Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement • Hacker News Board

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#51

Post by koolba » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #29

Animats wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ze…

What if they choose two different chains?

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#52

Post by wmf » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:14 AM UTC

strombofulous wrote: post #36

ithinkso wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In think there's a subtle difference. A side effect of Bitcoin's rules is that people with more hashing power have a disproportionate amount of weight in deciding the future of the protocol. Eth solves this by putting a hard deadline on some replacement being chosen. This can be the current maintainer's updated fork, or it can be a fork someone made that's identical to eth today with the date pushed back a few more y…

95% of Bitcoin miners voted to increase the block size and it didn't happen, but you're right about the benefit of the ice age.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#53

Post by wmf » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

koolba wrote: post #51

wmf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ze…

What if they choose two different chains?

That would explicitly break the one promise they made, which is that their coins are backed 1:1.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#54

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:21 AM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #31

liquidise wrote: post #2

EIP 1559 is a substantial change to the handling of gas fees on the network. In addition to making gas fees be 2 parts (base and "priority" fees), this includes a provision for "burning" the base fee, reducing the overall ETH supply. From the code itself: # miner only receives the priority fee; note that the base fee is not given to anyone (it is burned) Models i have seen suggest this will not make ETH deflationary,…

One really underrated component of EIP-1559 is how much more usable it makes the system. The complexity and uncertainty of how to set gas fees, stuck transactions, and the like is a major turnoff for new users. Experienced users tend to gloss over this, because they've already taken the time to mentally model all the complexities related to the gas market. I predict that post-London, we'll see a huge wave of new user…

[deleted]

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#55

Post by koolba » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:21 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #53

koolba wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they choose two different chains?

That would explicitly break the one promise they made, which is that their coins are backed 1:1.

I meant what if USDC and USDT pick two different chains to bless as their “official” chain? Is that not possible?

EDIT: I just realized the last letter in your examples are “A” and “B” to signify two versions of the same thing. My eyes aren’t what they used to be!

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#56

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #53

koolba wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they choose two different chains?

That would explicitly break the one promise they made, which is that their coins are backed 1:1.

Frax, USDT, and TrueUSD allow people to deposit into bank accounts and mint on eth mainnet or avalanche c-chain now (note: not mint on both places at the same time), neither make the claim that they are 1:1 backed (except for TrueUSD), but they make the claim that if you wanted to at any time (if you meet the criteria) you can withdraw from eth mainnet or avalanche c-chain to your bank account.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#57

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

koolba wrote: post #55

wmf wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would explicitly break the one promise they made, which is that their coins are backed 1:1.

I meant what if USDC and USDT pick two different chains to bless as their “official” chain? Is that not possible? EDIT: I just realized the last letter in your examples are “A” and “B” to signify two versions of the same thing. My eyes aren’t what they used to be!

It is possible.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#58

Post by cmckn » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

nodesocket wrote: post #50

michaelsbradley wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you are chosen to validate but your validator is down, broken or incorrect there is a penalty where they keep some of your ETH right?

Yup. The penalty is not kept by anyone though, it’s burned. Once your balance drops to 16 ETH, you’re removed from the validator pool. This happens slowly and depends on many factors of the current network.

https://launchpad.ethereum.org/en/faq

“””

How badly will I be penalized for being offline?

It depends. In addition to the impact of effective balance there are two important scenarios to be aware of:

Being offline while a supermajority (2/3) of validators is still online leads to relatively small penalties as there are still enough validators online for the chain to finalize. This is the expected scenario.

Being offline at the same time as more than 1/3 of the total number of validators leads to harsher penalties, since blocks do not finalize anymore. This scenario is very extreme and unlikely to happen.

Note that in the second (unlikely) scenario, you stand to progressively lose up to 50% (16 ETH) of your stake over 21 days. After 21 days you are ejected out of the validator pool. This ensures that blocks start finalizing again at some point.

“””

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#59

Post by dane-pgp » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:28 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #29

Animats wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ze…

Wouldn't a custodian have a potential conflict of interest here, picking a chain whose rules, say, give the custodian a recurring "management fee" to support their important role?

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#60

Post by michaelsbradley » Sat, Jul 17, 2021, 2:33 AM UTC

nodesocket wrote: post #50

michaelsbradley wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you are chosen to validate but your validator is down, broken or incorrect there is a penalty where they keep some of your ETH right?

If your validator isn't online and/or not able to "do its job" in the allowed for time-period, then it will be penalized.

The penalty for missing one validation is small; the penalty for missing a block proposal is also not huge, but bigger than the penalty for missing a validation. Penalties would pile up over time if a validator is offline for an extended period.

Long story short: if you intend to run an ETH2 validator, you should be reasonably sure it will be able to run well-connected to the Internet for extended periods of time. Intermittent and brief periods of downtime would not have a substantial economic impact on your validator, but extended periods of downtime would be bad.