181–190 of 609 posts
How will this affect the revenue and stock prices of major hardware manufacturers? Particularly GPU manufacturers? If the price of GPU's drop due to a large second hand market opening up, would GPU manufacturers be hurt in any way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not correct, they can choose to not accept any blocks containing banned transactions, and still have the longest chain (statistically speaking). That's why the 51% number is significant.
That assumes the other 49% won't accept the bad guys' blocks in their chain. Those blocks are valid, so the 49% will accept them and build off of them. At any point there is still a 49% chance the next block will be mined by a good guy. If the bad guys decide not to accept the good guys' blocks, then they are hard forking Bitcoin and will end up just like Bitcoin Cash: irrelevant. This is the exact problem PoW was de…
The 51% attack is not some made up thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not correct, they can choose to not accept any blocks containing banned transactions, and still have the longest chain (statistically speaking). That's why the 51% number is significant.
That assumes the other 49% won't accept the bad guys' blocks in their chain. Those blocks are valid, so the 49% will accept them and build off of them. At any point there is still a 49% chance the next block will be mined by a good guy. If the bad guys decide not to accept the good guys' blocks, then they are hard forking Bitcoin and will end up just like Bitcoin Cash: irrelevant. This is the exact problem PoW was de…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not correct, they can choose to not accept any blocks containing banned transactions, and still have the longest chain (statistically speaking). That's why the 51% number is significant.
That assumes the other 49% won't accept the bad guys' blocks in their chain. Those blocks are valid, so the 49% will accept them and build off of them. At any point there is still a 49% chance the next block will be mined by a good guy. If the bad guys decide not to accept the good guys' blocks, then they are hard forking Bitcoin and will end up just like Bitcoin Cash: irrelevant. This is the exact problem PoW was de…
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…
What a time to be alive :)
Whether the project dies or continues forward the innovation coming from the space is pretty amazing.
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.
There will always be a miner (or validator in PoS) that will be willing to take Tornado Cash fees.
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…
No, it's the opposite. Proof of work is more centralised than proof of stake, because the former has an economy of scale: it's cheaper to add a single miner if you are a big mining operation vs a small mining operation. On the other hand, staking 1 eth is always staking 1 eth.
To me it sounds like staking has a much more powerful snowball effect than mining and the gap between the wealthiest ETH participants and everyone else will increase faster under PoS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wrong; if miners deviate from the rules, then their blocks are simply ignored by everyone else.
If a group of miners with minority compute power deviate from the rules they are ignored. If a group of miners with majority of compute power deviate from the rules, they become the rules. This process is how all changes to Bitcoin get rolled out.
The majority of miners implementing new rules only has an effect on which rules the validating nodes will start enforcing if those nodes implemented them and allowed miners to signal when to start.
Quoted post unavailable.
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?
What modern crypto has become is a new digital economy. You can build a digital economy without blockchain (most people here probably work in one), but what blockchain is bringing is sovereignty to the economy.
This distinction is important. Tech people keep talking about technical solutions to recent problems, but this isn't a problem caused by tech and its not a problem solved by tech. The conversation about things like tornado cash is one of foreign policy.
A self sovereign digital economy has autonomy, but it relies on imported compute, which means it needs friendly relationships with foreign governments.