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

46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

#41

Post by eterps »

taolegal wrote: post #40
eterps wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ercwl/status/1555719147941683200

Making blocks is much different than accepting blocks. Blocks have to be verified & accepted by peers aside from getting over the hurdle of POW. He complains about BTC arguing that the ability to “make a block” is the true basis of decentralization. But it’s the ability to verify & reject blocks that’s important. And anyone can maintain their own BTC blockchain from the beginning of time relatively easily (less than…

> But it’s the ability to verify & reject blocks that’s important. And anyone can maintain their own BTC blockchain from the beginning of time relatively easily (less than $500).

And on Ethereum you can't?

Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

#42

Post by encryptluks2 »

syrgian wrote: post #39
encryptluks2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree but there people are likely overpaying. Heck, it should be Hetzner or OVH.

Considering that you can get penalized if your validator is offline, I think any gain in reliability from using the most reliable provider you can is going to pay off.

Having a single VM on Amazon doesn't provide substantially better reliability.

Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

#43

Post by taolegal »

eterps wrote: post #41
taolegal wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making blocks is much different than accepting blocks. Blocks have to be verified & accepted by peers aside from getting over the hurdle of POW. He complains about BTC arguing that the ability to “make a block” is the true basis of decentralization. But it’s the ability to verify & reject blocks that’s important. And anyone can maintain their own BTC blockchain from the beginning of time relatively easily (less than…

> But it’s the ability to verify & reject blocks that’s important. And anyone can maintain their own BTC blockchain from the beginning of time relatively easily (less than $500). And on Ethereum you can't?

You can't host the actual entire ethereum blockchain from the beginning of time for less than $500 on your own hardware.

Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

#44

Post by eterps »

taolegal wrote: post #43
eterps wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it’s the ability to verify & reject blocks that’s important. And anyone can maintain their own BTC blockchain from the beginning of time relatively easily (less than $500). And on Ethereum you can't?

You can't host the actual entire ethereum blockchain from the beginning of time for less than $500 on your own hardware.

I wasn't aware of that, do you happen to know the actual cost?

Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

#45

Post by taolegal »

eterps wrote: post #44
taolegal wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't host the actual entire ethereum blockchain from the beginning of time for less than $500 on your own hardware.

I wasn't aware of that, do you happen to know the actual cost?

apparently it cost roughly $10k/year for an archive node back in 2020:

https://tjayrush.medium.com/building-your-own-ethereum-archi...

the point is that bitcoin has intentionally restricted block size to not expand the blockchain size at a prohibitive rate

Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

#46

Post by verdverm »

charcircuit wrote: post #21
RunSet wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rich get richer.

The people staking get richer at the same rate on average as everyone else staking.

It takes $50k to start staking, not so friendly to anyone but the rich at there get go

Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

#47

Post by eterps »

taolegal wrote: post #45
eterps wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware of that, do you happen to know the actual cost?

apparently it cost roughly $10k/year for an archive node back in 2020: https://tjayrush.medium.com/building-your-own-ethereum-archi... the point is that bitcoin has intentionally restricted block size to not expand the blockchain size at a prohibitive rate

Thanks, that is good to know.

I was always under the impression that a Raspberry Pi would suffice: https://mobile.twitter.com/mathMakesArt/status/1562159337900...

Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

#48

Post by Fatnino »

lawn wrote: post #37
Fatnino wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Little nitpick: it's 2/3 needed now, not 50%. If a bad actor misbehaves before controlling 2/3 then their stake gets eroded or even erased as punishment. Even merely being offline can result in stake erosion.

No I mean 50% as in nobody can ever remove you from the 50%. But to your point, who should decide who the misbehaving actor is? In what situation can you punish the network with only 1/3, as compared to 1/2 as with Bitcoin?

The punishment is baked into the protocol I think. If the protocol sees a node trying to create a fork that node gets spanked. I think all actions are signed now.

I don't really know, I just read one article about it this week. I've personally cashed out and checked out a long time ago.

Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

#49

Post by charcircuit »

verdverm wrote: post #46
charcircuit wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people staking get richer at the same rate on average as everyone else staking.

It takes $50k to start staking, not so friendly to anyone but the rich at there get go

You can join a staking pool if you don't have enough.
Post reply on HN