Ethereum Proof-of-Stake

Post by kkielhofner » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 4:20 PM UTC

thinkmassive wrote: post #175

kkielhofner wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The all time high number of bitcoin network transactions in a 24h period is a bit less than 500k …on chain aka “layer 1”

Post by amluto » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

jdoliner wrote: post #172

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…

They can only burn the honest validators stake on the softfork though. The main chain won't be impacted.

Post by camjohnson26 » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 4:26 PM UTC

0xfoobar wrote: post #218

camjohnson26 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically, if somebody forked the Ethereum PoS blockchain and faked timestamps to catch up to the real chain’s height, would there be any way to know which was the original other than community agreement? Seems like PoW makes it impossible since duplicating the original chain is prohibitively expensive. Not challenging the solution, just genuinely curious in how PoS works.

Great question, it's not timestamps but attestations (signed validator votes for pairs of checkpoint blocks) that determines the canonical chain head. This fork choice rule, known as LMD-GHOST, is different from PoW which has a "greatest difficulty" rule for determining the canonical chain. There is some element of bootstrapping who the original validator set was, known as "weak subjectivity". There's a great post fr…

Post by Geee » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

cowtools wrote: post #188

operator-name wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Post by aaaaaaaaata » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 4:39 PM UTC

drexlspivey wrote: post #81

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…

Did you just assume that Etherium is American?