Mainnet Merge Announcement • Hacker News Board

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#171

Post by exo762 » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 3:52 PM UTC

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #117

potatototoo99 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is correct. It was already much more centralized than for instance bitcoin, due to the difficulty in having a validator node, but now it is just managed by the big holders and that's that. Furthermore, they will censor transactions according to US laws at least, and if you try to validate and not censor, you will get your staked coins taken from you by the protocol (as opposed to PoW, where you just fail to g…

Already happening - the biggest miner refused to include Tornado Cash transactions in the mining pool. Stick a fork in it. Ethereum is done. With that degree of centralization, might as well just run a database and call it a day.

Since blockchains are specifically built with idea of censorship resistance in mind, and Ethermine not including TC transactions can't actually prevent other miners from including them... I'm struggling to understand the point you are trying to make.

Are you talking about lack of ideological purity of Ethermine?

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#172

Post by remram » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 3:52 PM UTC

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…

I was always wondering about this. From the start it seemed like "blockchain" could be easily replaced by a few trusted validators run by independent organizations, the same way certificate transparency logs are operated, for example. The value in Bitcoin and proof-of-work was that everyone could contribute to the security of the log.

As soon as mining pools appeared, and now even more with proof-of-stake, we are back with a few parties being the trusted validators. The fact that they get their powers from on-chain tokens rather than community decision... is it really a good thing?

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#173

Post by yunohn » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 3:52 PM UTC

TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #53

steeleduncan wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite far from true > but now it is just managed by the big holders To have any influence during the proof of work days you needed a server farm. This was also restricted to a small elite who could, if they wished, censor transactions.

It's incorrect to say PoW miners can censor transactions. With PoS, the big players control the small players. If the minority doesn't play along, their funds will be slashed by the procotol. If 66% of validators censor you, your transaction will never be finalized. With PoW, the big players cannot coerce the small players in any way. Everyone independently controls their own blocks. If 66% of miners censor you, your…

> Everyone independently controls their own blocks.

I believe the point is that there’s no prerequisite that all miners are independent, and will definitely collude. PoW or PoS this is the case, as blockchains cannot prevent IRL agreements.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#174

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 3:53 PM UTC

redox99 wrote: post #155

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only proves that ether is already too centralized. FWIW. I used to mine eth on a small scale so I am obviously biased.

That doesn't prove anything. You can solo mine with a single GPU and choose to censor whoever you want. Any miner no matter how small can censor their own blocks.

What you say is true in the same way like saying that taking a cup of water out of the ocean lowers the ocean level a little. It is true, but it is not significant. The moment the mining is moved to mostly non-solo miners ( and even now non-solo miners seem to vastly outnumber in sheer mining power established solo miners ).

Basically, concentration of power means that eth will quickly become everything the banks are.. only worse ( because with banks you at least have some regulation to back you up ):P

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#175

Post by drcode » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 3:53 PM UTC

spywaregorilla wrote: post #52

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code - not the people. Trust but verify - just like all other FOSS.

The people who are running the slasher nodes

If I understand what you mean by "slasher nodes" (there is no such term in reality): Anybody can run a node that checks for conflicting validation messages and get a small reward by doing so. There is zero stake required to do this. It is not some power conferred to "vitalik and his friends"

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#176

Post by tylersmith » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 3:53 PM UTC

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.

They do not, they simply produce blocks. If they produce blocks that don't comply your nodes rules you'll ignore them and it would simply be a liveness fault and not a safety one.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#177

Post by rawoke083600 » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

potatototoo99 wrote: post #23

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…

Yes, it is correct. It was already much more centralized than for instance bitcoin, due to the difficulty in having a validator node, but now it is just managed by the big holders and that's that. Furthermore, they will censor transactions according to US laws at least, and if you try to validate and not censor, you will get your staked coins taken from you by the protocol (as opposed to PoW, where you just fail to g…

No 'they dont take your coins/stake'. That is just plain false.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#178

Post by tromp » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

spywaregorilla wrote: post #103

immibis wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know the specific rules for Ethereum, but in general PoS systems, anyone can slash. All you have to do is submit two different headers for the same block signed by the same validator. This proves the validator is cheating. The person who submits the proof may get to keep some of the validator's slashed money, which is a good incentive to run slashing nodes as this can amount to thousands of dollars per slash,…

> This proves the validator is cheating. To whom? Who gets to decide to slash the funds? I caught you cheating and can prove it. You don't give a shit and control 51% of the network. How do you get punished?

You're right that for a slash to be publicly verifiable, the cheating evidence has to appear on-chain. So indeed there is the question of whether this evidence can be censored...

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#179

Post by tylersmith » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

marshray wrote: post #156

garydevenay wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules of the Bitcoin network are not validated by miners, they are validated by nodes. The miners have no control over nodes and unless their mining work is accepted by the consensus rules of the nodes they receive no mining reward.

> On 21 July 2017, bitcoin miners locked-in a software upgrade referred to as Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 91 > By 8 August, another milestone was reached when 100% of the bitcoin mining pools signaled support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SegWit#Activation

That's signaling, built into the end users fully-validating nodes, to coordinate between the miners producing blocks and nodes validating them. The validating nodes are the ones that offered up and then accepted the signaling.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#180

Post by remram » Wed, Aug 24, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

tboyd47 wrote: post #134

redox99 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are spreading false information. Besides the "centralization" thing that was already replied, the part of > and if you try to validate and not censor, you will get your staked coins taken from you by the protocol (as opposed to PoW, where you just fail to get your block in the chain) Is outright false. It is the same as PoW. You choose what transactions you include in your block. So some people may choose to not…

This 51% attack thing is such a canard. If 51% of Bitcoin miners are malicious, the most harm they can do is fail to include your valid transaction in their blocks. So, your transaction will be confirmed in the next block mined by one of the other 49% of miners. Big whoop.

51% can do double-spend in Bitcoin, e.g. they can undo entire blocks of transactions and spend that money again.

They can also prevent you from getting your transaction in ever. The 49% cannot prevent this because they cannot make a longer chain, that is the entire point of proof-of-work.