221–230 of 609 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead you just need a massive amount of eth
Wouldn't those with ownership in a system be best trusted with the self-interest of such a system? That seems to be the best alignment of incentives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rules have always been made by the ethereum foundation and friends. How many rollbacks and forks have they done at this point?
Just the one I think? Sure there have been network and client issues at times but that goes for Bitcoin as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The slashing can only occur if the validator can be proven to break certain rules e.g. double voting. The reports are evaluated by the network.
> The reports are evaluated by the network. The network which was just shown to be 51% malicious actors? And how is it evaluated? What if the slasher is dishonest? What if it sends trillions of fake requests?
In 2015 I wrote the Ethereum Foundation blog post detailing the phases of the release. In those days the Proof of State transition was known as Serenity. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/03/03/ethereum-launch-process... here is the blog post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Except that blocks are not “finalized”, like you’re imagining. With 51% of mining power, I can mine faster than the rest of the network, for an arbitrary number of blocks. The 51% attacker will have the longest chain for as long as they keep mining their chain because they’re chain will always (eventually) be the longest one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not the question I am asking. You can have many people putting up their 32 ETH. Sure that's "decentralized". But what if most of the stakers collude to double spend tokens? My understanding is that there is an additional layer of validators that have the power to force them to give up their stake as a penalty. Hence "proof of stake". And that there are very few validators. And it's really just the ethereum fo…
You’re mistaken, validators and stakers are one and the same. A 51% attack becomes unbelievably more expensive in a proof of stake system, especially because at the end of it all of your money is burned (whereas with POW you get to keep the GPUs unless they change the algo).
I can be anti-crypto and still appreciate this. First - clearly reducing the environmental impact of anything by this much is pro-humanity. (Although having the impact to begin with is another story.) Secondly from a sheer technical coordination perspective there's a feeling of pulling off a complex dance. Makes it hard for any of us to claim our workloads aren't testable!
> First - clearly reducing the environmental impact of anything by this much is pro-humanity. How long until BTC follows suit?
bullish outlook. Heavily loaded up when ETH was at <$1K.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reports are evaluated by the network. The network which was just shown to be 51% malicious actors? And how is it evaluated? What if the slasher is dishonest? What if it sends trillions of fake requests?
Evaluated in the same way that “does this address have enough to send to this much to this other address” is evaluated? If it isn’t valid, then a block containing it isn’t valid, and this is a thing which any client can automatically check. What happens if you try to send trillions of invalid transactions in any sensible chain?
The thing here is that the validators don't need to be honest when responding to a slasher report.