Live data from Hacker News

Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork

cnbc.com

81–90 of 205 posts

Re: Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Another aspect of this is 51% attacks are recoverable for PoW, but are a permanent takeover condition for PoS networks. If a single entity ever accumulates more than half the tokens on a PoS network, they are unassailable. This is not true. PoS has many design flavours and the one Ethereum is planning on implementing includes random selection of validators and the amount staked has no influence on the inclusion or t…

If amount staked has no influence on inclusion or vote weight then what’s to stop a large ETH holder from splitting their wallet into several smaller wallets with the minimum staking balance and just gaining vote weight that way?

Because the validators are chosen randomly by the network.

Re: Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork

#82
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This change burns the "base fee" instead of giving it to miners, which means it goes to nobody and is gone forever

Whats the incentive for miners to continue to mine? They now just rely on tips? Won't they all just bail if they're not receiving enough tips to be profitable?

It's still profitable

Re: Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork

#83
post #59
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital is capital, be it in the form of money or hardware. Putting the onus on capital in a form of hardware is just making it harder for smaller guys. I can throw 32 ETH into staking. It's way beyond my capability to mine - wrong geography, electricity prices, accommodation situation etc.

Just a reminder that smaller guys don't have 32 ETH to spare. That's $88,603 USD. Not much for the levels.fyi crowd, but a fortune to most people. Which means, whether you can stake is very dependent on your personal situation - especially geography - much like whether you can profitably mine. Of course staking is still better than mining for many reasons. But it's a somewhat rich person's game.

Staking will still be accessible to those with less than 32 ETH via pooled staking, e.g. Rocket Pool: https://www.rocketpool.net/

Re: Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork

#84
post #59
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capital is capital, be it in the form of money or hardware. Putting the onus on capital in a form of hardware is just making it harder for smaller guys. I can throw 32 ETH into staking. It's way beyond my capability to mine - wrong geography, electricity prices, accommodation situation etc.

Just a reminder that smaller guys don't have 32 ETH to spare. That's $88,603 USD. Not much for the levels.fyi crowd, but a fortune to most people. Which means, whether you can stake is very dependent on your personal situation - especially geography - much like whether you can profitably mine. Of course staking is still better than mining for many reasons. But it's a somewhat rich person's game.

You can join a staking pool with as little as you have. Just like joining a mining pool with your laptop.

And you can get eth with gasless minting of nfts. Draw a picture and sell it. Don’t have to spend any money.

I much prefer this to burning up electricity which basically hands the network to energy suppliers and asic manufacturers.

Re: Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork

#85
post #6

Can someone explain to me how PoS is not centralized? The whole point of crypto and the blockchain is decentralization, no? I feel like crypto/blockchain will end up looking nothing like how it was intended, and be regulated to the point that it's just the next iteration of the traditional banking system, where the current power holders continue holding the power. Maybe I was naive to ever think it would be any diffe…

How is it more centralized than PoW? I see multiple factors that hamper decentralization:

- Fixed costs that act as barrier of entry

- Economies of scale that lead to centralization

- Geographic factors (operation costs being different in different parts of the world, regulation/taxation, supply chain...)

This is how I see each factor playing out in both scenarios:

- Fixed costs: PoS runs on consumer-grade hardware, while PoW requires specific HW (ASICs or high-grade GPUs). PoS requires a minimum amount of stake but there are pooling solutions, which effectively make this minimum non existent. All in all PoS is at advantage here, unless you want to insist on solo staking in which case PoW is at advantage.

Analogy: This would be equivalent to flat fees to open a savings account or a minimum amount balance required to open it.

- Economies of scale: In PoS they are almost non-existent. You don't stake more efficiently by having a more powerful machine. You just get to reuse the same HW for more nodes but since fixed costs are low this has a very small impact. In PoW there are economies of scale, though, better/more expensive ASICs can mine more efficiently than smaller/cheaper ones. Same with GPUs. Someone with more initial capital can get ahead faster in PoW, while in PoS earns at a same rate as everyone else.

Analogy: This would be equivalent to the interest rate you get in your savings account being dependent on how much money you have. In PoW, the richer you are the higher interest rate you get from your bank, in PoS everyone gets the same.

- Geographic factors: Cheap access to energy has a large impact on PoW as it dictates most of your OpEx. In PoS this is largely irrelevant (PoS is 99.95% more energy efficient than PoW). Taxation/regulation would need its own analysis but I imagine is equally spread across both alternatives. Supply chain is again in favor of PoS as it can run on general-purpose HW, while ASICs are heavily centralized around a single manufacturer.

Analogy: This would be equivalent to different geographic locations resulting in different conditions for maintaining open your bank account or taxing your accrued interest.

Re: Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork

#86
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here, market(s) over time will be cornered without control policies that counter monopoly.

This is why I think XRP will ultimately be a winner. No mining, no staking, just validating transactions.

Is there a law of the internet describing the phenomenon whereby any comment criticising cryptocurrency will promptly elicit a response comment proffering a cryptocurrency that's somehow different and "not like those other cryptos"?

Re: Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork

#88
post #34
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key distinction is that PoW is permissionless, whereas PoS is permissioned. Bitcoin is secured by hashpower, which is produced by physical capital outside the network. Nobody needs to ask for permission to start hashing and trade kilowatts for sats. PoS networks are secured by on-chain assets. This means you can't "mine" it without first buying tokens from someone who already owns them. You need permission from a…

> You need permission from an existing player in order to start participating. This is an incorrect explanation of what a permissioned blockchain is. A permissioned blockchain is one in which the ability to add blocks is limited to a certain collection of entities whose public keys are hard coded into the blockchain's consensus mechanism. We don't say that needing to buy tokens constitutes needing "permission" any mo…

I also generally understood permissionless to mean sybil attack resistant without closed membership which is the unique property of pow and pos systems.

Re: Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork

#89
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many stakers actually have enough to win blocks though. Just as in PoW miners make blocks in proportion to their hashpower, PoS stakers win blocks in proportion to their stake > What is the impact of shorting on PoS - what happens when I borrow enough ETH to win blocks, deliberately mis-verify TXs, and screw up consensus. Well, you can't "mis-verify TXs", everyone can check your work to see that all of the tran…

> so you would need to borrow around 5 billion USD in order to make this attack work. If you were about to find someone to sell you $5B in ETH at spot price. In reality you would need much more than this.

Indeed, this is true. I was also assuming you would be buying the ETH from other stakers (if not, you would need $8B in ETH at spot price) and that you as an attacker have the ability to make the network desynchronous (if not, you would actually need 1/2 the total stake rather than 1/3). These are just generous assumptions that give us a lower bound on how much money it would actually take to attack the network.

Re: Ethereum just activated its ‘London’ hard fork

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If amount staked has no influence on inclusion or vote weight then what’s to stop a large ETH holder from splitting their wallet into several smaller wallets with the minimum staking balance and just gaining vote weight that way?

Because the validators are chosen randomly by the network.

Random doesn't mean unweighted. Choose a number at random from this list [5, 10, 5, 12, 8, 5].
Post reply on HN