And now there's a split where the miners keep mining and everybody gets a new duplicate coin account and the grifters cash out more?
Mainnet Merge Announcement
251–260 of 609 posts
Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are staking pools, just like there were mining pools.
You can mine with one GPU, pool or no. Stake pooling also eliminates one of the supposed benefits of decentralised cryptocurrency - you have to trust someone else with your currency.
If I understand correctly, you are not trusting "someone", u are trusting the network itself. Imo no different than any other operation on the network. Any operation on the network requires trust that the network will do what it agreed it will do.
Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement
#253Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement
#254Is 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…
Totally wrong. Anybody has the ability to declare "the people with stakes did not validate correctly" In this context, what it means is that a person posted conflicting validation messages on different parts of the network, and anybody who can show the existence of two such conflicting messages can post it to the blockchain, receive a reward, and the offending validator gets slashed. (There are also other ways you ca…
I should point out that because Ethereum is a dark forest[0], slashers will collapse to a subset of stakers. More specifically, anyone who is not a staker is at the mercy of the mempool[1] to broadcast their slashing transaction and at the mercy of other stakers to correctly record it. There is no economic incentive to do so, and no way to constrain the software such that stakers cannot manipulate the slashing message to take the payout for themselves. And since regular users who slash don't get rewarded for it, there is less incentive to actually bother watching the watchmen.
[0] https://www.paradigm.xyz/2020/08/ethereum-is-a-dark-forest
[1] No clue if this has a different name in Ethereum
Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the software will automatically discard the evidence. I would suggest to stop spamming the HN comment section and read the introductory articles people helpfully linked you to.
It's a simple question. No need for ad hom.
What GP posted is not an ad hom; they did not argue for or against anything, and even if they did it wasn't based on the characteristics of the speaker.
Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement
#256If Ethereum is inflationary, and there is a minimum cost to staking, why would I ever begin to stake if I know that the cost can only go down in the future?
For starters, Ethereum is not inflationary. ETH is minted and burned according to network activity. The more people making transactions (and paying for them) the less ETH will be created. It can even get to the point where some blocks lead to a net burn of ETH. Why would you stake? Even if the returns were low (compared to what?), people like me are interested in staking merely to help secure the chain at a (relative…
I won't beat around the bush. What is an ETH worth? There are not details about the economics, just the ecosystem, which is replicated across more thoughtful platforms. I personally prefer Cardano, since the software itself has a better foundation, and the fixed supply implies some urgency in adoption.
$53,731.20 is enough USD for me to keep my t2.micro up for 300 years, so is there some mathematical guarantee that means there's any value in adopting ETH immediately?
Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not hard-forking, it will be compatible with the original chain and original rules. There will be two competing forks, one censored, one not censored, and the censored one is longer (because 51%). Consensus rules say longer chain is valid. So it _is_ the official "bitcoin", according to consensus rules. The 51% attack is not some made up thing.
If 51% of miners decide to totally ignore the other 49% then their chain will most definitely not be the longest chain for any more than 30 minutes. Because the 49% are still using 100% of miners' work. The only way they can maintain that chain is by a hard fork.
It's easier to explain a 66% attract. The censored chain produce the double of blocks of the censored one. Each time the uncensored chain produce a block it's ignored by the censored one.
So after a time, they are behind and have to jump to the other chain and ignore their own old blocks. Something like this graph:
Censored blocks: -
Uncensored Fork blocks: \
Uncensored Normal blocks: *
Censored: *--------------------------
Uncensored: \** \* \*** \** \*Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement
#259I have to say I'm very surprised, and I'm curious to see how this plays out. PoW must die, but I have a hard time seeing how this won't lock up a ton of currency and create its own plutocracy. Of course I suppose an argument could be made that a "least privilege plutocracy" with aligned interests is not as bad as many alternatives.
Why would this be any more plutocratic than any other capitalist economy? It's a mechanism where you can lock up ETH and get paid a steady return over time (about 3.9% today). Similarly the US dollar has treasury bonds where you can lock up USD and get paid a steady return over time (about 3.4% today).
That brings up an interesting point. Would PoS rewards get adjusted with central bank interest rates? If not, isn't there a risk of validators fleeing for better returns elsewhere?
Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if most of the miners collude to double spend tokens? The problem is the same. The difference is that proof of work automatically tends to centralisation due to its economy of scale: it's cheaper to add one more miner to your pool if you already have a big mining operation, but staking 1 eth is always staking 1 eth. Both PoS and PoW have the problem where you can buy out the majority if you have the power to do…
I don't understand this comment: "but staking 1eth is always staking 1eth". If I have 100 GPUs and I buy one more can't I turn around and say "But buying one more GPU is just buying one more GPU"? Even if your point is that electricity bills are lower per additional GPU, surely humans discount the value of incremental money after some point so for those with lots of eth incremental eth isn't worth as much?
It’s cheaper to run 1 more GPU when you are already running 100
It’s the same price to add 1 eth when you own 100 eth as when you own 1 eth