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

421–430 of 609 posts

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#421

Post by 735409264082 »

usrusrusrusr wrote: post #417
drog wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no designated class of slashers. Slashing is part of the protocol and to slash somebody you have to prove it to the protocol that they broke rules of slashing. One of the rules is that you can't create two different blocks in the same slot (block number) i.e. you can't deliberately fork. There is a designated place in the block of the beacon chain where you can put signatures of the different blocks in the s…

>There is no designated class of slashers. Not true. In your defence, I also only learned this today. https://docs.prylabs.network/docs/prysm-usage/slasher https://lighthouse-book.sigmaprime.io/slasher.html

Your links contradicts your statement. It's absolutely true that there is no designated class of slashers. Who do you think designates slashers?

Anyone can be a slasher, just as anyone can be a staker (as long as you have 32 Ether).

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#422

Post by darawk »

usrusrusrusr wrote: post #417
drog wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no designated class of slashers. Slashing is part of the protocol and to slash somebody you have to prove it to the protocol that they broke rules of slashing. One of the rules is that you can't create two different blocks in the same slot (block number) i.e. you can't deliberately fork. There is a designated place in the block of the beacon chain where you can put signatures of the different blocks in the s…

>There is no designated class of slashers. Not true. In your defence, I also only learned this today. https://docs.prylabs.network/docs/prysm-usage/slasher https://lighthouse-book.sigmaprime.io/slasher.html

Your links do not say that there is a designated class of slashers. They just say that it is resource intensive relative to its rewards, so not everyone will want to be one. Anyone who chooses to, however, can be one.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#423

Post by KallDrexx »

steeleduncan wrote: post #36
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…

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.

> 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.

Legitimate question because I don't know.

When I'm mining eth on my GPU while part of a mining pool, my understanding is that my GPU is racing to try and find the hash that works to start the next block. If I find it, I then am able to put transactions into the block and cap it off, but the reward doesn't go to me because I was part of a pool, so the pool shares the reward with everyone involved.

Are you saying I only find the answer to the block but the pool itself stuffs the block with transactions?

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#424

Post by brobinson »

capableweb wrote: post #390
sbierwagen wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If being subject to OFAC oversight would "destroy" Ethereum, then Ethereum should be destroyed.

Why is that? OFAC is a US government agency, Ethereum is not a US-based organization. Why should they be forced to follow US laws? There are plenty of us outside of the US who do not care about what's illegal in the US or not.

You're misunderstanding his post. He's saying that if such a US-centric thing threatens the entire system, the system shouldn't exist at all. It will have failed at its mission to be decentralized and thus has no reason to exist.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#425

Post by anonporridge »

jahewson wrote: post #411
anonporridge wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Na. Bitcoin and Ethereum make up 60% of the total cryptocurrency "market cap" and a good chunk of the remainder are USD stablecoins that run on top of a base chain with no mining itself. The next most valuable proof of work coin at Unless Ethereum miners forcibly maintain a PoW fork or try to pump up Ethereum Classic back into the spotlight, GPU mining might finally be effectively dead. As many people have said for y…

Eek, thanks for the stats, I didn’t realise it was that lopsided. Maybe I’ll be able to afford a GPU again!

Yeah. Ethereum has been the bane of home PC gaming for years now.

It would have been nice if they had at least moved to purpose made ASICs, like bitcoin had the decency to do.

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#426

Post by rauljordan2020 »

drog wrote: post #200
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…

There is no designated class of slashers. Slashing is part of the protocol and to slash somebody you have to prove it to the protocol that they broke rules of slashing. One of the rules is that you can't create two different blocks in the same slot (block number) i.e. you can't deliberately fork. There is a designated place in the block of the beacon chain where you can put signatures of the different blocks in the s…

I am one of the maintainers of the Go implementation of Ethereum proof-of-stake, called Prysm (github.com/prysmaticlabs/prysm) and also implemented a "slasher" in Go that can be used to slash malicious validators. Anyone can run a slasher and you don't need to have 32 ETH to do so. As long as your slasher software can prove that a validator committed a slashable offense, you can submit this proof to any full node to proceed with slashing the malicious actor. It is permissionless, global, and we only need a few honest slashers in the world for the system to work correctly

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#427

Post by pcthrowaway »

michaelsbradley wrote: post #357
kkielhofner wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For beacon that is definitely better than the last time I looked. However geth is still 75% and relevant to the topic of the merge, roughly 88% of current clients aren't ready for it[0]!!! It will be interesting to see what these numbers look like when the merge actually happens... [0] - https://ethernodes.org/merge

The maintainers of geth recently published and then flagged (as bugged) the first release that was fully Merge-ready, so it's not really possible that geth operators could be ready at this time. I believe just today the next release was published, fixing the bug in the previous one: https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/releases

If geth isn't ready for the merge, how were (formerly) PoW testnets upgraded to PoS already?

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#428

Post by rauljordan2020 »

rauljordan2020 wrote: post #426
drog wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no designated class of slashers. Slashing is part of the protocol and to slash somebody you have to prove it to the protocol that they broke rules of slashing. One of the rules is that you can't create two different blocks in the same slot (block number) i.e. you can't deliberately fork. There is a designated place in the block of the beacon chain where you can put signatures of the different blocks in the s…

I am one of the maintainers of the Go implementation of Ethereum proof-of-stake, called Prysm (github.com/prysmaticlabs/prysm) and also implemented a "slasher" in Go that can be used to slash malicious validators. Anyone can run a slasher and you don't need to have 32 ETH to do so. As long as your slasher software can prove that a validator committed a slashable offense, you can submit this proof to any full node to…

In fact, here are the instructions anyone can use to run a slasher at home https://docs.prylabs.network/docs/prysm-usage/slasher

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#429

Post by pcthrowaway »

kkielhofner wrote: post #211

What surprises me most about the Ethereum ecosystem is the software and release engineering of the implementations, especially the reference (now execution layer) go-ethereum. As has been noted elsewhere "the merge" has been in progress for years. Here we are approximately three weeks out and just this morning the (allegedly) working merge ready go-ethereum client was released. Given that the Bellatrix upgrade is sch…

I asked this in response to another comment, but how were (formerly) PoW testnets already upgraded to PoS if geth wasn't ready for PoS yet?

Re: Mainnet Merge Announcement

#430

Post by pcthrowaway »

OGWhales wrote: post #373
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gro…

> 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). I’m confused. Why must this be the case and how would it lead to a 51% attack if it were not? I know the difficult goes up when the price goes up because more people are able to mine profitably and the system will automatically scale the difficulty to maintain the 1 block per 10…

I'd argue it's susceptible to 51% attack already, but as BTC's value grows, the profitability from pulling off a 51% grows as well. Therefore, the hashrate not scaling with the market cap of BTC makes the prospect of funding a 51% attack more and more appealing.
Post reply on HN