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

111–120 of 414 posts

Re: The Merge

#111

Post by pkulak »

sktrdie wrote: post #37

I don't get proof of stake. What's stopping anyone from presenting a new chain made up of thousands of fake transactions? And why wouldn't such chain be accepted by the network? Is it just "checkpoints" hardcoded in the software that don't allow this?

Nothing. But nothing moves forward without consensus. So you'd need 51% of the network to agree with your made up chain, which would mean controlling about $100 billion in Eth. And then you've managed to destroy a network that you have $100 billion wrapped up in, so... good job? And if you try with less than 51% and the rest of the network slaps you down, you lose your stake (or some portion of it).

Re: The Merge

#112

Post by bhaak »

sktrdie wrote: post #37

I don't get proof of stake. What's stopping anyone from presenting a new chain made up of thousands of fake transactions? And why wouldn't such chain be accepted by the network? Is it just "checkpoints" hardcoded in the software that don't allow this?

All the nodes that have been online long enough will know that the fake chain is fake. Because it doesn't match the state that they have been observing all along.

So as long as you have no extended downtime, your nodes know what the right chain has to look like. Ethereum dynamically adds checkpoints so that block reorgs can't reach too far into the past but that is mostly a convenience function as it alone couldn't solve this issue.

Now, there is a problem if you are a new participant. Then you can't decide which chain is the right one. You could observe for a while and choose the one that has more validators but in theory, there's the possibility that there's a contentious hard fork going on.

In this case you need to get the information which chain is the right one from outside sources. E.g. like your preferred exchange or the official subreddit.

This is the most glaring difference between POS and POW. With POW, you don't need any outside information as you can just verify which chain needed more work to be created and this is by definition the correct one.

POW leverages physics to be completely self contained for the price of energy consumption.

Re: The Merge

#113

Post by rglullis »

uncletammy wrote: post #98
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…

Care to objectively articulate the arguments against switching to proof-of-stake? Why is it controversial?

It's only controversial in the minds of purists/"maximalists" who are too invested in BTC. Their arguments would be something like:

- PoS is not "decentralized" nor "democratic", because it means that only those with capital can participate in the network consensus building. This is "technically correct", but (a) it ignores that existing PoW also require massive amounts of capital to deploy mining facilities and (b) it is not democratic because only those with access to cheap electricity will profit from being a miner.

- PoS implies that those staking their crypto are "investing" with their tokens, which would make the token a "security" and not a "currency". This distinction could make it easy for the SEC and governments to intervene and create regulation that would require stakers to only participate if they implement changes at the protocol level. E.g, it could happen that a staker would reject to validate any block containing transactions to smart contracts that got sanctioned. This is a more real concern, if you think about all the big players (read, centralized exchanges) who are staking ETH on behalf of their customers and therefore will have non-negligible control over the network. In this case, the community expectation is that (a) users of staked ETH pull out of the exchanges and run their own validators and (b) the exchanges realize that they will be shooting themselves in the foot, and therefore go on to fight whatever legislation that pushes on that type of control/censorship at the protocol level.

Re: The Merge

#114

Post by pa7x1 »

alchemist1e9 wrote: post #76
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 HW requirements increase very very minimally.

See this response on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethstaker/comments/nk9qzt/multiple_...

Re: The Merge

#115

Post by ben_jones »

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #73
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

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

Over 0.01% of major exchanges and funds have been hacked or scammed this month.

Re: The Merge

#116

Post by encryptluks2 »

dsimmons wrote: post #80
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).

So what is the point of high fees under proof of stake? Before it was to reward the miners. Who exactly is being rewarded high fees once it changes and for what purpose?

If the costs to run a validator are too expensive or need too many resources then you just end up promoting a centralized solution.

Re: The Merge

#117

Post by WFHRenaissance »

rakoo wrote: post #56
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…

Thanks for the explanation! I have a few questions: - how does the punishment work ? Do all nodes see that a malicious actor changed the chain and write the bad ideas in some ledger meaning "these nodes just lost X ETH" ? - But if the malicious actor owns 2/3 of validators, what does he care what other nodes do ? They effectively control what block is accepted - is there an advantage to run more than one validator, i…

1. Punishment mechanisms here are kind of complicated, but in short, you're punished for mainly 2 reasons: being an offline validator, or for an attestation violating.

Slashers are entities that enforce the two above rules. If a slasher determines that you're node is down, or that you're committing an attestation violation (i.e. that you're signing more than one attestation in a given epoch mainly). The slasher actually does not get rewarded here. The block proposer who takes the broadcasted slashing and and adds a proof of it to their block proposition, and get what's called a whistleblower reward. Slashing is not meant to profitable, and the whistleblower reward is quite small. We don't need a million slashers, in fact, we could operate with just one... expect the Eth Foundation to run them, among other large players who can spare the resources.

2. Owning 2/3 of nodes economically is kind of silly. You essentially just 51% the network, and everyone else leaves. You're then stuck with a worthless personal currency. Have fun!

3. More than one validator means more validator rewards, and a bit more "power" in that you're a larger component of the general validation network.

Re: The Merge

#118

Post by boosteri »

entrep wrote: post #88
rakoo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the explanation! I have a few questions: - how does the punishment work ? Do all nodes see that a malicious actor changed the chain and write the bad ideas in some ledger meaning "these nodes just lost X ETH" ? - But if the malicious actor owns 2/3 of validators, what does he care what other nodes do ? They effectively control what block is accepted - is there an advantage to run more than one validator, i…

> - But if the malicious actor owns 2/3 of validators, what does he care what other nodes do ? They effectively control what block is accepted As I understand it, anyone who owns that amount of ETH would probably be interested in contributing to the trust of the Ethereum blockchain.

Why would it need to be a significant amount of ETH? Could someone coordinate an attack on validator nodes, making themselves 67%+ temporarily?

Re: The Merge

#119

Post by WFHRenaissance »

uncletammy wrote: post #98
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…

Care to objectively articulate the arguments against switching to proof-of-stake? Why is it controversial?

It definitely takes a bit of power away from miners, and it adds a bit of complication to the overall consensus mechanism of the chain.

Re: The Merge

#120

Post by pavlov »

khazhoux wrote: post #109
mondoveneziano wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was explaining in layman's terms.

Layman’s explanation: POW works by solving a complex mathematical problem. :-)

It’s not the layman’s explanation because the average person doesn’t encounter mathematical problems being solved by a brute force lottery.

In high school math, problems are solved by choosing the right formula and plugging in the right variables. Throwing the dice trillions of times isn’t what people imagine when they hear “solving a complex mathematical problem.” That framing is designed to make PoW more acceptable to laypersons, as it sounds like the computation is useful or at least clever rather than intentionally designed to waste energy.

Post reply on HN