Live data from Hacker News

The Merge

ethereum.org

21–30 of 414 posts

Re: The Merge

#21

Given that the merge reduces the electricity cost for new Ethereum by ~1000x, won't the price just tank in a race to the bottom?

The supply of ETH is only related to electricity when it's possible to mine it with electricity. Otherwise, what keeps the price of crypto up is people competing to get currency for uses like remittance. Since sending money to another country using a cryptocurrency ties up an amount of currency for a period of time, users have to compete for the available tokens in order to exchange with them.

Re: The Merge

#22
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of work is the only way to get acceptable security properties for a monetary system. Proof of stake suffers from the "nothing at stake" problem, leading to grinding attacks etc.

> Proof of work is the only way to get acceptable security properties for a monetary system. Every country's financial system: ahem. The U.S. dollar doesn't require giant energy-hungry server farms to be secure.

True, the USD just requires violence and cohersion.

Re: The Merge

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proof of work is the only way to get acceptable security properties for a monetary system. Every country's financial system: ahem. The U.S. dollar doesn't require giant energy-hungry server farms to be secure.

The U.S. dollar is backed by a military many times more energy intensive.

What?

Re: The Merge

#24
post #12
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quote The Merge will reduce Ethereum's energy consumption by ~99.95%.

Does the merge come with any real world benefits? Besides now not needing the yearly power consumption of Belgium. Like... Can i buy bread and milk with this thing any time soon?

No. It's still a cryptocurrency.

Re: The Merge

#25

> The Merge will reduce Ethereum's energy consumption by ~99.95%. That's something Bitcoin needs ... or even better get rid of it altogether. https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

Bitcoin is never going to change from PoW... That's the point of the system, Bitcoin is unchangable, unlike Ethereum. But you are free to create your own PoS cryptocurrency. If some PoS system offers the same security features as Bitcoin, people will just switch from Bitcoin to that.

Bitcoin is still software. Software can change. It's the people who refuse to change it

Re: The Merge

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proof of work is the only way to get acceptable security properties for a monetary system. Every country's financial system: ahem. The U.S. dollar doesn't require giant energy-hungry server farms to be secure.

Granted, it is not a server farm, but the US military isn't exactly carbon neutral.

There are server farms within the military, so by proxy, the USD does require server farms. Then the private financial institutions have server farms.

Re: The Merge

#27

Given that the merge reduces the electricity cost for new Ethereum by ~1000x, won't the price just tank in a race to the bottom?

Is someone out there buying ETH because of the power that went in to mining it? It's more about supply and demand, I think. The supply of ETH does change after the merge, but from what I understand there will be less generated than before.

All the tokens and contracts that use Ethereum will still need to pay gas fees and now instead of miners earning ETH, stakers will.

Re: The Merge

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proof of work is the only way to get acceptable security properties for a monetary system. Every country's financial system: ahem. The U.S. dollar doesn't require giant energy-hungry server farms to be secure.

The U.S. dollar is backed by a military many times more energy intensive.

So if the us replaced the dollar with Bitcoin they could eliminate or downsize their military?

Doubtful

Re: The Merge

#30
Ethereum in its current state is using proof-of-work (PoW) to ensure consensus amongst the thousands of nodes in the network. While PoW is reliable and secure, it is also extremely energy intensive. To produce each block on the network participants are required to use powerful and energy-hungry GPUs to solve a complex mathematical problem.

Alternatively, proof-of-stake (PoS) guarantees the security of the network in a different way. In PoS, anyone with 32 ETH can deposit that ETH to become a validator, a node that participates in the network's consensus algorithm. Finalizing a block requires 2/3 of all active validators to sign off on it. Should a malicious actor try to tamper with the underlying protocol by using a large number of validators to revert a finalized block (the equivalent of a "51% attack" in PoW) their funds are slashed — meaning they lose a portion of their staked ETH. This makes attacks extremely expensive; it would be like a PoW system where if you use your mining hardware to attack the network then your hardware catches fire and is destroyed.

PoS does not require the same energy-intensive hardware as PoW. Any relatively recent consumer hardware should be capable of running the software required to operate a 32 ETH staking node. If you deposit more than 32 ETH, you will be assigned multiple "validator slots" by the protocol, but you will still be able to run them from a single computer, though hardware requirements go up the more you stake. Most estimates put the expected energy savings from the switch to PoS to be around 99%.

If you have any additional questions please let me know!

Post reply on HN