Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

blog.ethereum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 153 posts

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#31

Post by dcolkitt »

liquidise wrote: post #2

EIP 1559 is a substantial change to the handling of gas fees on the network. In addition to making gas fees be 2 parts (base and "priority" fees), this includes a provision for "burning" the base fee, reducing the overall ETH supply. From the code itself: # miner only receives the priority fee; note that the base fee is not given to anyone (it is burned) Models i have seen suggest this will not make ETH deflationary,…

One really underrated component of EIP-1559 is how much more usable it makes the system. The complexity and uncertainty of how to set gas fees, stuck transactions, and the like is a major turnoff for new users.

Experienced users tend to gloss over this, because they've already taken the time to mentally model all the complexities related to the gas market. I predict that post-London, we'll see a huge wave of new users into a wide variety of applications in the ecosystem. I wouldn't be surprised if we see another order of magnitude increase in DeFi volume.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#32

Post by tomc1985 »

michaelsbradley wrote: post #7

If readers are curious how to get up-and-running with a (non-mining) full node (ETH1) at home, it's quite simple. This is how I did/do it on my Intel NUC running Ubuntu Server 20.04: 1. Download a prebuilt binary from https://geth.ethereum.org/downloads/ . 2. Unpack it. Optionally make it (or a symlink) available in your PATH. 3. Create a service definition, enable it, and start it: [Unit] Description=Go Ethereum [Se…

I don't understand, why is spinning metal not good enough? For the large amount of storage required it seems like it would be a good idea.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#33

Post by dsr_ »

wmf wrote: post #29
Animats wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? The obligations of USDT and USDC are unrelated to what system hosts them.

But the custodians have to choose just one chain because they only have enough assets to back one copy. They don't want a situation where there's, say, 50B USDCA and 50B USDCB backed by only $50B in assets. So if there's a fork, a custodian will decide that the USDC on one chain is redeemable and the USDC on all other chains is not redeemable (i.e. worth zero), then other DeFi assets on the losing chain will go to ze…

That implies that USDCblah is actually backed by traceable assets, 1:1. Have any of the so-called stable coins actually passed a complete third-party asset?

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#34

Post by dsr_ »

dsr_ wrote: post #33
wmf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the custodians have to choose just one chain because they only have enough assets to back one copy. They don't want a situation where there's, say, 50B USDCA and 50B USDCB backed by only $50B in assets. So if there's a fork, a custodian will decide that the USDC on one chain is redeemable and the USDC on all other chains is not redeemable (i.e. worth zero), then other DeFi assets on the losing chain will go to ze…

That implies that USDCblah is actually backed by traceable assets, 1:1. Have any of the so-called stable coins actually passed a complete third-party asset?

s/asse/audi/

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#35

Post by 3np »

Animats wrote: post #23
dcolkitt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the existence of stablecoins, forking Ethereum is essentially infeasible. Only crypto assets, namely BTC, exist on the Bitcoin chain. Crypto assets can be forked, but real assets cannot. Whatever chain USDT/USDC recognize automatically becomes the "true chain" regardless of how much hash power the miners throw behind the fork.

Why? The obligations of USDT and USDC are unrelated to what system hosts them.

They’re only honored on one canonical chain. It’s not like their supply would double in the event of a fork

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#36

Post by strombofulous »

ithinkso wrote: post #25
ascendantlogic wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is up to the consensus. If enough people opposed a release and were able to coordinate their own fork then they are still free to do so. > The leadership can decide the rules of a new fork unless everyone else coordinate to oppose it? You are 100% free to not install the latest upgrade on your node(s). Unless you have enough people who agree with you and coordinate their refusal to upgrade you will be a network of…

Sounds like 'you are in your right to opt out of our policies if you disagree with an upgrade, it will immediately terminate all of your mining' And then saying that most people support you because only small percent of people opted-out

In think there's a subtle difference. A side effect of Bitcoin's rules is that people with more hashing power have a disproportionate amount of weight in deciding the future of the protocol. Eth solves this by putting a hard deadline on some replacement being chosen. This can be the current maintainer's updated fork, or it can be a fork someone made that's identical to eth today with the date pushed back a few more years.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#37

Post by vvpan »

doomroot wrote: post #21
dcolkitt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the existence of stablecoins, forking Ethereum is essentially infeasible. Only crypto assets, namely BTC, exist on the Bitcoin chain. Crypto assets can be forked, but real assets cannot. Whatever chain USDT/USDC recognize automatically becomes the "true chain" regardless of how much hash power the miners throw behind the fork.

Doesn’t that seriously centralize the network overtime?

It does. But the majority of people who follow Ethereum closely view non-algorithmic stablecoins as generally an evil. Ideology means little to most people yet I think the decentralization ideology around Ethereum has had and does have an impact on enough people to sway the network in a certain direction. It's early. Fingers crossed.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#38

Post by cinquemb »

wmf wrote: post #29
Animats wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? The obligations of USDT and USDC are unrelated to what system hosts them.

But the custodians have to choose just one chain because they only have enough assets to back one copy. They don't want a situation where there's, say, 50B USDCA and 50B USDCB backed by only $50B in assets. So if there's a fork, a custodian will decide that the USDC on one chain is redeemable and the USDC on all other chains is not redeemable (i.e. worth zero), then other DeFi assets on the losing chain will go to ze…

Yeah, I think in the case where one tries to fork the chain state and expects the assets on the new chain automatically be redeemable for something doesn't really work out.

Though this may happen in reality because of bridges (centralized/decentralized + permission/less): one asset is locked in a smart contract (or many smart contracts) on one chain, then minted in equivalent amounts on another, people will trade as if holds the equivalent value modulo liquidity for the bridged asset (as long as the locking/minting assumptions with the bridges hold true).

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#39

Post by dcolkitt »

dsr_ wrote: post #33
wmf wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the custodians have to choose just one chain because they only have enough assets to back one copy. They don't want a situation where there's, say, 50B USDCA and 50B USDCB backed by only $50B in assets. So if there's a fork, a custodian will decide that the USDC on one chain is redeemable and the USDC on all other chains is not redeemable (i.e. worth zero), then other DeFi assets on the losing chain will go to ze…

That implies that USDCblah is actually backed by traceable assets, 1:1. Have any of the so-called stable coins actually passed a complete third-party asset?

That's largely an orthogonal point. You may be suspicious of USDT or USDC's claim. But the point is that at least some fraction of the market is not, which is why USDT trades at $1.00.

Now that may turn out in the future to be revealed to be a sham, and the market will lose faith. But right now USDT only has market value because some segment of people believe in the promises made by the Tether Corporation. If I fork the chain, and I'm running a clone of USDT, and the Tether Corp says "there are no promises behind that token", then very clearly forked-USDT will be worth zero.

Re: Ethereum London Mainnet Announcement

#40

Post by vvpan »

tomc1985 wrote: post #32
michaelsbradley wrote: post #7

If readers are curious how to get up-and-running with a (non-mining) full node (ETH1) at home, it's quite simple. This is how I did/do it on my Intel NUC running Ubuntu Server 20.04: 1. Download a prebuilt binary from https://geth.ethereum.org/downloads/ . 2. Unpack it. Optionally make it (or a symlink) available in your PATH. 3. Create a service definition, enable it, and start it: [Unit] Description=Go Ethereum [Se…

I don't understand, why is spinning metal not good enough? For the large amount of storage required it seems like it would be a good idea.

Sometime in 2017/18 it has been found that one of the biggest bottlenecks for the network were propagation speeds and that those were largely weighed down by disk writes. Thus pretty much the whole network switched to SSDs and things improved tremendously. Some other networks have implemented stateless clients and Ethereum has been working on going in that direction for a while with a lot of effort being dedicated to it this year specifically.
Post reply on HN