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

Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

our.status.im

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 532 posts

Re: Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

#331

Post by fock »

seibelj wrote: post #119
heliodor wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do the crypto folks hang out?

Everything is organized around coins and projects. For example if you are into eth core then you are in eth magicians https://ethereum-magicians.org The most popular crypto mediums are telegram and discord. Twitter is the social media of choice. Reddit has some decent subreddits but it isn’t the primary place. This community is based on trust. Trust is earned through contributing code, knowledge, effort, etc. If you…

sound a lot like the mob

Re: Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

#332

Post by hjorthjort »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #305
delaaxe wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were burned on the old chain

Interesting. I see how that is possible. Anybody can probably burn ETH they own by sending it to an invalid address or something. And how was it created on the beacon chain? Was it simiply hard programmed into the software "We start with a bunch of ether at the following address: ..."?

You send your ETH to a specific contract, from which it can't be moved (whether you want to call that "burning" is up to you, but it's probably a bit confusing). Each validator must also run an Eth full node, and uses the state of that contract to determine who can act as a validator on the Beacon chain.

Re: Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

#333

Post by ryebit »

Tepix wrote: post #321
fallingknife wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy breaks down at "because of a grudge or whatever." The reason the miners are pissed is because ethereum is proposing to stop paying them. So what if the bouncers shut down the event because management told them they're not getting paid? Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Yes, the plan is to find a solution to make it work without the current bouncers

Not to find a solution, it was already found. The roadmap plan was always to switch to PoS, the miners and PoW were always temporary until it was developed / ready. Now the beacon chain (core of PoS) is live, with around $6 billion staked. Some of the miners (not all of them by far) are complaining they're no longer going to be needed, going so far as to make a show of "force". Others (like f2pool) have calmly been preparing with rest of Ethereum community, and are transitioning to staking themselves.

Re: Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

#334

Post by gus_massa »

rawtxapp wrote: post #46
gus_massa wrote: post #42

If the fee are going to be (partially) burned, can the miners just ask that everyone pays the fees by a side channel? Perhaps make a smart contract that holds the same value of the fee until the transaction is included. The miners can just ensure to include both or neither, and get paid.

You can still tip a miner if you want to. Only thing burned is the "base fee".

So it's as easy as adding `if $tip >= $base` somewhere in source code of the program they are running in the nodes. (You can call it a soft fork if you wish.)

Re: Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

#335

Post by dsco »

keymone wrote: post #241
dsco wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JavaScript powers much of the Internet today, and PHP too. When evaluating the effect of any given system or protocol - do you only analyze the design of its language - or its outcome?

Cool, I just don’t want it to power any of my financial future.

You don't have to, that's the beauty of having a choice.

Now that HN knows that you're so opinionated about the tech stack of your bank - can you detail down what type of infrastructure your current bank has, and why it's so good? Or is that just something you assume since you basically have zero knowledge about what traditional finance uses as back-ends?

Re: Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

#336

Post by kozak »

ilaksh wrote: post #308
6nf wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question: Will there be a chain split - will we end up with 'ETH classic' and 'ETH proof of stake' after the upgrade or how does it work?

Yes but there is already an 'ETH classic'. So there will be three, and the names should actually be 'ETH' (proof of stake), 'ETH for Miners' (proof of work), and 'ETH classic' (existing, for another group that didn't like a previous important change).

Reminds me this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism#/media/File:Christianit...

Re: Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

#337

Post by delaaxe »

hjorthjort wrote: post #332
ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I see how that is possible. Anybody can probably burn ETH they own by sending it to an invalid address or something. And how was it created on the beacon chain? Was it simiply hard programmed into the software "We start with a bunch of ether at the following address: ..."?

You send your ETH to a specific contract, from which it can't be moved (whether you want to call that "burning" is up to you, but it's probably a bit confusing). Each validator must also run an Eth full node, and uses the state of that contract to determine who can act as a validator on the Beacon chain.

Are there any plans to do staking Polkadot/Cardano style? I'd like to stake my ETH but have no interest in running a full validator

Re: Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

#338

Post by keymone »

everfree wrote: post #258
keymone wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you’re misguided. It’s not the language, it’s platform features like kv store attached to blockchain that make these dapps possible to implement. And none of them require Turing completeness.

They may not require turing completeness in the strictest sense, but they do require branching logic and loops.

Branching and looping are constructs that you can have in non-Turing complete language with some limitations that don’t matter in practice for the purpose of ethereum or bitcoin scripts.

Re: Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

#339

Post by keymone »

dsco wrote: post #335
keymone wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, I just don’t want it to power any of my financial future.

You don't have to, that's the beauty of having a choice. Now that HN knows that you're so opinionated about the tech stack of your bank - can you detail down what type of infrastructure your current bank has, and why it's so good? Or is that just something you assume since you basically have zero knowledge about what traditional finance uses as back-ends?

I know a lot about it which is why I trust simple and stable systems like bitcoin. Banks are archaic, ethereum is Wild West with script kiddies “building” the future, bitcoin is just right for me.

Re: Vitalik escalates ETH 2.0 merge as miners plan a 51% attack

#340

Post by kubanczyk »

carlob wrote: post #255
belltaco wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the 1% isn't homogenous and a lot of them will want to keep the system working instead of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. The 1% is about 1.5 million people. Good luck getting most of them organized for a certain cause that will result in destruction of wealth mid term at the latest.

The 1% Is 1.5 millions iff the 100% is 150 millions, which is what population exactly?

Bangladesh? (160 mln actually)

I think they could mean a total number of crypto users, recently estimated to be over 100 mln.

Post reply on HN