501–510 of 609 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
By "A few", how much do you mean? Or is that a dynamic number? How does it get defined? Who can change it later, if it's mutable?
And there is no upper limit on the number of slashers.
Can I unstake my staked eth after this merge?
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.
Another article pointed out that the economics of staking are completely different than those of mining. With mining, some of the earned coins need to be sold to pay for electricity. With staking, the biggest holders just sit there and collect coins with few operational costs. To me it sounds like staking has a much more powerful snowball effect than mining and the gap between the wealthiest ETH participants and ever…
Last I saw, ETH mining was about 33% profitable. With mining rewards ten times higher than staking rewards, that means miners take home about three times more on their investment than stakers.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
What happens if the majority of infrastructure is provided by a small number of cloud computing services? An attacker with access to those services needn’t stake their own funds, and an “attack” might simply entail complying with local laws.
Can I unstake my staked eth after this merge?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically yes, but I think the idea is that it would be incredibly expensive and unproductive to pull off such an attack. You'd first have to acquire billions of dollars worth of Ethereum, and then launching that attack would torpedo any trust in the network and send the value of Ethereum to zero, lighting your billions of dollars on fire. The theory is that it's too expensive to realistically do for the lulz or ou…
It is not "incredibly expensive". Top 4 exchanges already hold > 50% of stake. Users give away their coins for free. For users, it's more expensive to run their own validator nodes than staking on a centralized service.
I 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.
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?