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

Mainnet Merge Announcement

blog.ethereum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 609 posts

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#81

Post by spywaregorilla »

miloignis wrote: post #58
spywaregorilla wrote: post #10

Is it incorrect to say that ethereum is now entirely centralized with some extra steps? Like, you have this proof of stake thing, but the only reason it works is because there's just a small number of validators, which is just going to be the ethereum foundation and friends. edit: putting this at the top because nobody is responding on topic. I am NOT talking about the class of people who stake 32 eth to validate nod…

Apologies if I get this incorrect, I'm an amateur, but I have read about the design - the slashers will likely be few and centralized, but that's not disastrous because the slashers must provide proof of wrong doing to cause someone's ETH to get "slashed". That is, they're likely to be centralized (though they don't have to be! I believe anyone can be one) but they have to prove to everyone that something should be s…

> they have to prove to everyone that something should be slashed in order to do so

Who is everyone? Because obviously it can't include the people who just colluded to deceive the network.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#83

Post by tromp »

eterm wrote: post #51
tylersmith wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Stakers don't make the rules any more than miners make Bitcoin rules.

Miners do make Bitcoin rules though, the entire protocol is a consensus protocol driven by the miners.

Wrong; if miners deviate from the rules, then their blocks are simply ignored by everyone else.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#84

Post by exo762 »

eterm wrote: post #51
tylersmith wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Stakers don't make the rules any more than miners make Bitcoin rules.

Miners do make Bitcoin rules though, the entire protocol is a consensus protocol driven by the miners.

Rules of the system are implemented in the software validating the block, in so called "full nodes". It does not matter how much hashing power miner has - if they will produce invalid block, this block will get rejected by nodes. Miners have very limited powers: they decide which transactions are included (this is why we need many miners) and they decide in which order transactions are included. Users decide which token they hold (BTC or BTC Cash or Eth), which node software they run. Miners are low-margin workers.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#85

Post by immibis »

leppr wrote: post #74
bowsamic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I think the biggest problem with crypto is how it has mainly been used either to scam people or to further centralise wealth towards the richest. I have seen very little morally good outcomes of crypto yet, but a vast number of morally bad ones.

The wealth centralization effect is not an inherent aspect of crypto, it was nothing more than a result of the liquidity injections from central banks. The same argument could be made of all scarce assets that rocketed in price in the past years. Watches, the stock market, and real estate don't inherently "centralize wealth". Their price appreciation was only a symptom of the reduced cost of debt, which naturally fav…

Crypto has the same wealth centralization problem as all currencies (so far) - it's not immune, at all. It's not because of central bank activity. Wealth just centralizes. Free market economics lead to this emergent outcome.

In principle, inflationary currencies have a force pushing away from wealth centralization, while deflationary currencies have a force pushing towards it, which is why everyone who thinks they'll have the centralized wealth likes deflationary currencies.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#86

Post by Zamicol »

cowtools wrote: post #73
aaaaaaaaata wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the benefit of a low-cost global consensus system...? Is this sarcasm? Or are you getting caught up in some version of politics?

etherium is hardly low-cost

It's currently about $.02 to send Ethereum on an Ethereum L2 (Loopring): https://l2fees.info

Ethereum at the moment isn't too bad with a fee of ~$0.83.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#87

Post by sicp-enjoyer »

dmichulke wrote: post #21
spywaregorilla wrote: post #10

Is it incorrect to say that ethereum is now entirely centralized with some extra steps? Like, you have this proof of stake thing, but the only reason it works is because there's just a small number of validators, which is just going to be the ethereum foundation and friends. edit: putting this at the top because nobody is responding on topic. I am NOT talking about the class of people who stake 32 eth to validate nod…

Let's say it like this: In the near future the rules are made by the people with the most ETH and soon after the most ETHs will be earned by the people who make the rules.

The rules have always been made by the ethereum foundation and friends. How many rollbacks and forks have they done at this point?

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#89

Post by rvz »

DanHulton wrote: post #25
rvz wrote: post #8

> Ethereum’s transition to proof-of-stake has been a loooong time coming. Thank you to everyone who contributed to researching, specifying, developing, analyzing, testing, breaking, fixing, or explaining everything that got us to The Merge. At least now it has a hard deadline which will silence the parroting critics on 'burning up the planet', 'The merge will NEVER happen', 'repeated delays', etc. But I imagine that…

That has hardly ever been the ONLY problem crypto has had, ands acting as if solving this one problem should silence all dissenters lest they be considered unserious is disingenuous. Look at the comments for literally any popular article about crypto on this site, hell, keep scrolling on this one and you'll probably find plenty. I, for one, am happy that enabling art theft and fraud on a massive scale will shortly no…

> That has hardly ever been the ONLY problem crypto has had,

Where did I say it was the only problem? Why are you strawmaning my comment with such anger?

> ands acting as if solving this one problem should silence all dissenters lest they be considered unserious is disingenuous.

Another strawman and this rhetoric sounds like defeat and denial and my point was (if you've properly read my comment instead of misconstruing it) as soon as it moves to proof-of-stake, there will be no argument on the environmental issues in Ethereum, which was regularly parroted by the critics.

> Look at the comments for literally any popular article about crypto on this site, hell, keep scrolling on this one and you'll probably find plenty.

Look at what? I see no comments about the environmental issues in Ethereum anymore, which proves my point. I already recognise that there are scams, ponzis, etc happening in Ethereum which the regulators will step in and crackdown on them anyway.

> I, for one, am happy that enabling art theft and fraud on a massive scale will shortly no longer ALSO consume terrifying amounts of electricity and hardware

Exactly. All the fraud and scams are visible on a public blockchain which is easily traceable for everyone including the SEC, CFTC and the FBI to see.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#90

Post by pawelduda »

Anon1096 wrote: post #69
zyphr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't stake 1 eth yourself. You need to at least 32 eth. Plus you need to make an investment to run your own a validator.

32 eth is such a small investment that it isn't that meaningfully different than 1 eth.

Yeah, taking $4k (price it reached in the recent bull market).

$4k vs $128k

Literally the same numbers.

Post reply on HN