "everyone" has too coordinate to oppose something, just "enough" people to form a fork that has enough hashpower/security to attract users. Even if a large enough minority of miners were able to coordinate a new chain, fork the code, make the necessary code changes and start their own version of Ethereum they still have to get people to use their network.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#25

Post by ithinkso »

ascendantlogic wrote: post #24
ithinkso wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's not up to the miners and the consensus to decide what's best for the network? The leadership can decide the rules of a new fork unless everyone else coordinate to oppose it? Edit: What prohibits the leadership to do an arbitrary fork? How do cryptographic protocols factor the fact that leadership can just say 'no' and do the opposite and the chain will follow. Especially the word 'secure' in every coin looses…

It is up to the consensus. If enough people opposed a release and were able to coordinate their own fork then they are still free to do so. > The leadership can decide the rules of a new fork unless everyone else coordinate to oppose it? You are 100% free to not install the latest upgrade on your node(s). Unless you have enough people who agree with you and coordinate their refusal to upgrade you will be a network of…

Sounds like 'you are in your right to opt out of our policies if you disagree with an upgrade, it will immediately terminate all of your mining'

And then saying that most people support you because only small percent of people opted-out

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#26

Post by TarasBob »

doomroot wrote: post #22
michaelsbradley wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair. But it feels pretty close now. I'm running multiple mainnet ETH2 validators at home, in good company with nearly 200_000 validators worldwide (see https://beaconcha.in ). The teams behind the ETH1 and ETH2 node software (the latter has multiple independent implementations, while for ETH1 go-ethereum dominates the scene) are working hard to make "the merge" (PoS for mainnet) viable ASAP. Disclosure: I work for s…

Do you mind me asking what it costs to run a main net validator? Also how do you know the number of validators is correct? In other words can’t that be Sybiled?

You can run a validator on a regular laptop or even a phone. You need to have 32 ETH minimum though, which is around $60,000.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#27

Post by cinquemb »

ithinkso wrote: post #25
ascendantlogic wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is up to the consensus. If enough people opposed a release and were able to coordinate their own fork then they are still free to do so. > The leadership can decide the rules of a new fork unless everyone else coordinate to oppose it? You are 100% free to not install the latest upgrade on your node(s). Unless you have enough people who agree with you and coordinate their refusal to upgrade you will be a network of…

Sounds like 'you are in your right to opt out of our policies if you disagree with an upgrade, it will immediately terminate all of your mining' And then saying that most people support you because only small percent of people opted-out

There are other evm compatible chains out there that people use: bsc, matic and avalanche c-chain come to mind.

They all on some level opted out of some of the assumptions in go-ethereum.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#28

Post by wmf »

ithinkso wrote: post #20
Vespasian wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. They would need to coordinate a new hard fork before Mid-End August because of the incoming ice age which intentionally slows the chain to a stop unless a hard fork happens. Simply saying "No I don't want to do that" isn't enough, you need to get together people to form at least one suitable alternative. That's why the ethereum devs could maintain control of the chain and the Bitcoins couldn't. Consequentl…

So it's not up to the miners and the consensus to decide what's best for the network? The leadership can decide the rules of a new fork unless everyone else coordinate to oppose it? Edit: What prohibits the leadership to do an arbitrary fork? How do cryptographic protocols factor the fact that leadership can just say 'no' and do the opposite and the chain will follow. Especially the word 'secure' in every coin looses…

Besides miners and developers, exchanges are a major stakeholder. If exchanges declare that a particular chain is Bitcoin or Ethereum, others tend to agree.

Also see https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#29

Post by wmf »

Animats wrote: post #23
dcolkitt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the existence of stablecoins, forking Ethereum is essentially infeasible. Only crypto assets, namely BTC, exist on the Bitcoin chain. Crypto assets can be forked, but real assets cannot. Whatever chain USDT/USDC recognize automatically becomes the "true chain" regardless of how much hash power the miners throw behind the fork.

Why? The obligations of USDT and USDC are unrelated to what system hosts them.

But the custodians have to choose just one chain because they only have enough assets to back one copy. They don't want a situation where there's, say, 50B USDCA and 50B USDCB backed by only $50B in assets. So if there's a fork, a custodian will decide that the USDC on one chain is redeemable and the USDC on all other chains is not redeemable (i.e. worth zero), then other DeFi assets on the losing chain will go to zero as well, and it snowballs.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#30

Post by michaelsbradley »

TarasBob wrote: post #26
doomroot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind me asking what it costs to run a main net validator? Also how do you know the number of validators is correct? In other words can’t that be Sybiled?

You can run a validator on a regular laptop or even a phone. You need to have 32 ETH minimum though, which is around $60,000.

Correct, but I wanted to note that activating an ETH2 validator requires an exact 32 ETH deposit, no more and no less.
Post reply on HN