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

321–330 of 609 posts

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#321

Post by idiotsecant »

rcxdude wrote: post #315
idiotsecant wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consensus in this case has a very specific technical meaning. You're trying to start some kind of philosophical discussion but you're not using the right words.

I know what the technical meaning is, but if you're going to argue for the usefulness of crypto you need to argue why the consensus that crypto achieves is actually useful, instead of just acting as if this is obvious.

No, you don't need to demonstrate that at all. This could just as easily be a decentralized database for counting the number of jellybeans that exist on pluto and that word would still mean the same thing.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#322

Post by dannyw »

tyrust wrote: post #276
stiltzkin wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't have the numbers here but last I read you can retire staking with just 3 validators.

This site has a calculator: https://www.stakingrewards.com/earn/ethereum-2-0/ Running three of your own validators gets you $7,333 a year. You'd have to be in a pretty low cost of living area for that to work.

1. Yield is increasing to 7% - 12% after the merge, as validators will now earn transaction fees, and MEV if configured. This increases it to approx $18k a year.

2. This is assuming 1 ETH = $1650. If the Ethereum price doubles (but still under the ATH), you'd be at $36k a year; not enough for Cali or NYC (perhaps if you own your home?) but certainly fine for cheaper COL states.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#323

Post by landemva »

TakeBlaster16 wrote: post #67
bowsamic wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Running a small validator is much riskier than being a small miner. If you're running a validator and have network downtime or any operational issues, you risk losing funds (the inactivity leak[1]). If you're mining and you have downtime, your only downside is the opportunity cost of not mining any blocks while you're offline. [1]: https://eth2book.info/altair/part2/incentives/inactivity

And the opportunity cost of the funds used to purchase (er, stake?) the expensive ASIC which loses resale value. Acres of silicon boat anchors.

In PoS you still have the staking tokens.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#324

Post by codeflo »

anderspitman wrote: post #305
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…

As an outside observer, my biggest takeaway from the threads here is that apparently the Ethereum devs have managed to create a technology so complicated that proponents can't concisely explain why it works and detractors can't explain why it doesn't.

As Tony Hoare already wrote in the 80s: “There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.”

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#325

Post by spywaregorilla »

Zamicol wrote: post #295
spywaregorilla wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But all evidence needs to be voted on. Even it's just a divine truth bool, the network still needs to vote on a consensus of whether or not it says TRUE. edit: for an example. you get hacked and lose $100M. You say fuck it, submit a slasher report that says it wasn't a valid transaction. you offer enough money to get x% of validators to agree with you. As far as I can tell, you cannot get slashed for your vote on a s…

If a network "votes down" cryptographic proof, that itself becomes cryptographic proof of dishonesty.

And... so what? Is there a mechanism to punish validators for not being honest on slasher votes?

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#326

Post by exo762 »

unnouinceput wrote: post #301
exo762 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask you to elaborate? This sounds intriguing.

It costs an average of ~5k USD to mine one bitcoin. Meaning even if the value drops at exchanges, no miner will sell below this value due to not breaking even on electricity. That's why also bitcoin miners go to places where electricity cost is low, and why they undervoltage their mining cards.

Why does it make any difference for me (a hypothetical BTC holder) how BTC is minted?

> Meaning even if the value drops at exchanges, no miner will sell below this value due to not breaking even on electricity.

It does not work like that. If you need to pay your bills you will sell BTC for whatever price it is right now. Unless you want to long BTC, but that's a different story.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#327

Post by rcxdude »

anderspitman wrote: post #305
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…

As an outside observer, my biggest takeaway from the threads here is that apparently the Ethereum devs have managed to create a technology so complicated that proponents can't concisely explain why it works and detractors can't explain why it doesn't.

To be fair, you'll find the same problem with PoW, except people are more confident in their misunderstandings.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#328

Post by ethbr0 »

Karunamon wrote: post #255
ethbr0 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I would suggest to stop spamming the HN comment section and read the introductory articles people helpfully linked you to.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#329

Post by meltyness »

rglullis wrote: post #286
meltyness wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Just so you know, plenty of people locked their ETH when it was well below $100. And for those that are joining now, but worry that the investment would be too big, consider the possibility of pooling resources with other people and stake using your own node . This is one the things that I would like to do next with Hub20, to help instance operators to pool together resources with their friends and to manage their va…

What you seem to be suggesting is that, there's some collective with an immutable interest in maintaining ETH-stability, ETH-usefulness?

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#330

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

josu wrote: post #228
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First - clearly reducing the environmental impact of anything by this much is pro-humanity. How long until BTC follows suit?

Never. PoW is a fundamental part of what makes bitcoin valuable.

It's also fundamentally limits the growth potential of BTC. In a PoW system, the amount of work done must be proportional to the total value of all BTC (if not, it would make 51% attacks feasible).

So if BTC uses an Argentina's worth of energy now, if the value of BTC grew 10X it would have to use on the order of 10 Argentina's worth of electricity. Obviously, that is not sustainable, and it ensures BTC can never grow in value too much if it sticks with PoW.

Post reply on HN