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

The Merge

ethereum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 414 posts

Re: The Merge

#71

Post by dsimmons »

charcircuit wrote: post #7

Quote from the blog linked: >The target date is September 15, 2022, but this estimate might have even a week of error.

It depends on a host of factors, so it's hard to predict exactly.

As an example: it depends on the rate at which existing Proof of Work miners move the chain forward. We can make an estimated guess based on the current hash rate, but miners may begin to drop off early and try to "beat the rush" to sell their used hardware before everyone else, so the hash rate could drop more than anticipated.

Re: The Merge

#72

Post by jcranmer »

smashem wrote: post #53
jcranmer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fiat currency is not backed by military power. Note that there exist several countries without militaries, and none of those countries have worthless currencies. And there have existed countries that put significant investment into their military and still wound up with a worthless currency at the end.

You really believe that the USD, as the world's reserve currency, doesn't require its military to keep it that way.

Yes, I do, actually.

The US economy is the world's largest economy in gross value, is the largest or one of the largest trade partners of much of the world, and has very limited policies on capital control or other monetary restrictions. This means that there is going to be more depth on trading pairs via USD and even small currencies than you would likely have with other countries, you would have very little counterparty risk holding USD, and much trade will end up being denominated in USD anyways. So you'd be a bloody fool not to hold USD.

Magically blinking away the US military would not change any of the above consideration one iota.

So let me flip the question around: why do you believe that the US military is essential to its role as a major reserve currency?

Re: The Merge

#73

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

Tao3300 wrote: post #61

> As we approach The Merge of Ethereum Mainnet, you should be on high alert for scams trying to take advantage of users during this transition. Do not send your ETH anywhere in an attempt to "upgrade to ETH2." There is no "ETH2" token, and there is nothing more you need to do for your funds to remain safe. Yeah... this is going to be a shitshow. Who wants to set the over/under on $millions that get stolen? Which exch…

> Who wants to set the over/under on $millions that get stolen?

If you can think of a way to measure it metaculus would be interested properly.

> Which exchange or fund will lose a vast chunk of its holdings?

I'd place this at roughly at 0.01% chance for any major exchange or fund

Re: The Merge

#74

Post by simonebrunozzi »

repomies69 wrote: post #9
numlock86 wrote: post #5

> 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 has changed in the past. The block size, for example, is something that was modified a few years ago.

See also the "block size controversy" [0]

[0]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

Re: The Merge

#75

Post by 0x64 »

charcircuit wrote: post #7

Quote from the blog linked: >The target date is September 15, 2022, but this estimate might have even a week of error.

The current estimate for the upgrade can be found at [1]. It's not a regular upgrade that happens at a specific block height, hence the variance. Instead, the consensus is flipped over from PoW to PoS at a specific total difficulty, also known as mining difficulty. One of the reasons is to avoid miner attacks around the merge event.

[1] https://bordel.wtf/

Re: The Merge

#76

Post by alchemist1e9 »

WFHRenaissance wrote: post #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…

> 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.

Is there a good place to read more about this hardware requirements as a function of validator slots? A concern in my mind with PoS is what is the incentive to expand the physical hardware footprint of the network. I understand this implies more energy usage, however it is a requirement for a decentralized, distributed, and resilient system, otherwise it can very easily be physically attacked if the footprint becomes overly concentrated with a few very powerful nodes.

Unless the hardware requirements are a convex function of total staked then if me and you both want to stake we will see the hardware and network/bandwidth costs as something we could share, which if everyone calculates the same, the network will physically shrink.

Re: The Merge

#77

Post by cowtools »

paulpauper wrote: post #48
numlock86 wrote: post #5

> 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/

That's something Bitcoin needs ... or even better get rid of it altogether. As the price keeps falling, presumably so will energy consumption. The energy consumption problem fixes itself as the bubble bursts and people lose interest and mining becomes unprofitable, without the need for regulation.

If the price continues to fall, the bitcoin network will become susceptible to 51% and selfish-mining attacks.

Re: The Merge

#78

Post by 0x64 »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #65

How are gas fees going to be calculated, and how do you plan to control spamming the network similar to what you see with Solana?

Block times become exactly 12 seconds, that's it. Nothing else changes: it's the same Ethereum, just greener and very slightly faster!

Re: The Merge

#79

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

numlock86 wrote: post #5

> 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/

I believe that after the block size wars that resulted in Bitcoin cash and bitcoin (the chain that chose the path of no change) the bitcoin community ossified into a community that is actively resistant towards changes, and bitcoin cash is much smaller and suffered from many subsequent forks.

Without significant outside force bitcoin will not change to proof of stake, they are currently framing proof of stake as useless and insecure, IMO because of motivated reasoning from the stance that bitcoin is perfect, therefore any deviation from what bitcoin has is a mistake.

Re: The Merge

#80

Post by dsimmons »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #65

How are gas fees going to be calculated, and how do you plan to control spamming the network similar to what you see with Solana?

Gas fees don't materially change under Proof of Stake. It's a common misconception that The Merge reduces fees (it does not).
Post reply on HN