Reddit Posts
Did you know that when transferring on Ethereum, it costs ~40% more gas to send tokens to a zero-balance account, and also 10% less gas to empty out an existing account's balance.
Polygon's major block reorg problem, and why transactions 5 minutes before can be invalidated
The Data Storage/Pricing Problem in Blockchains
How to legit buy ETH at 30-40% discount as long-term HODL
Mentions
>>No, it wouldn't. It means a bug in GETH would slash a bunch of validators which is why so much work is being done on client diversity. This is a thoroughly explored issue that you've just discovered. >Umm no. Umm, yes. ETH will slash the majority validator if it is playing games. That's the incentive for node operators to embrace client diversity. As I said, this has been thoroughly explored as an issue. >This conversation, like most I have on this subreddit, has only strengthened my conviction on Solana. I have no doubt, but you aren't the audience I am concerned with. There are others who aren't blinded to the truth and care about understanding risk.
>No, it wouldn't. It means a bug in GETH would slash a bunch of validators which is why so much work is being done on client diversity. This is a thoroughly explored issue that you've just discovered. Umm no. >What is the supermajority client risk? >A client software that is used by more than 2/3 of all active validators is considered a supermajority client. It has the capability to finalize the chain without the agreement of the other clients. A consensus bug within such a client would cause catastrophic results, such as a network split, loss of funds, and reputation damage. Geth might be such a client right now. www.Supermajority.info >If I was you, I'd considered if I willing to accept such unresolved risk I didn't previously know about and still don't fully understand. This conversation, like most I have on this subreddit, has only strengthened my conviction on Solana. You've shown me nothing to be concerned about that wasn't already either entirely obvious or a risk that is shared throughout all of crypto.
> It actually implies that a bug in Geth would take ETH offline No, it wouldn't. It means a bug in GETH would slash a bunch of validators which is why so much work is being done on client diversity. This is a thoroughly explored issue that you've just discovered. >the same way stake needs to balance between Solana's two clients. This is not the same thing. >It was about 1% and is now a much larger percentage. If I was you, I'd considered if I willing to accept such risk I didn't previously know about.
GETH stakers are risking their stake and will be slashed if their validators are misbehaving.
Well Goerli has/had a bridge to ETH called testnetbridge, which gave GETH a swap value. So there’s that. Yet to be seen if the same happens for Sepolia or Holesky, but maybe. I have found some Sepolia tokens manually on Uniswap. I’m also wondering if Goerli validator nodes see a degenerate revival just to keep the Goerli testnet going. Maybe there are reasons why that can’t happen, I’m not sure.
This is not a Solana problem, but a Binance problem. What you are seeing is a mass exodus of users trying to use Solana, which is probably because of all the meme coins that are pumping and can only be bought on chain. Circle, creator of stable coin USDC also just minted $250M USDC on SOL because the demand is so high. Retail is just beginning to understand that the benefits of SOL over ETH and the L2s. Lack of user fragmentation. Gas fees less than a penny. 400ms transaction time. Huge community built on NFTs and cool apps like Tensor, Jup, JitoSol, etc People are finally beginning to understand that SOL is literally 100x in performance design compared to ETH. It was the first chain to enable parallel processing which creates massive throughput compared to ETH EVM sequential processing and anti-network effects. Other new L1's from 2023 with parallel processing are SUI and APTOS, but they launched in the bear market. Pay attention. They are not quite the jump that SOL was to ETH, but more optimization in parallel processing and consensus design. SOL's problem is lack of client diversity. If there is a bug in the client you have risk for an outage. This is being addressed by upcoming Firedancer client written in a different programming language C/C+. The odds of having the same bug in two different languages is low. Thus, with increased client diversity the risk of an outage decreases. This problem is not unique to SOL. 70-80% of ETH nodes are running GETH client including Coinbase. If there is a bug in there that is major risk to ETH for an outage.
Solana is actually sufficiently decentralized as there are 1600+ validators on the network. The problem is lack of client diversity, a problem not unique to SOL 84% of ETH validators use GETH which is a major risk to ETH if there is a client bug. Back to SOL, Firedancer is a new SOL client being released later this year and being written in a different program language C and C+ as opposed to the current majority client written in Rust. The idea here is to multiple clients, each written in a different language that way it a bug takes a client offline the network stays stable. SOL is still 100x the performance of ETH and will scale more data throughput with Firedancer.
Agreed. With time they will get more client diversity. Took years to diversify from GETH.
I mean having a machine with 1 execution client (e.g. GETH), 1 consensus client (e.g. Lighthouse) doing work and attesting for multiple validator keys. That's how I do it. That's how most people do it. At this point I'm genuinely not sure if I'm the one missing something obvious or you are.
Wish they’d focus less on developers and more on the quality of the node software. GETH was just starting to mature, then they went PoW => PoS and introduced an entirely new alpha quality node infrastructure. I have a team of 20+ year unix veterans running some ETH nodes and the ETH node design decisions left everyone scratching their heads. Bitcoin is light years ahead in comparison
>Completely agree that a huge amount of crypto 'journalism' is basically utter bullshit designed to manipulate readers into believing whatever narrative the author benefits from. I agree crypto journalism doesn't have a good reputation in general. But I have really noticed pro-ETH outlets have really gone out their ways to lie very hard to the public. Here is one very recent example. When Zynga launched its new ETH Sugartown project last month, The Block lied about Zynga being the dev team of Grand Theft Auto. That is absolutely wrong. Rockstar Studio is the dev team behind Grand Theft Auto. The only remote connection is both Zynga and Rockstar Studio share the parent company, Take-Two interactive. In fact, Zynga is an outside acquisition from Take-Two, so it is not run and found by Rockstar Studio's devs. I have completely had it with these pro-ETH media outlet. Crypto is already seemed as super scammy to outsiders. We won't leave this bear market if we don't get more adoption. These blatant lies simply reinforce outsiders' narrative of crypto being nothing more than a scam. Yes, crypto media also hypes about other chains. For example, there were buzz about Ubisoft partnered with Tezos and Ubisoft is the creator of Assassin's Creed. That reporting is still factually true. > A few years ago almost every week there would be a new Alt-L1 being touted as the latest and best 'Ethereum killer', and then when you look into it half the time it was just a clone of GETH with the gas limit tweaked up a bit so they could claim it was faster! Yeah, for me, EVMs outside the ETH ecosystems make no sense. ETH Solidity devs most likely stay in ETH ecosystem. And your web 2 devs don't know Solidity. Making it EVM just allow copy-pasta second-tier teams to launch unoriginal forks on alts. I get it, the "ETH killer" title is also pretty much BS. These articles may also emphasize ETH peak gas more than the average gas, etc. But I don't see blatant factually wrong reporting as much. Terra/Luna may be an exception because that "algo" was never sustainable and so much BS were written to convince the public otherwise. > That doesn't mean I think the native assets are good investments or anything, That is a fair take. NGL, there are a lot of grifters in alt-L1s who abuse community pool funds and do stupid shit. In a bear market, these things are terrible because liquidity is already drying up. There is a lot of stuff I don't like about ETH. But it does have a good tokenomics with tail emission - however, I do think the parameters are rigged to be too deflationary atm. A lot of alts can probably learn a thing or two from ETH about making good tokenomics.
> If 51% of the network does not participate in the change of algo, which is the assumption when the entire network has invested in SHA solving equipment, then any non-SHA chain that results is a contentious fork and is not Bitcoin. This isn’t how it works. It’s decided by the longest chain. Which if introduced especially in the scenario we are talking about, would be the chain that’s not having hardware companies trying to corner the hash-rate. It’s like the people who claim ETC is the “true” ETH. It forked and all the users, developers, foundation, and nodes all moved to ETH. People still mine it, but it’s ETH classic and not ETH. You can’t have your cake and eat it to. The longest chain wins and in this specific scenario it would be the forked algorithm that’s backed by the community and not the hardware manufactures. > Again, pretty negligible when talking about the difference between a $30 HD and a $80 HD There’s so much more that goes into it. Full nodes on ETH exist due to the data being available, yet compressed. This makes a huge difference in the speed of fetching said data. To run a equivalent node on BTC vs ETH it’s the difference of 7gb vs 1-2TB. Just the setup of GETH dwarfs a BTC full node. I’m not talking about lightweight nodes here. There is no reason to try and compare a raspberry pi on ETH vs one on BTC. You technically can run one for both. But should you? No the ARM processor is dog shit and exponentially slower at fetching data for a ETH light client than it is a BTC light client. So again. We are talking about adequate hardware for a full node. You are also leaving out scale. Even at only 3-5x the node requirements while negligible for the HDD(which I already explained how skimping on hardware is not an acceptable way to do this but it seems you are stuck on this point) at scale this difference is huge. In the event of an attack on node hardware it makes BTC 3-5x easier to defend and in the event of spreading it out across the globe where the price difference is huge in some countries it makes it 3-5x easier for BTC to do so. We are arguing semantics at this point but you get the gist. None of what we are arguing changes the fact that both BTC and ETH are sufficient. But if you want to argue which one is *more* sufficient it’s certainly BTC.
Execution clients only run GETH. Client diversity isn’t even great per eth foundation: https://clientdiversity.org Regardless. EIPs are forced unless you think ETH having finality issues is a good thing. Read here: https://hudsonjameson.com/2020-03-23-ethereum-protocol-development-governance-and-network-upgrade-coordination/ It also doesn’t help a vast amount of pre-mined ETH is used in staking, further convoluting the checks and balances of eth and make sit much easier to control. There’s no separation of power like mining in PoW provides.
*sigh* r/confidentlyincorrect strikes again. > lol if you think this has anything to do with POS or if they are even trying to look for a real path forward you aren’t paying attention. Mining compared to virtual mining doesn’t change if an asset is a security https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/09/15/secs-gensler-signals-extra-scrutiny-for-proof-of-stake-cryptocurrencies-report/ Specifically Gensler HAS said that aspects of PoS can make a asset a security. You can wish it away, you can laugh it away, but this is genslers actual words. > He’s not saying it because ETH already actively trades as a commodity on the US commodity exchange. CFTC and SEC are two seperate entities. they can have different rulings seeing how they arent the same people. All that means is the CFTC says its a commodity and the SEC has strongly hinted PoS tokens are being actively investigated as securities. As much as it sucks, they CAN be ruled both a commodity and a securitt at the exact same time. Aditionally, the CFTC ruled on ETH under PoW not under PoS. Consensus is literally the backbone of crypto. So the SEC can absolutley argue that ETH specifically is a conpletely diffetent asset now than it was under PoW. Its like if you swapped out 90% of a ferarri with nissan parts and engine and still tried going around saying its a ferrari because of the emblem. > Previous heads of the SEC have already said it’s a community too. The SEC approved Coinbase as a publicly listed company AND they even disclosed staking as a service for their own platform over 50 times during the approval process. You know? That approval which included Ethereum being legally traded without a security registration. My guy, literally any company can IPO. this logic means Exxon shouldnt have been able to IPO because the SEC detected fraud after the fact. This line of thinking is wild and backwards from how reality is in the IPO world. > Saying it out loud just makes his job a lot harder of trying to control everything and stomp out the US crypto market. Also, it puts egg on their face for everything they have already approved that relates to ETH trading. Ethereum and most all coins are definitely NOT securities You had me in the first half. GG isnt saying it outloud because ITS UNDER INVESTIGATION. Come back down to reality here. CFTC is not the SEC. Hinman is not GG. Please read up on the hinman docs becuase you are embarassing yourself. It shows a centralized entity bribing then SEC chair to look the other way on ETH. Even if that didnt exist, GG can go back on Hinman as hinman statements are NOT law. > The only reason BTC isn’t being brought up is because it’s wayy too late for them to try to control it. It’s not even worth that battle so they’ll pretend POW is what makes it different while at the same time labeling every other POW coin as a security lol. Get real. Bitcoin could upgrade to POS tomorrow and it wouldn’t change anything. This is crazy. This talk of PoS being inferior to proof of work goes as far back as Peer coin. One of the main reasons was exactly this, that PoS would open crypto up to being more easily regulated. You either just got into crypto or are just trying to rewrite history because YOU got egg on your face from the BTC crowd telling yoy this would happen when PoS was introduced. > This is an attack on crypto and too many people don’t understand the different between ownership of a publicly traded company through stock & a decentralized digital asset that digital networks use to transact and secure the network. Networks that will keep on existing and functioning as always no matter what some old men in the US want to label the related assets as. The assets will continue to exists well beyond all of us or any company. You are the one that quite literally doesnt understand. Only truly decentralized blockchains will still be running. What happens when ETHs L2s(scaling solution) sequencer goes down(OP, arb)or the 12 person security multisig rugs a billion dollar chain(arb and polygon) or 15 votes decide a malicous hardfork (polygon). Or how about when GETH execution client goes down? or Consysnses gets sued to hell and back? Or when Lido gets sued? It sucks we are STILL having the discussion that PoS has obvious flaws that fanboys for literaly years (almost a decade) have screamed to hell and high waters that they cant be wrong. Well yes, yes, you are and you have done so much damage to the crypto space by letting your ego and wanting to pump YOUR bags get to your head. Fanboys that put horseblinders on to the risks they themselves brought into this space are a disgrace to crypto. GG will continue to hand you guys your ass at expense of crupto as a whole(short term atleast)
> Anyone can make a proposal. EIP1559 is a great example of a initially mainly community driven proposal, that eventually got adopted by the core dev teams, and implemented with the London upgrade. Being able to propose something does not mean it’s decentralized. I can propose ideas to the board of a stock. Doesn’t make stocks decentralized. > become candidates for implementation, and eventually included in an upgrade. Please explain how the process works. The *process*is what is centralized. Discussing the mechanism of initial proposals has nothing to do with how centralized governance is. Please, let’s see who holds most the voting power, the decision making, and ultimately who can even write the code and who employs those coders. Would *love* to talk about this decentralization in a broke down fashion with you. To everyone else: ETH foundation and ETH core devs push 99% of the proposals. Governance is voted predominately by the teams that the EF funds and the EF themselves. Everytime you read the word “ETH community votes” it’s always GETH, nethermind, light house, EF etc that take direct funds (or “grants”) from the EF. There is no decentralizion, it’s all pseudo. Which is fine. It gets the job done and ETH *is* viable. But people acting like it’s actually decentralized makes me laugh everytime.
It is very much a real thing. GETH faucet had to recently introduce a limit to wallets that can request faucets, the wallet must have a minimum balance of 0.001 ETH (mainnet). Mostly as a deterrent to sybils though.
The initial launch and ICO are security-like. But it's been decentralized for a long time. The Ethereum Foundation (EF) currently just supports **research grants**, and they **host meetings** for devs and the annual conference. Besides that, they have no governance or protocol power. * **EF doesn't have any voting power in governance** or protocol decisions. In fact, protocol governance doesn't have votes. Individual client devs, core devs, and community devs are the ones who champion changes through the guidelines in EIP-1 through their own individual choices. Any change requires the **whole community** to support it. * **EF only holds 0.2-0.3% of the total ETH, and they're not running validators**, so they don't control security on the network. * **EF doesn't build clients**. They supported GETH in the past, but now there are 9 different clients for Ethereum. The only aspect that can vaguely be considered power is that people who associate with EF are considered the cool jocks in Ethereum, and they might agree with each other more.
**I just want to clarify that the Ethereum Foundation (EF) doesn't control any aspect of governance and hasn't done so for years.** * **EF doesn't have any voting power in governance** or protocol decisions. In fact, protocol governance doesn't have votes. Individual client devs, core devs, and community devs are the ones who champion changes through the guidelines in EIP-1. * **EF only holds 0.2-0.3% of the total ETH, and they're not running validators**, so they don't control security on the network. * **EF doesn't build clients**. They supported GETH in the past, but now there are 9 different clients for Ethereum. What does EF do? **Mainly support research projects through grants.** They also host meetings for core devs and the annual conference. Besides that, they have no real power. They do have soft power in the sense that people who associate with EF are considered the cool jocks in Ethereum, and they might agree with each other more.
There is no “decentralized team of people” working on Bitcoin CORE. It’s actually hand picked. The decentralized nature is that anyone can make their own software to run the network. There’s actually other clients out there it’s just 99% of the network chooses to run Bitcoin core client software as it’s the most maintained and easiest to use. Me and you can push a update to the repo. However, if the devs don’t like the update then they can refuse to merge it to main. Me and you can also make our own software from scratch. “Keys” in this article are completely used inappropriately and doing it very deceivingly. No one has the “keys” to BTC. These “keys” they are referring to are completely seperate and only control Bitcoin CORE the client software. Me and you could make a client software called Bitcoin REAL and I can give you and I PGP “keys” as a maintainer and only you and I can push updates to our client. Difference is, that these keys do fuck all to the actual network and only let me and you commit to our client that only we can manipulate to whoever is running it. If we manipulate it, there’s a good chance no one is going to run it. On the flip-side, no one is going to run it anyways as bitcoin CORE dev team has been stellar and until now there hasn’t been a reason for most users running a node to use a different software. Lastly, ETH has the same thing. Except they actually have a few more client teams than BTC. Teams like GETH and Lighthouse develop the client software for execution and state layers. Both BTC and ETH have pretty shit client diversity with ETH having better diversity than BTC when you look at actual usage. However, you can run something like armory instead of bitcoin core for your client software if you wish. It’s just not worked on like BTC core is.
GETH. Ethereum had a testnet that was winding down called Goerli but the next one Sepolia wasn't really up to dev standards/flexibility yet so Goerli was pretty crowded and getting GETH was a pain in the ass. Layer 0 made a bridge between the testnet and mainnet giving GETH/ETH trading pairs and proceeded to fuck up the whole situation even worse and now people are speculating on GETH. The whole situation is passively malicious or naively stupid.
tldr; GETH, the native asset powering the Goerli testnet, is soaring. Developers are turning away from testing their apps on it due to the new costs. The testnet token peaked at $1.60 on Saturday and is now trading at about $0.31. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR. Get more of today's trending news [here](https://coinfeeds.substack.com).*
So the people who have been testing for years and stacking up huge piles of GETH can unload on all the suckers thinking this is a legitimate new coin lol
Layer Zero deployed a [bridge](https://testnetbridge.com/pools) 5-6 days ago. People need GETH for testing and it's hard to come by.
You can overclock your RP4 and then just add a 2TB hard drive. That'll be fine to run GETH and Nimbus. The video for this song shows about 100 home staking setups and loads of them are Raspberry Pi 4s! https://youtu.be/NkrBARsNicI
> The problem with Ethereum is that anyone can copy it's technology and improve on it, minting more coins and making it better. Other chains have done this, the thing is it isn't Ethereum - avax cloning GETH (go ethereum) - BNB more or less copying Ethereum in it's entirety (pancakeswap is a fork of uniswap, bscscan code used from etherscan, ) except binance runs its own in-house validators they're all touting cheaper fees, faster transaction speeds than Ethereum and all but they're trailing behind it in users because...it isn't Ethereum
https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1588669782471368704/photo/1 The roadmap is being developed all in parallel. The amount each box is filled is approximately how far along in progress that upgrade is. There's the Surge, which will allow L2's to scale some 200x using the same amount of blockspace, bringing fees down under 1c. www.eip4844.com aka Proto-Danksharding is the largest part of that, the same mechanism will be used for Danksharding later to scale the base layer (which replaced the old idea of sharding). It's practically ready now but was pushed out of Shanghai mostly to simplify withdraws, but will very likely be part of the next upgrade soon. The Scourge, which is proposer builder seperatuon and CR lists - that will make it impossible to censor through MEV and expensive to try, where it is easy and more profitable to censor just by using a US MEV relay now. The Verge, turns the entire blockchain into a merkle tree, where you only need to download a small part of one 'limb' to verify all of its branches are accurate (as in previously validated). Allowing for especially lightweight clients - ideally anyone with a mobile phone is able to run their own node with it. The Purge, which works with the Verge and Surge but with the express goal of removing unnecessary and old 'bloat' data from the chain, making it so validating nodes don't have to store the entire chain, making running a node more lightweight/achievable especially going forward as the blockchain scales dramatically. Bloat data may be a smart contract you executed a year ago, wherein the only necessary data is that it executed properly (validated) and X ETH is in X wallet today. Very similiar to EIP4844 transactions. The Splurge are any odd bits and pieces. Things that people wanted to do earlier, but ended up shelved to bring all hands on executing the merge. The BNB/BSC chain is a hard-fork of GoEthereum (GETH) which still runs using the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). This is why you're able to input your Ethereum seed phrase into a Binance wallet and vice versa, and why you can upload the same smart contract to either chain. They made a few changes with distribution and governance, but a lot was what Ethereum was working on already except BNB has much more centralized governance. When ETH gas was $50+ per tx before it could scale Binance was able to fill the niche for cheap blockspace, along with a dozen other new L1 EVMs each ironically dubbed 'ETH killers', but it's because they're running Ethereum on super computers or inside data centers instead of any at-home devices like a decentralized network enables. There's always going to be a need for cheaper blockspace, but Binance is the opposite of what I think people are trying to build here. When you go to withdraw any coin and they add an arbitrary fee, *unless* you withdraw on *their* chain while they keep your real coins for the duration, I think will both greatly help and harm them over the long term, centralization/people/CZ is inherently corrupt so I seek out decentralization above all else, but for pure investing BNB has outperformed almost everything since its inception and isn't slowing down.
You're unnecessarily condescending, to start off with. If you want to have a discussion, there's no need to be act like a pretentious teenager who just discovered he knows something others might not. I'll look into some of your points, but the way you're describing it literally sounds silly. "I'd just bug the software in GETH, lighthouse, and prysm" "buy fucktons of raspberry pis, bro, and take down their cloud hosting" "I'd strong arm multi billion dollar companies into handing over their staked ETH, just 30-40 phone calls, bro" This all sounds like something someone would daydream about while high, you even said yourself only nation states would have the capabilities. This is entirely out of the ability of anyone without incredible, nearly endless financial and technological resources. Why the fuck would countries waste billions of dollars and energy to attack a network? Theoretical possibilities, for sure, but some of these points are so unlikely it's hard not to roll your eyes. Of course there are doomsday scenarios for everything. I'm aware there's risks associated with POS as well, just as there are with POW and centralized servers. Sorry if I'm not displaying enough knowledge to be deemed worthy of your time, as you insinuated in your comment.
> Currently 79% of all validators run prysm, light house, or GETH(execution) Validators aren't nodes.
You have missed years of discussion. Just because you found out about PoS doesn’t mean PoW is not viable. There are trade offs and they exist even if you can’t see it. I’ve done extensive posts on viability of PoW vs PoS and I personally have came to the conclusion that certain PoS methods ARE viable but not for a world economy base layer. A few methods of attacks from a hostile nation state: LIDO: If I were to attack ETH with a 51% attack I would do it through LDO governance. LDO as of today already has more than a 1/3 of staked ETH. LDO DAO token has 1b mcap vs ETH 155b mcap. Making it orders of magnitude cheaper for me to take control of a significant amount of already staked ETH along side management of without boosting the price of ETH. I would then buy the rest on the open market. Attacking lighthouse, Prysm, and GETH software: Currently 79% of all validators run [prysm, light house, or GETH(execution)](https://clientdiversity.org)I would attack these clients to gain a 2/3 share. Either by introducing a bug that slashes them out of the network, or some convoluted zero day exploit that I would have access to as a nation state. I would upload a bug or simply use a ZDE to make validator clients do what I want them to do and force all other validators out by slashing them, if they wanted to fork to a minority fork via hard fork the would need to slash themselves out costing THEM money, not me with inactivity leaks and/or completely unstake from the validator set(takes weeks and/or months to do in the future, currently no way out. On the execution side I could do this with one entity which would be GETH. In any scenario, 1/3 to 2/3rds of validators would get slashed out completely. Making it even cheaper for me to buy ETH and taking over staking my self. CEX staking: Simply call about [5 centralized exchanges ](https://cointelegraph.com/news/64-of-staked-eth-controlled-by-five-entities-nansen) and force them to give me control of their staked ETH. NYKNYC. This gives me access to around a 1/3 of staked ETH if we exclude LIDO as they have “decentralized” node operators that would require a few more phone calls. If we include LIDO node operators it’s around 30-40 phone calls. Due to US extradition laws, around 90% of these entities could be strong armed into giving up their control over staked ETH. Would take less phone calls than it would for the current banking system if the banking system was separately controlled from the US government. Attacking cloud providers for nodes: I could attack [the cloud hosting](https://cointelegraph.com/news/3-cloud-providers-accounting-for-over-two-thirds-of-ethereum-nodes-data/amp) for 2/3 of ETH nodes. I would pre-purchase a bunch of equipment to run archival nodes and a fuck ton of raspberry Pis to make it harder to take back node framework once I do this. This will make it extremely expensive for average joe to run a full node (let alone archival) I would run the raspberry Pis on my now captured cloud services increasing my node presence and create a $10,000 problem for people wanting to run archival nodes to combat me, severely limiting the amount of people who care about nodes on ETH AND have access to the equipment to run the full nodes or the money to do so. This is purely from ETHs huge state size. Quite frankly, I probably wouldn’t go all in on any of these and would use a mixture of all of them if I could. My honest opinion is that all of this is out of reach by the average hacking group, and average joe. However, there are a handful of nation states that absolutely could attack these vectors. Unlike with PoW where we would see this coming from the miners being bought, we would not see this as the consensus layer is not separated, but intertwined with the asset itself. Additionally, as I said in the beginning of this, you have missed literal years (and in some cases it’s close to a decade or more as PoS is not a novel concept to blockchain) of discussion and research on this subject in this space. To give you the complete picture it would take a legitimate 100 page PHD level paper breaking everything down for you, which I do not have the time to write. You will inevitably use your lack of time understating this to try and point out flaws in my general statements that I just explained to you I don’t have the time to spoon feed you years of research. Just because YOU can’t identify the risks associated with PoS does not mean they do not exist. My statements are broad and I don’t go in depth of the attacks for a reason. You can do that yourself. IF you could provide me adequate amount of pro-POS discussion I would warrant it, but you didn’t, you posted a single paragraph of “trust me bro don’t trust Reddit” info. Lastly, I want to point out I do hold ETH. But I very much know the risks associated with it. I also do not think ETH is viable as a legitimate world reserve currency. It has too many attack vectors and is still way too centralized for my liking. It’s great for what it does. Which is provide subjectivity more decentralization for what we currently have for internet “money” that is able to be escrowed on the internet with no need for lawyers etc.
30 gwei is still high imo. The APR for staking right now is 4.5%, closer to 5% adjusted for deflation. 7% coming from fees isn't extraordinary with the amount of ETH staked and what happened this week. If there's a few weeks at 12% and a few months at 4% it'll average out anyway. Based on my rough calculations a year ago the APR was going to be around 15-20% right after the merge if fees didn't *crash* out from 50-75 gwei. Researchers suspect ~75% of *all* ETH will get staked, over time, which will bring this down to a more 'healthy' looking number (2-5%, despite more ETH being minted in that circumstance), while ETH becomes a security layer for rollups which will remove some APR (fees) from the base layer until things hit equibilirum. Nobody wanted to hear a 20% APR back then, red flag! Meanwhile miners were actively making out with 100-300% APR :p Some MEV tools add nearly 10% to the APR alone. GETH updated one or two weeks ago to build blocks based on validator profit, instead of the opposite like it was bugged to do, bringing the APR validating with a GETH client (that 75% are) up nearly 3x, almost to the same level as using MEVboost. That may play some role in this too. Lido is a lot of people around the world and a public facing DAO so if they're up to any shady business it should be visible somewhere, in their Discord or on Github. I'm getting just a hair under 10% elsewhere (only recently) so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now. Since nobody can unstake, perhaps lots of Lido was taken out of circulation or sold giving each token more than 1:1 rewards, but I haven't checked into it so it's hard to say why there's a discrepancy. People shouldn't chase yield staking ETH anyway. That's not the point and there are better protocols (like Osmosis) adapt for it, that are much less centralized. I'd *hope* people won't rush to the #1 central pool over a couple APR but it's likely they will so it's always good to be suspicious over this sort of thing.
No problem! PBS and CR lists will make censoring impossible but I seen today *GETH*, the most popular (70%+) ETH client, "made a mistake" in how validators build their blocks. GETH has since updated and now non-MEV validators will see an up to 20x increase in profits, making MEV-boost blocks and normal blocks very comparable in income generated today going forward. It'll be interesting to watch if that reduces the amount of people running MEV-boost relays, or if PBS and CR are still required. Everyone go update your GETH client! https://twitter.com/vdWijden/status/1588463072251088896 One step at a time. This is hopefully the most at-risk Ethereum will ever be, and nothing is at risk imo. It just has to pull through a few more months.
Ok you have moved goalposts so much after I made you contradict yourself I don’t even think we are having a debate. You are just arguing just to argue at this point. FACT: You implied PoS was just as easy as PoW with switching. Then explained how that wasn’t the case. FACT: you got butthurt and started with personal attacks as your argument fell apart by your own doing. I don’t give a fuck about “winning against my opponent”. What I care about is people that don’t have a clue about what they are talking about stating some obviously false shit. Now that we have moved back to the core argument I’ll address your other points separately as they have no relevance to the argument of how a consensus method can be censored. > It is funny you call BTC the “PoW king” when it has the oldest/slowest tech among most of other PoW chains. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Let me educate you. BTC is popular because of its liquidity market and its lower volatility against alts. Give me another alt L1 with more liquidity and less volatility than ETH? Let me educate you. PoW decentralization is marked almost predominately by profit hashrate follows price. BTC generates more profit than any other cryptocurrency at this time. It’s an actual commodity. Your points about liquidity lower volatility are true but again that just solidifies BTC as the PoW industry leader. I also never said any other coin would provide more than that AT THE MOMENT. I am simply telling you ETH is not special anymore and quite behind other layer 1s it’s trying to compete with in the tech. > Unsecured? What? When was the last time ETH got hacked? However, how many times have alt L1 been hacked? I’ll bold below where you answer this question yourself: > At least, there is new upcoming updates and development, like Rocket Pool, **trying to fix the centralization issue.** Additionally, you can eat up all the shit the foundation has been feeding you, rocket pool and lido and any liquids staking service as a matter of fact present a HUGE security issue with liquidity. These tokens they mint by staking for you are not pegged to each other other than the market saying it is. If and when that changes, those “pools” will have a shit ton of trouble and even the Shanghai upgrade has exit queue times of 6 MONTHS in that worst case scenario event. Regardless, you mentioned it yourself, DOT has data sharding and ADA has liquid staking built into its PoS system. Years before ETH ever will. Lastly for this point, rocketpool and Lido require validators to centralize builder proposer software. We had issues with GETH in PoW. Hate to see that happen in PoS with the slashing. > You see… you don’t win an argument by claiming your opponent is “butthurt”. It just makes you look stupid, silly, and childish. Again with the personal attacks. You fail to understand how you contradict yourself and get upset when someone calls you out. You should grow up. I however will take the time to realize that just like BTC lost market share due to no smart contracts, ETH will lose market share for being the shittiest version of PoS available and as a DeFi chain it has glaring security issues with its CURRENT consensus methods. It has glaring issues with being a currency as well with the centralization stand point. If I want centralized shit I would use fiat in the stock market. No need to go to ETH for that. Luckily other chains aren’t full of people like you. So they can get actual work done and improve the technology without being held back from the senseless echo chamber.
In August last year, a bug in GETH update caused a fork of the network. It isn’t exactly halting, but it’s actually more dangerous as it could lead to double spending, which was never at stake in Solana. And it was recommended not to use it until miners had updated their clients.
That isn't what a Layer 2 is though. Anything I can do on Ethereum I can do on Binance too. A L2 is strictly defined as something that inherits the L1's security, as in it exists inside of the L1 as a smart contract. Polygon and Avalanche are entirely seperate blockchains with their own security risks and contracts, and IMO Polygon isn't even *secure* let alone comparable to Ethereum. Polygon is a sidechain. They operate their own network and pay for their own security then 'check in' with Ethereum every 15 minutes. Avalanche isn't even a sidechain, they're just a GETH/EVM fork (an Ethereum clone) with bigger blocks. They don't share data to Ethereum like Polygon does. An L2 doesn't need to *check in* to Ethereum because it is Ethereum. Your L2 operator could go offline, try to reverse and censor your transactions, and they will fail at stopping you each time because you always have the L1 to revert back to. You can't do that by using Matic, if Matic goes offline you are screwed and your funds are lost. We don't need 150000 blockchains lol. Hopefully all of this terminology becomes crystal clear in the future.
> The mainchain didnt disolve, but really only because of the centralization to 3 large pools. The reason it did not become a problem was that the majority of clients were unaffected, either because the upgraded their GETH or were running a minority client, it was irrelevant that many of these were part of the same pools. It's fair to point out that most rollups need more powerful hardware to run than mainnet clients, though work is being done to reduce this with tech such as Plonky2 which allows proofs to be generated very quickly on normal consumer machines. This is not the only idea being discussed and it's entirely possible that ultimately some kind of proposer/builder separation as is being discussed for The Beacon chain will be the way round the issue (where the hardware intensive job of building blocks is done be relatively centralized organizations, and more decentralized, low-requirement participants will take the roll of proposing the blocks to be used. Another way round the issue is even more of a sidestep, Optimism have centralized block creation, but with excess revenue collected going to a treasury controlled by a 'Citizen's House' and used to retroactively fund public goods. Without the potential for profitability from block creation the incentive for a bad actor is negated and therefore potentially the centralization is less of concern. Ultimately Optimism and zkSync have both described plans do decentralize their sequencers, but as you correctly identify this will almost certainly require more computing power than the Raspberry Pi I currently run for Ethereum! > That also leads to bad consequences like MEV, which centralized rollups seem to not help with at all, and something Ethereum users seem to have just decided to put up with. It's not a fair representation to say that Ethereum users have just decided to put up with MEV. It's not a straightforward problem to solve, but there already are solutions in place such as FlashBots, which effectively makes MEV much more fair, as a user you can avoid some of the risks of being front-run on big transactions or suffering some of the other negative effects of MEV by using their RPC. BeaconChain Pools like RocketPool are also working to make MEV more fair by distributing it evenly across their minipool operators (and rETH holders), as well as the normal transaction fee tips. I think in general these are good examples of just how far ahead Ethereum is to be honest. They are running into issues that other chains haven't met, not because Ethereum has unique flaws, but because it's trail blazing. Things like rising fees and MEV don't come up on other chains primarily because they aren't being used enough for blocks to be full and therefore for competition for blockspace to be an issue. Thinking of Cardano in particular, they don't have a fee market because they don't need one yet. As far as I understand transactions are placed on a first come first served basis, which works fine until every block has more transactions being placed than can fit. If they ever reach that level of adoption where every block is full then a first come first served system will presumably just lead to ever increasing delays in getting transactions through? If I remember correctly though Cardano are now working on rollups of their own as part of their attempt to scale. Anyway, I do want to say that it is really nice to have a reasoned discussion on r/cc. You clearly have a good understanding of how cypto works and though we might not agree on interpretations or solutions I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion today!
In August 2021 GETH was the majority client, as it was only 3 pools accounted for 51% of block production and they did upgrade in time, many other pools didnt and got forked. The mainchain didnt disolve, but really only because of the centralization to 3 large pools. Ethereums model is just not good for scaling, saying rollups fix the issue is missing a lot of problems. The global state means even rollups are not easy to distribute at a hardware level, meaning they have to be very high performance relatively centralized solutions. If you are still dealing with the nonce problem, its going to be hard to ever get away from that issue. That also leads to bad consequences like MEV, which centralized rollups seem to not help with at all, and something Ethereum users seem to have just decided to put up with. It also wont solve failed transactions and the associated costs. Im not saying Ethereum has no place in crypto, but its tradeoffs are not insignificant. I wont claim a platform like Cardano will be dominant either, but its fundamentally different design avoids many of the problems Ethereum has. For a start you dont even need to interact with smart contracts if you want to do basic functions like NFTs/tokens, thats more efficient from a cost perspective, and you are using mainchain security only. Local state means rollups have no interdependency, you could easily distribute that computation to many physical nodes run by many parties. By the same point Im not saying Cardano will beat Ethereum, but with better features in many areas, Cardano is one chain that could easily disrupt Ethereum.
> Number of developers working in an ecosystem does not automatically equal higher features or security. Not automatically, but it would be very strange if the two factors weren't correlated... the developers are the ones creating features and designing protocol upgrades. > Ethereum security is not good, August 2021 the chain was exploited and forked, **fortunately Ethereums centralization avoided complete disaster**. That is not a reasonable explanation of what happened... One of Ethereum's decentralization features is that it runs on multiple clients. There is not a single official program you should use to run a node, instead you can pick from a selection produced by different client teams. One of these clients is called GETH, a potential exploit in GETH was identified and the Go-Ethereum developer team published a new update that included a fix for this. Three days later an attacker began making use of the exploit, node operators who were running GETH and had not updated were vulnerable and this caused a chain split. People running GETH who had updated their clients were unaffected. People running one of the other clients: Nethermind, BESU or Erigon, were also unaffected. How would you interpret that as an example of Ethereum's centralization? > Ethereum is ripe to be replaced with something with better features, and lower cost. Alt L1s aren't competing with Ethereum anymore, they're competing with rollups. Why would anyone deploy something on Algorand, HarmonyOne or Cardano when they can deploy on Optimism or Arbitrum? In fact Arbitrum already has more dApps than all 3 of those Alt L1s combined? And if the dApps are built in the Ethereum ecosystem then that's where users will go to use them. Ethereum's roadmap is fully leaning into optimizing the L1 to help rollups to flourish. Two of the biggest upcoming upgrades (other than The Merge) are EIP-4488 and EIP-4844. The former will reduce the cost of calldata transaction costs and the later (proto-danksharding) will allow the storage of large amounts of rollup data on L1. Each of these should roughly reduce the cost of using a rollup by an order of magnitude, so once implemented a transaction on an L2 that currently costs $1 will cost more like $0.01. This is being done without compromising decentralization or security of the L1. Of course many Alt L1s have got upgrades of their own planned, but I just don't see anything like the kind of innovation coming down the pipe that would be needed to even maintain their position relative to Ethereum's ecosystem. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but my opinion matches the OP's sentiment and over the last couple of years I have invested accordingly. I do still hold a little bit of ADA, because it is interesting how different the approach of eUTXO is to just about everything else, it's plausible that there might be an as-yet-unforeseen benefit that it has which makes it better for some niche usecase? As for stuff like Avalanche, Solana, Harmony etc, I think they will go the same way as EOS, Aeternity and NEO from last cycle. E
FYI, Ethereum has no on-chain governance, so even if I had 99% of the staked ether it wouldn't give any ability to make changes to the protocol. The only way you could push an unpopular change would be to physically take control of multiple client teams (GETH and Prysm + Lighthouse or Prysm + Teku + Nimbus) and force them to make an update, then somehow trick all the node operators into accepting the new client version. Just having a > 66% stake (roughly equivalent to 51% attacking Bitcoin) wouldn't give you any power to adjust the network's rules, it just means you can censor and block transactions at will (until your validators get slash and burned).
If you're storing the Ether blockchain, you really want to run it on SSD. Last time I had the GETH blockchain on my computer, it was pushing 1TB, which was when I reset everything to lightweight or whatever it's called. Node re-syncs a lot faster as well.
The June testnet merge is for Ropsten, after that there's Sepolia and Georli and finally Ethereum. Optimism and Arbitirium are "layer 2" protocols or *apps* that run on top of Ethereum. They have their own testnets and mainnets. The testnets mentioned are ETH playgrounds for developers and users to test apps with, but no value is stored there (eth is free). By Merging them one at a time it allows developers to try and 'break' Ethereum or understand how it handles stress without occuring risk or cost, so by the time the merge goes live on mainnet everything is well prepared. I think our community point cryptocurrency $moons are still on the Rinkeby testnet. Rinkeby is GETH *only* compared to the others so [it's being phased out](https://etherworld.co/2022/05/16/ethereum-rinkeby-testnet-will-be-deprecated-soon/) rather than merged and our moons will find themselves on Arbitirium's mainnet hopefully.
1) It doesn't matter how many nodes there are if they're all controlled by a very small number of players. That's like saying there are thousands of restaurants without recognizing that half of them are McDonald's. POW Ethereum secured by thousands of independent miners is way more decentralized than POS Ethereum owned by a handful of players. 2) I wouldn't dispute your characterization of Solana at all. Solana has multiple problems under the hood and lack of decentralization is just one of them. 3) Ethereum is heading in the opposite direction of decentralization unfortunately. Do you realize how close Ethereum came to a complete chain split in November 2020 due to a problem with GETH? Plus the problem I noted with control of the staked ETH. We're not even going to get into Joe Lubin, JPMorgan, the control over Etherscan and how many dapps are dependent on it, etc. 4) Honestly I wouldn't ever count on sharding being a part of Ethereum. It's been on the roadmap since 2015, just like POS. Vitalik promised POS would be available in 9-12 months back in July 2015. It's April 2022, and it still hasn't happened. Now look where sharding is on the roadmap and tell me there's a realistic expectation that it's going to happen. The account model has a basic problem: the account model used by Ethereum requires global state knowledge. How do you maintain global state knowledge when you have multiple shards changing it constantly? Ethereum will have to be re-engineered from the ground-up to make sharding in any meaningful way a realistic possibility.
Running your own node isn't difficult especially if you have *some* computer knowledge ie can follow a tutorial. You need a dedicated device (laptop or home server) which is always connected to the internet and a 1 or 2 TB hard drive, about $800-1k in hardware total. If you disconnect from the internet for very long, or do any nefarious actions, you risk having your stake slashed by some % removing your validator from the pool. Once you have your hardware you need to add a Ubuntu server on it, a repository for an ETH client, to add your repo generated key to a GETH client, then let Ethereum know you're ready to deposit 32 ETH. There are additional steps for securing the device in most of these tutorials too. And make sure to run a testnet first to verify everything is configured properly before you go on mainnet and risk a slash. Staking issuance is locked up until the POS chain merges with the POW chain *and* another upgrade comes 6-12 months later to allow unstaking/unwinding of nodes just FYI. But after the merge APR for staking should reach over 10% as tips go to stakers. If you don't want to hassle with your own node Rocketpool is a decentralized (non KYC) option. They take people's staked ETH and give it to someone with under 32 ETH to run a node with, then pay APR to all participants. You earn less (4% vs 5-6%) staking in another person's node but it's a lot more passive and no risk of slashing. Sorry I can't help you more, hard to say everything necessary in one message lol. But no it's not hard, just a little technical at first but once it's running it's done and the passive income rolls in. Good luck. https://launchpad.ethereum.org/en/ https://github.com/SomerEsat/ethereum-staking-guide https://www.np.reddit.com/r/ethstaker/comments/tvlnck/how_to_stake_on_ethereum_april_2022_edition https://www.np.reddit.com/r/ethstaker/comments/nnwfx1/why_you_should_stop_worrying_about_your
> 1) Is there an official ethereum wallet? Not really, though you can use GETH and that's as "official" as it gets. I recommend you just use a hardware wallet with Metamask as the browser interface. > 2) My understanding is that ethereum staked right now is locked until the update after the merge, right? Which wallet do I need to send my Eth to or how do I stake my Eth with that pool? Yes, ETH is locked until ~6 months after the merge when Shanghai goes live. However, certain services give you a derivative token when you stake there so you can still have some liquidity. This includes Binance, Kraken, Rocket Pool, Lido, and a few others. To stake in those pools, you simply send them your ETH and receive the derivative token or you can buy the derivative token from a DEX like Uniswap- the end result is the same. With Rocket Pool for example, you can just buy the rETH token from Uniswap and it's the same as using their interface directly. > 3) What is the %APY for staking Eth? Base rewards are 4.6%APR right now https://launchpad.ethereum.org/en/ This rate goes down gradually as more validators join the network, but is expected to jump after the merge because block tips will begin going to validators rather than miners. Some project as high as 10%. Most pools are slightly less than the base rate because they take a commission fee for the service of running the validators. Rocket Pool is about 4.03% APR right now. > 4) How are the staking yields paid out in that pool? Again, this depends on the pool. Coinbase is holding the rewards separate from your account until Shanghai, Lido's stETH has a rebasing function where you can claim rewards, and Rocket Pool's rETH accrues rewards via the trading ratio with ETH (you buy 1 rETH for 1 ETH to start, and then a year later 1 rETH gets you 1.05 ETH). Rocket Pool's mechanism can be advantageous for capital gains since there aren't any additional taxable events other than buying and selling. Lido also has "wrapped stETH" which accrues value in a similar fashion to rETH. There are also various ways to boost yield on these derivative tokens if you're interested. The simplest is to use the Yearn Finance vault strategies like ycrvstETH or yvCurve-rETHwstETH where your tokens are supplied to liquidity pools for trading and you get fees from any trades. Let me know if you want help understanding how this works. You can also access this via the Argent zkSync wallet for extremely low fees.
Good question: One core idea is our focus on core client development. Many other EVM sidechains (BSC, Polygon, Avalanche, Optimism) use forks of the GETH client. However - that means that they will run (and already are) into the same scalability issues as Ethereum (the geth client) itself. We however have [formed](https://medium.com/openethereum/gnosis-joins-erigon-formerly-turbo-geth-to-release-next-gen-ethereum-client-c6708dd06dd) a [strong partnership](https://forum.gnosis.io/t/erigon-gnosisdao-proposal/4105) with the Erigon team. They build a client that is significantly [more performant](https://medium.com/@vorot93/meet-akula-the-fastest-ethereum-implementation-ever-built-58eaca244c39) than any other client. Thus Gnosis Chain wants to use this technology to the best while keeping a symbiotic relationship with Ethereum.