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

Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

0xfoobar.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 338 posts

Re: Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

#181

Post by nailer »

clippablematt wrote: post #68
SilverBirch wrote: post #54

>Let’s walk through a couple theoretical scenarios where a subset of malicious validators wants to censor transactions, say those originating in FATF-blacklisted countries. Hang on a second. Just to be clear about this example, this example is walking through how Ethereum has been designed specifically to allow North Korea to transact Ethereum, and more than that, prevent anyone who dissents. Like, I mean ok, I get t…

You should understand that this is a very USA centred opinion. There’s a whole big world of different cultures and politics, and it is possible to believe there are other approaches where we reject violence and authority. It’s the usual “you’re helping drug dealers/terrorists/North Korea, but what about the children?!” state simping that ignores the violence of the existing systems, and ignores the billions of people…

> There’s a whole big world of different cultures and politics, and it is possible to believe there are other approaches where we reject violence and authority.

The post you're replying to was discussing sanctions, not violence.

Re: Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

#182

Post by redox99 »

amluto wrote: post #156

Following some links: https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/single_slot_finality > If 51% of validators start censoring, the victims and users can coordinate on a minority soft fork where they build on each other’s blocks and ignore the attacker. On the minority soft fork, the attacker’s deposits would lose millions of ETH to an inactivity leak, and after a few weeks the chain resumes finalizing. It seems that this co…

That's the social consensus, or "L0 consensus". It's a fork, so on only on this fork the attackers would lose the ETH.

The social consensus means that actual humans, in front of these 2 forks of ETH , the original chain being attacked, and the one where all the attackers stake has been deleted so it's safe (and also non-attackers "richer"), humans would call the latter "Ethereum" and use that. And the former would fall into irrelevance.

Re: Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

#183

Post by pa7x1 »

niemandhier wrote: post #12
whatisweb3 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Eth docs: > One validator is randomly selected to be a block proposer in every slot. This validator is responsible for creating a new block and sending it out to other nodes on the network. Also in every slot, a committee of validators is randomly chosen, whose votes are used to determine the validity of the block being proposed. The annotated code for this can be found in [2]. [1] https://github.com/eth…

Maybe I am stupid, but at least to me its not obvious how one would randomly select a member in a decentralized way, assuming some actors are malicious?

The procedure Ethereum uses to generate randomness is called RANDAO. You can see an explanation here:

https://benjaminion.xyz/eth2-annotated-spec/phase0/beacon-ch...

Re: Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

#184

Post by swat535 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #91
drexlspivey wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you just assume that Etherium is American?

The US assumes everyone is American when enforcement is concerned. Ask Kim Dotcom.

The complexities and intricacies of geopolitics (which is both driven and impacted by history, culture, school of taught, incentives,.. etc) are literally like a DC Comic Movie in the minds of some people with United States being the superhero world police who will crush evil with a mighty army and restore democracy and peace throughout the world..

Re: Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

#185

Post by operator-name »

amluto wrote: post #156

Following some links: https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/single_slot_finality > If 51% of validators start censoring, the victims and users can coordinate on a minority soft fork where they build on each other’s blocks and ignore the attacker. On the minority soft fork, the attacker’s deposits would lose millions of ETH to an inactivity leak, and after a few weeks the chain resumes finalizing. It seems that this co…

Yes, and thus is exactly what happens is 49% of validates start censoring. The legitimacy of the chain exists on the social level and not the protocol level - just as it does with BTC.

What's new here is the cost as it forces participants (stakers) to choose a side.

Re: Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

#186

Post by cowtools »

redox99 wrote: post #182
amluto wrote: post #156

Following some links: https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/single_slot_finality > If 51% of validators start censoring, the victims and users can coordinate on a minority soft fork where they build on each other’s blocks and ignore the attacker. On the minority soft fork, the attacker’s deposits would lose millions of ETH to an inactivity leak, and after a few weeks the chain resumes finalizing. It seems that this co…

That's the social consensus, or "L0 consensus". It's a fork, so on only on this fork the attackers would lose the ETH. The social consensus means that actual humans, in front of these 2 forks of ETH , the original chain being attacked, and the one where all the attackers stake has been deleted so it's safe (and also non-attackers "richer"), humans would call the latter "Ethereum" and use that. And the former would fa…

Why not just ditch the whole Proof-of-Stake system and use a classical consensus system then?

Re: Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

#187

Post by haxiomic »

didericis wrote: post #145
haxiomic wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out North Korea are using crypto! To fund missile programs https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60281129.amp The more I think on these things, the more I think trust is a feature, not a bug

Trust is a feature. Transparent systems in which transactions are screened do not trust their people . North Korea would never allow their people access to a truly private cryptocurrency (which Monero does better). It would become easier to funnel money internally and create opposing factions. This discussion is no different than a discussion about just rulers. If the person in charge of a monetary system has good in…

It’s an appealing idea and what attracts so many bright minds to crypto. People voting with their money for their interests or the interests of the group. Love it. But that’s not how this dynamical system plays out. It would perhaps stand a chance if players could make transaction decisions based on information about the other party but that just isn’t the case in practise. Bad actors have had no issue obscuring sources if they need to (as is clear by NK state successfully using stolen crypto). But let’s say they could make truly informed decisions, that would put them at a competitive disadvantage to those who just trade with anyone regardless of potential harm. So you have a system of oligarchic growth of bastards - the biggest bastards get bigger. We of course have a similar problem in fiat, but with a currency backed by government, you have a chance to place sanctions or seize funds of actors harming the group.

Organisation of systems of humans is _hard_. We’ve been trying many different systems of governance for thousands of years. There are appealing ideas, many experiments but no easy answer. Does currency decoupled from local governance work better or worse for the interests of humanity? The answer is not obvious and we should be careful saying we have clarity. It’s worth the experiment. I’m curious to know the result and watching the evidence carefully but my reading is results don’t support the suggestion that crypto is a force for good overall. It’s not even clear crypto stays trust-less and decentralised in any practical sense once it begins to collapse into more efficient structures of big players (coinbase and friends)

Re: Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

#188

Post by cowtools »

operator-name wrote: post #185
amluto wrote: post #156

Following some links: https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/single_slot_finality > If 51% of validators start censoring, the victims and users can coordinate on a minority soft fork where they build on each other’s blocks and ignore the attacker. On the minority soft fork, the attacker’s deposits would lose millions of ETH to an inactivity leak, and after a few weeks the chain resumes finalizing. It seems that this co…

Yes, and thus is exactly what happens is 49% of validates start censoring. The legitimacy of the chain exists on the social level and not the protocol level - just as it does with BTC. What's new here is the cost as it forces participants (stakers) to choose a side.

>just as it does with BTC.

Reminds me of the (largely failed) bitcoin XT fork. Bitcoiners didn't choose what was right for the network- they chose the easy path in an attempt to prevent fragmentation and keep the price high.

I have no reason to expect that ETH users won't do the same, just as they did in the DAO hack fork: they just choose whatever fork happens to profit them in the short-term at the expense of the decentralization of the network. Because at the end of the day it's just a money-making scheme to them.

>What's new here is the cost as it forces participants (stakers) to choose a side.

It doesn't force the stakers to do anything. The default behavior is to do nothing and accept censorship, in the same way that the default behavior for Bitcoin was to do nothing and accept small block sizes.

Re: Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

#190

Post by kobieyc »

kkielhofner wrote: post #134
chickenpotpie wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Current Bitcoin usage is literally a rounding error of global energy usage (0.1%) and if wildly successful would still be https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ That author doesn't seem to actually understand the scale of financial transactions in the world. Right now, there are about 300,000 Bitcoin transactions per day. The author defines Bitcoin being "wildly successful" as a 20x increase. Right now there are…

The average US adult does 2.3 financial transactions per day. The all time high number of bitcoin network transactions in a 24h period is a bit less than 500k. The busiest day for Bitcoin usage worldwide is roughly equivalent to the population of Modesto, CA. Blockchain occupies so much of the conversation and generates such incredible amounts of hype very few people truly understand just how insignificant it is in t…

Don't forget about the Lightning Network
Post reply on HN