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

81–90 of 153 posts

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#81

Post by cinquemb »

lupire wrote: post #78
cinquemb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When did Tether USDT stop (fraudulently) claiming to have backing assets?

None of this is related to the minting/burning across multiple chains or their cross chain redeemability (or lack thereof) but here are their respective claims:

USDT claim (“Every Tether token is always 100% backed by our reserves, which include traditional currency and cash equivalents and, from time to time, may include other assets and receivables from loans made by Tether to third parties, which may include affiliated entities (collectively, “reserves”).”) [1]

TrueUSD claim ("We work with independent third-party financial institutions to provide cash management for the underlying reserves backing TUSD tokens so that each TUSD token is backed by an equivalent amount of dollar deposits, cash equivalents, short-term government treasuries, or liquid investments. To achieve this, a portion of the dollar deposits backing TUSD are held in one or more depository accounts at our Banking Partners whose deposits may not be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). [2]

Frax claim ("FRAX stablecoins can be minted by placing the appropriate amount of its constituent parts into the system. At genesis, FRAX is 100% collateralized, meaning that minting FRAX only requires placing collateral into the minting contract. During the fractional phase, minting FRAX requires placing the appropriate ratio of collateral and burning the ratio of Frax Shares (FXS). While the protocol is designed to accept any type of cryptocurrency as collateral, this implementation of the Frax Protocol will mainly accept on-chain stablecoins as collateral to smoothen out volatility in the collateral so that FRAX can transition to more algorithmic ratios smoothly. As the velocity of the system increases, it becomes easier and safer to include volatile cryptocurrency such as ETH and wrapped BTC into future pools with governance. ")[3]

[1] https://tether.to

[2] https://trueusd.com/terms-of-service/

[3] https://docs.frax.finance/overview

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#82

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

zeven7 wrote: post #61
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…

Why the hell should I trust the miners more than the leadership? You say this like the leadership is this big, scary, shadowy group. The Ethereum leadership is one of the main reasons I invested in the coin. I love the leadership, and I trust them to make good decisions for the ecosystem.

'Ethereum leadership' did a rollback once, so there is zero reasons to believe they won't do this again if this will be in their interests. You see, 'code is a contract', but then it isn't.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#83

Post by pjc50 »

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…

At this point you realize that value is fundamentally a human creation, dependent on the belief and action of other humans, and there's nothing crypto or burning a power station's worth of electricity can do to change that.

The only thing prohibiting arbitrary forks is the risk of loss of trust in the leadership. And there's no guarantee of their long-term trustworthiness; what does succession planning look like among the dev team? What will you do when they retire?

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#84

Post by [deleted] »

lupire wrote: post #80
jlokier wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a great idea. It just doesn't work. HDDs don't have the right performance characteristics, unfortunately. You can do about 300 random access per second on a good HDD, which isn't enough to keep up with Ethereum's transaction rate, and each transaction needs quite a few of those each. You can do about 300,000 per second on NVMe. 1000 times faster. That's plenty.

what happens when eth get popular and nvme can't keep up?

[deleted]

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#85

Post by turbinerneiter »

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.

What's stops the rich to validate fake transactions from all wallets below 32eth to their own wallets?

Why does this 32eth min exist?

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#86

Post by RoboTeddy »

jl2718 wrote: post #75
dcolkitt wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All of that complexity is still in the priority fee. There is still zero incentive to include base-fee-only transactions.

Not quite: under typical Ethereum chain conditions, you can include a small constant-sized priority fee to encourage miners to include your transaction. (This is really simple, and can be a default which most users are never even aware of.)

This priority fee is free money for the miner; the only reason they would not include your tx is because it would make their block slightly larger, which would make it propagate over the network slightly more slowly, and slightly increases the chance that the race is won by a different miner who discovered a block nearly simultaneously. So, the priority fee just needs to be big enough to make up for this tiny extra risk.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#87

Post by rocqua »

turbinerneiter wrote: post #85
TarasBob wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's stops the rich to validate fake transactions from all wallets below 32eth to their own wallets? Why does this 32eth min exist?

Fake transactions take more than a 50% attack to execute. Because the transactions simply do not come with the required signatures.

For rolling back transactions, a 50% attack actually convinces the remaining honest nodes. For invalid transactions, even if you have 90% of the network, the remaining 10% of honest nodes will not follow the wrong chain.

This means anyone could detect this happening. At which point faith in eth will plummet, and so will prizes.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#88

Post by Freestyler_3 »

lupire wrote: post #80
jlokier wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a great idea. It just doesn't work. HDDs don't have the right performance characteristics, unfortunately. You can do about 300 random access per second on a good HDD, which isn't enough to keep up with Ethereum's transaction rate, and each transaction needs quite a few of those each. You can do about 300,000 per second on NVMe. 1000 times faster. That's plenty.

what happens when eth get popular and nvme can't keep up?

Multiply, or live in ram?

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#89

Post by Alkim »

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…

One question I had but was not answered by the FAQ is whether the London Mainnet updates will require updates to Beacon / validator implementations. Apologies if the answer is obvious to everyone else, but is is not obvious to me.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#90

Post by anon9001 »

turbinerneiter wrote: post #85
TarasBob wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's stops the rich to validate fake transactions from all wallets below 32eth to their own wallets? Why does this 32eth min exist?

If the validator starts reporting false results, it will get "slashed" by the network, and the validator will lose some of that 32 ETH.
Post reply on HN