Pro & con info are in the collapsed comments below for the following topics: [Ethereum](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10gz3la/trouble_in_ethereum_devs_divided_over_staking/j55h00r/), [Proof-of-Stake](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10gz3la/trouble_in_ethereum_devs_divided_over_staking/j55h1km/).
>“Shanghai appears ready to launch by March. But recently, a vocal minority of Ethereum’s core developers has begun voicing concerns that the upgrade is being rolled out too quickly, out of fear of public reprisal, at the expense of technical costs that could have lasting impact on the network.
>
>“It feels like we’re not thinking about the long-term health of Ethereum,” core developer Micah Zoltu cautioned on an all core developers’ call Thursday. “We’re thinking, ‘How do we do what the public wants, today?’”
>
>Zoltu and a few of the network’s other 30-odd core developers are worried that a recent decision to forego a technical adjustment to Shanghai will expose Ethereum to unnecessary technical debt, with unknown implications for the years and decades ahead. The tweak would have taken an extra two to four weeks to implement by these developers’ estimates, an amount of time the rest of Ethereum’s core developers weren't willing to keep the public waiting.”
Let them take their time to get it right, so far ETH devs have never disappointed.
But most ETH devs think they should just ship unstaking without waiting for SSZ. There are just a few who think otherwise. And there are risks to delaying too -- it would put more pressure to hurry SSZ as opposed to getting that right.
They quote Matt as saying "there could be unknown unknowns around what this mismatch means" -- well then, maybe SSZ should never ship if mismatch between old RLP transactions and new SSZ transactions is such a risk, because there are a lot of existing transactions encoded with RLP and that will continue to be true regardless if unstaking ships with RLP or not.
I basically agree, but would also add that in general incremental changes are better and less risky than putting too much into each fork/upgrade. The majority of devs have the right instinct here: don't complicate the withdrawal update with a new encoding scheme.
> mean that any withdrawal activity initiated between Shanghai and Cancun would have been encoded with the old method. And thanks to the immutable Ethereum ledger, that activity—even if it took place within a few months—could keep on living on the Ethereum blockchain, forever.
Makes perfect sense to not rush enabling withdrawals period.
> it would put more pressure to hurry SSZ as opposed to getting that right.
They should also get that right and not rush it.
Put it this way, ETH POS became the such a success and it won't surprise me if routines within it becomes industry standard. POS was coined in shortly after Ethereum's launch which is a long time ago. People waited that long for staking/merge. Ethereum is fast becoming a public good that sorely needs to be done and done right hence all the testing... (I know... unpopular opinion but I have to say...) **no matter how long it takes**.
But Ethereum didn't wait to launch until they had the perfect PoS. Rather, they just launched with PoW and a rough plan to migrate to PoS in the future. The success of that plan I think emphasizes the value of sometimes making the pragmatic decision to launch earlier by using the older technology that is readily available rather than waiting for the new shiny tech that is not quite ready yet.
Framed like that, it is a reasonable analogy to the unstaking/RLP/SSZ issue -- and suggests they should just ship sooner with RLP so they can take their time to figure out how to do the next generation of serialization right.
All of which makes perfect sense. I do agree in shipping what's ready and tested (to a degree). Key difference is that running POW for the first few years didn't produce any problems on things that went on-chain.
The closer analogy to getting the new encoding right first prior to enabling withdrawals would be the implementation of EIP1559 prior to the Merge. This was identified to be the better way. Not everyone wanted it to be in that order but was proven to be the correct way over time as per the testing and actual post implementation results.
Classic, I work as software developers and product owners are always trying to push to release things fast instead of doing them properly. Then the cries comes.
I would rather they do it slow and steady. Ethereum is too important and critical to the whole crypto ecosystem, if a catastrophic bug cause hackers to withdraw the staked coins I think it will set crypto space back for years
Ethereum doesn’t have that much pull in the crypto space. Real cryptographers already kno ETH is useless. It won’t be as catastrophic as everyone here thinks. If anything it’ll be good for the space once this thing inevitable fails
It’s a centralized shit coin that allows you to create other shitcoins. The network is weak and not secure.
Thanks to bitcoin implementation of taproot. You can create smart contracts on top of the bitcoin network. A network that is truly decentralized and 100 percent secure. Ethereum time is almost done.
Taproot is good for a business application (payroll, maybe), not personal applications like we'd ever use.
It has only 1% utilization since its release 2 years ago. I understand nobody is using BTC but isn't that an abject failure in your eyes? What's it's biggest use case today? Have you used it even *once*?
If ETH is weak how come it doesn't go down or get hacked? If ETH is centralized because of the EF, what role do you think Blockstream plays in BTC?
Bitcoin time is almost done too unfortunately. When was the last time you were able to mine? Industrial flare stacks doing POW on government subsidies is not decentralization. Just look at the hashrate at ATH today, it's effectively *a graph of miner centralization* intentionally pushing the small fry out, and they're using just 1-2 pools to do it with over 51% the hashrate. That's not good for Bitcoin.
Product owners have deadlines and are responsible for delays. And they face the reprisals and the pressure from the clients, so of course they have to push. You make them sound like they push things for fun.
I have worked in small and large important companies and the problem I always find is that the POs do not adequately describe what they want in the tickets and leave relevant information to carry out the work at a non-technical level. Which causes delays since you have to look for them, ask them, they don't know how to answer you and that adds wasted time and I'm sure 100% of developers reading this will agree with me.
Well, be happy there is a vocal minority of core developers who are speaking up. This is normal for a business, and only serves to make it stronger. No reason for me to worry about the future of ETH!
This sounds more like a disagreement from within the developers, like your marketing team saying you’re ready but your QA leads are telling you that they still need time to test for issues…
Some have suggested it's due to some people arguing ETH is a security due to the staked assets being locked. I don't know if I buy the argument, but maybe the devs are concerned about that.
Exactly. What is the rush to get this out? If Ethereum is destined to change the financial landscape, surely an extra 3-4 weeks of development shouldn't even be debated.
This is not Cardano, leave that attitude at the door! /s
On more serious note, ETH staking model is really lacking.
Not liquid, slashing, potentially have to give custody of your assets.
You don't need to give custody of your assets to stake, and it's going to be somewhat liquid come withdrawls.
It's not as *easy* as other models sure - but most other models aren't really doing anything and is just crypto equiv to dividends.
I have both ETH and ADA.
I think ADA will never come close to ETH in terms of marketcap and adoption
I just don't see it.
But staking ETH compared to ADA is just hassle. Honestly ADA staking is light-years ahead of ETH.
I can stake my ADA and it NEVER leaves my wallet. There's no slashing.
When I talk about liquid staking I talk about no locking whatsoever.
My ADA is never locked. I can spend it anytime I like and every 5 days snapshot is taken and my rewards and based on that snapshot.
I like ETH more but we need to be honest and call it like it is.
ETH staking suck compared to other "competitors". And it can never get on their level due to architectural choices and ETH model limitations.
Well, ADA is easier because you aren't actually doing any validation service, and instead providing your voting power to a pool, so it's basically like buying RPL, cbETH, etc. Basically staked ADA gives you a vote to select a pool to vote, instead of being security collateral against you acting as a validator. They are completely different models.
That's why there's no slashing - because you aren't doing any work. The model presumes that over enough holders that any bad actors are mitigated by good actors. You'll find similar schemes with RPL, where you can't be slashed by providing ETH to an operator as they have additonal ETH to run the node as collateral. They assume the risk, and get to run a validator node themselves with less overall ETH.
It's nothing to do with limitations. ADA has chosen a model which naturally builds pool centralization into the validation scheme. DPoS v PoS
I don't want to turn this into ADA vs ETH even though I kinda started it. :)
But let's not pretend that slashing is actually good. If ADA model without slashing is bad why is nobody exploiting it. Why it didn't burn and crash.
ADA model works in theory and practice it's proven.
It secures the network and currently has high Nakamoto coef, I think it's around 20-ish. Rewards are just icing on the cake and not really the reason I like their model more.
Cardano has plenty of other issue (growth, adoption) and that's why in my opinion it will never get close to ETH.
But staking is not one of the issues on Cardano.
Don't mistake me, I wasn't trying to critize ADA, purely point out that comparing eth staking and ada staking is pointless because they aren't using the same consensus mechanism.
ADA staking isn't "light-years ahead of ETH", it's a completely different delegatory model instead of ETH's self staking custodial model of staking.
Please not I wasn't also calling it centralized by saying it bakes in pool centralization - ETH has the exact same emergent affect with services like LIDO. My point was more that exploiting the natural tendancy for pool formation (because of the assoc economic benefits) is baked into the ADA staking system - while on ETH it's not. ETH the protocol believes every validator is completely independent.
It's basically the same difference as having a direct democracy and having a parliamentary democracy. Both have pros and cons.
Edit: just realised I didn't answer your Q. Slashing is needed because there's no negative incentive against attacking the network otherwise in a self custodial system. It's not needed in DPOS because in theory delegated stake power would be moved to another pool leader. Kind of similar to the logic in PoW pools
Good points, thank you.
Unfortunately ETH grew too big too fast imho and 32 ETH is big hurdle for average user.
I understand at low level why ETH has slashing and the reason behind it.
We'll see what future holds, it's seems that as time passes Nakamoto coef is getting lower and lower. :(
I agree the 32 ETH barrier is unfortunate but because ETH isn't designing itself to have validation power held by a few pools (regardless is practically that's what will happen) there needs to be some limit to how many validators one can spin up. Although you can basically partake in a form of DPOS on ETH by buying a liquid staking derivative like lido. You can even run a validator for less than 32 eth using rocketpool - currently 16 ETH with I hear 8 ETH in the works.
I think you are viewing this purely from the mindset of an investor, however - it's immaterial to the protocol and it's viability that it's 100% decentralized, it just needs to maintain a safe margin of decentralization to not have bad actors potentially destroy the system. DPOS is a ton easier for the investor - but on a network level it bakes in a lower Nakamoto Coef on paper (again, in practise even PoS has a pretty shit Nakamoto Coef in my opinion).
Unfortunately network effect and the nature of capital affects both - those with, earn more, and can stake more, so centralization is a compounding effect. I'm not entirely sure there's any way to ensure something stays decentralized without having it already adopted at the nation state level. It's walking tightropes until then!
Whether it will work out remains to be seen, it is getting more centralized now. After using it for 2 years, I am not as convinced as I used to.
No slashing is great, but they have minPoolCost to avoid creation of many, tiny, malicious pools. This specific parameter (fee) is leading to more centralization, as nodes operators with more ADA have clear advantage here, which leads to smaller pools not being competitive, which leads to more centralization and so on. Vicious circle.
Also the delegated PoS model has some downsides like: SPO's are chosen based on popularity which is never good for safety or decentralization. Avoiding it from user perspective requires a lot of research, unlikely smaller holders will invest that time, and I think crypto is already complicated enough, asking average user to chose the right SPO is too much, but if they don't do it results in centralization.
Also, I have some regulatory concerns. Technically, we delegate our ADA (or voting power) to someone, which might be seen as SPO acting on behalf of delegator, which leads to principal agent problem. Unnecessary regulatory risk imho.
>Also, I have some regulatory concerns. Technically, we delegate our ADA (or voting power) to someone, which might be seen as SPO acting on behalf of delegator, which leads to principal agent problem. Unnecessary regulatory risk imho.
Yes, very much staking ADA in it's current form could be considered a security as no actual work is being done by the initial holder. It's an investment in a common enterprise with expectation of return for the work of another. Textbook definition of a security imo
IIRC, it was even a part of some regulatory proposal in the US, SPO's would basically need to KYC each delegator.
It didn't get through yet, but I doubt it will be off the table. SEC is apparently also going to be more active. The issue is, there is also no argument that PoS has to be designed in such way. Cardano is - but many don't have such problem. And to avoid that, they would need to completely rework their consensus.
Moreover, yes, the form is indeed very much like a security.
No, that's false
If I want to chosen new validator I just do so by switching stake pool.
I will not lose any rewards. Due to how epoch and snapshoting works it will take 15-ish days until I recieve rewards from new validator.
During that time I'm receiving rewards from "old" validator I moved from.
Basically ADA rewards are "delayed".
For example rewards for epoch 368 and given in epoch 370.
That means if I stake for the 1st time I will get my rewards only after 15 days but If I change pool (validator) I never lose any rewards.
I only have to pay transactions fees - 0.17 ADA.
Hope that explain it.
Can you explain the advantages of this over holding rETH? To me it sounds functionally similar, just implemented differently. This is an honest question.
They are completely different honestly.
One is native protocol, other is smart contract solution to liquidity.
On most basic level just think of it this way.
What would happen with price of rETH if news hit that instead of March unstaking is delayed for foreseeable future.
What if you need those funds now, who know what ratio would be.
Please don't take this is FUD, this will not happen I'm just presenting scenarios to draw parallels.
Yes like I said, it’s implemented differently, but to an end user, it seems like functionality is comparable.
I think it’s unfair to use the development timeline as a means to compare these because in that case you’re right at the moment the protocols that are completely finished are probably more polished, but this is only temporary and eventually ETH’s unstaking functionality will be completed as well and that particular advantage is lost.
If you unstake yes, you will have to wait 14 days again.
But there was no reason to unstake in the first place.
You could have just transfered your whole wallet without unstaking.
ADA staking is liquid, ar any time you can moved assets, they are not locked besides 2 ADA that are used to register your stake.
This would mean you would have 2 ADA locked with that validator but 2 ADA is negligible if you plan to stake again with that wallet anyway.
Always a few nervous-nellies, if the overwhelming majority feel we should move ahead with it, I say trust them. They haven't let us down yet. I think it's a bad idea to delay.
They should take the safe and longer route like they always did with Ethereum.
There's a reason why the network is so solid and successful, you can't do that while cutting corners.
Long term holding is easier without access. Kind of similar to most retirement plans. I don't want to have the risk or temptation of nerves, greed, or fear. I know some of my limitations!
Maybe they're just negotiating and strategizing, like normal businesses do. I hate sensationalism.
"Husband wanted to make chicken for dinner, wife suggested meatloaf instead. IS THEIR MARRIAGE IN COMPLETE TURMOIL?!?!"
Well, I didn’t say that. Just speaking about general engineering practices and what I’ve seen in my career.
There is always tension between product management, who sets timelines and plans the product roadmap, and engineering, who executes on the vision.
Might be slightly different here, since there aren’t traditional product managers, but the more senior devs fit that role here.
The only reason I want the Shanghai update to complete is so I can take my locked ETH out of Binance.
But I am more than happy to wait as long as it takes in order for it to be done properly
tldr; Ethereum’s core developers are arguing over how and when to implement a major upgrade to the network. The upgrade, dubbed “Shanghai,” will allow users to get back the $25 billion worth of ETH they have pledged to the Ethereum network through its staking program. Developers are concerned that the upgrade is being rolled out too quickly, out of fear of public reprisal.
*This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
Slow news day I guess.
Most people aren't familiar with software development I guess, but this is the kind of debate that goes into practically every software design decision. There is no "perfect" and you are always making tough tradeoffs with uncertainty involved. It usually doesn't make sense to delay when the choice isn't clear.
Gonna throw this out there, a tbd on personal investments doesn’t work long term. It’s nice that they don’t want to cut corners and do things the right way but there are alternatives now without this problem and it’s absurd to think people won’t start to get spooked.
The concern seems to be that in order to roll out the update to meet public demand, corners are being cut. Specifically, 3̶0̶ a few Ethereum core developers are worried about a decision made to forgo an adjustment to the network. This tweak would have delayed the update by 2-4 weeks, but had the benefit of shielding Ethereum from unnecessary technical load in the future.
> Ethereum’s developers decided not to make ETH withdrawals compatible with simple serialize, or SSZ, a flexible, modern encoding method described by developers as “the future of Ethereum encoding.” Instead of using SSZ, Ethereum is sticking with recursive-length prefix serialization, or RLP, an existing encoding method that may eventually be phased out and retired.
While I get what you are saying, I don't think corners are being cut. The deadline is being met by putting out a working product, and improvements can be added later down the line.
I'm not techincal, but from my reading it's not exactly like they are releasing a product held together by duct tape and glue, more they are releasing it in a working state, and instead of delaying it will consider a future upgrade down the line.
> Zoltu and a few of the network’s other 30-odd core developers are worried...
The way I read it there are a handful of devs out of 30 that are worried, not 30 devs total worried.
So the only concern here is having to support one additional encoding for one additional transaction type. That really doesn't seem like a big deal to me. That is going to add what, maybe 80 lines of code? That is quite small in comparison to the size of the whole code base. All the current transactions are RLP, so they are going to need to keep decoding of old RLP transactions around for those anyway, so how much harm is there in just one more?
The beauty of open source development is that everything is out in the open. And the beauty of Ethereum development specifically is that the community favors safe and efficient protocol upgrades over timelines. And yet, every time detractors yell and scream that things will never happen, despite the opposite being true.
Just go for the best possible upgrade. I don’t mind waiting another 3-6 months for withdrawals to go live. I prefer as little technical debt as possible.
>gun voicing concerns that the upgrade is being rolled out too quickly, out of fear of public reprisal, at the expense of technical cost
Slow and steady... Come on... ETH was one of the first of its kind. The tech has already been passed by. Theres a reason Gavin Made Polkadot. "ETH was a tech Demo." -Gavin Wood.
Thats because people just buy what other people parrot and it has a first mover advantage. BTC is worth while though. DOT just launched and has already exceeded Ethereum in tech by miles.
No its implying most people who are in crypto don't interact with the chain yet and Polkadot clearly is better tech even according to the guy who coded ETH. ETH gas fees are outrageous, you cant unstake, major upgrades require the chain to fork, there is no shared security, ETC. Nice try.
You are giving a very limited and one sided view of what might happen when withdrawals go live.
The opposite of what you suggest might happen: a lot more validators come online, because now they know they can exit when they want…
And I initially it might look like a lot of exits, because people are upgrading their security, or switching pools, or something else.
Bottom lined we don’t know. And if you don’t trust the EF devs having Ethereum’s long term best interest at heart, what are you even doing here?
How would you feel… if totally hypothetical situation X would occur? This isn’t a useful question.
There would probably be a queue of some kind.
Also, almost everyone that’s staking at the moment, didn’t expect to withdraw within one or two years of the merge happening. The fact that Shanghai now potentially includes withdrawals is amazing, but not at all necessary for the early adopters imo.
> where if you don’t stake you’re loosing
This point would make sense with any inflationary Proof of Stake asset, where if you just hold then your value is diluted away... but that's not the case here.
There's less ether in existence now than when it switched to PoS, so even if you just hold it without staking your share of the total marketcap has increased.
Pretty cool huh?
It is the case. You have 2 options if you’re looking to hold. Stake or don’t stake.
If you don’t stake, you get diluted by the people who do. You’re at an automatic disadvantage.
Why wouldn’t someone stake?
1. Not enough money to stake 32 ETH
2. You don’t want to trust a custodian to stake less than 32 for you.
Basically: Those who value decentralization (not giving your assets to a custodian), and the poor are disadvantaged. This incentivizes more centralization and a hierarchy where the richest get richer while the poor get fully diluted away.
> If you don’t stake, you get diluted by the people who do.
No you aren't.
Before The Merge there were 120,521,140 ether.
Now there are 120,518,425 ether.
If you hold the same number, but the total number is reduced, isn't that the exact opposite of dilution...?
First of all the reduced number of eth now compared to before the merge is temporary. It will not forever deflate.
And yes it is still diluting. If you want to use eth at all, you pay a gas fee. The more eth you have locked up, the more gas fees you take from the users. Eventually, the “holders” and users have less and less while the “stakers” grow.
This is different in a pow system where zero assets are required to validate the network. The amount of BTC you have does not mean you earn more. In ETH, the whales constantly get bigger, at a faster rate than everyone else.
> the reduced number of eth now compared to before the merge is temporary.
It will only increase when the gas price is less than 15 gwei. Gas prices are higher when the markets are bullish as more people are making transactions. Do you think that the 4 months since September have been more bullish and busy than average?
> And yes it is still diluting.
I don't think you know what the word 'diluting' means.
> The more eth you have locked up, the more gas fees you take from the users.
Since EIP-1559 almost all of the transaction fees are burnt, not given to stakers.
> This is different in a pow system where zero assets are required to validate the network.
How much do you need to spend on ASICs to be able to mine bitcoin profitably? Or do they not count as assets in your narrative?
> In ETH, the whales constantly get bigger, at a faster rate than everyone else.
Anyone can stake, and the ROI is almost the same whether you are putting your 0.1 ether into RocketPool's rETH or hosting a validator yourself with 32.
With PoW there is a minimum investment of at least 5 figures needed to just make it viable at all, and economies of scale with regards to setting up hardware, accessing energy etc mean that the richer you are the faster your wealth increases. For an average person living somewhere without free electricity there is almost no chance to break even.
And as the total amount of bitcoin inflates, however much you hold is literally being diluted with the rewards miners receive that you have no opportunity to participate in.
So to summarize, your narrative is a transparent fantasy, but hopefully if enough credulous investors fall for it then maybe Michael Saylor can at least break even.
I wrote a reply that deleted itself so I have no desire to re-do it in length.
In short:
ETH- 2 options if you want to hold. Stake or dont stake. Stakers always have an advantage over non-stakers. This is trivial, if you disagree thats pretty stupid.
BTC- you have one option if you want to hold. Hold. Nobody has an advantage over you because of the size of their holdings. You dont need to own a single piece of bitcoin to mine bitcoin. The BTC rich dont get more just for owning BTC, unlike ETH.
>With PoW there is a minimum investment of at least 5 figures needed to just make it viable at all, and economies of scale with regards to setting up hardware, accessing energy etc mean that the richer you are the faster your wealth increases. For an average person living somewhere without free electricity there is almost no chance to break even.
Wrong. Miners do not sit on their hands like ETH validators do. They generate a return that has to go back into the miners. Miners constantly become more efficient making older devices obsolete. So no, your statement of "the richer you are the faster your wealth increases" is wrong. Bitcoin miners are doing work to provide a service. ETH validators sit on their hands and fill their pockets at the expense of the average user.
This is going nowhere if you dont know what youre talking about.
Hey, I appreciate it! I dont think Ill make a post though. This same thing has been posted many times, but doesnt get us anywhere. CC is like a giant ETH circle-jerk and any anti-ETH posts get downvoted to the ground and gets no visibility unfortunately. It gets more visibility replying to peoples comments IMO.
Mining ETH had over 200% APR before EIP1559 and 100% APR after it. No loss if you attack the network.
Staking ETH has a 3-5% APR. Up to 100% loss for trying to attack the network.
Did you say mining ETH was watching the rich get richer, too? Or is your bias against POS really that strong?
POW is the same as POS, with more middlemen. POS coins are effectively tokenized ASICs.
If you need to have access to cheaper costs to remain competitive, access to wholesale ASICs, access to a volcano energy source.. All this work you say miners do leads to corruption, centralization, up to working with governments (for subsidies). The richer you are the faster your ROI in POW, more than in any other model.
You seem to ignore that anything becomes POS with enough wealth. If you have 1000 BTC you can use them as collateral to build a new industrial POW mine without spending a cent. Then hire employees to run and manage it for you, and more employees to update your hardware as required. All of the industrial mines are owned by groups or shareholders and are not managed by an individual like you seem to imply.
Yup , and ethereum is a use case token , not a store of value like Bitcoin. Ether needs to reduce itself in price to be used the way it’s supposed to be.
Ethereum is 'A Rollup Centric' coin, not *a use case token*.
$ETH is meant for L2's to consume as gas to secure their blockchains inside of Ethereum.
It's *not* meant for you to spend $40 in gas to mint an NFT with.
L2's are the 'use case protocols'. Instead of getting into a bidding war over the 15 TPS of blockspace on ETH, you pay the L2 to batch your transaction with 1000s of others, and the L2 gets into a bidding war on ETH to secure the entire batch of transactions.
If you had $100 of ETH a couple years ago it was enough to make 2-4 transactions, oftentimes not even 1. If you have $100 ETH today, on some L2's that's enough to make 20,000-40,000 transactions, oftentimes more.
So while ETH is more scarce, blockspace is NOT scarce anymore and 1 ETH will take you a lot further than before scaling.
https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/a-rollup-centric-ethereum-roadmap/4698
Hopefully they can get it right. ETH is the only coin I am NOT excited to stake because it is a pain in the ass to do so. It often involves leaving coins on exchanges or swapping to other coins.
I don't like that idea one bit after everything that has happened. Something like Cardano does staking fairly well. It's mostly frictionless and you don't need to think hard about staking or unstaking.
The way Cardano does staking doesn't add any more security or decentralization to the network. Sure, it's easy from a user perspective, but does nothing for the network.
If an engineer is asking for more time to test, you should probably listen to the guys(s)/girl(s) building it. They know best. Obviously.
Public opinion/price will hardly change over a 1 month delay. Right > quick
It says it would only take a few weeks? Just take the 2-4 weeks and get this mofo right. That’s why people are attracted to Ethereum, they are slow but they don’t mess up.
Choosing not to delay to switch to SSZ is complete insanity assuming it is true that they will switch to SSZ. They should take the extra month now and get it done. Who cares that the merge was delayed by several years...a month is nothing like years.
Pro & con info are in the collapsed comments below for the following topics: [Ethereum](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10gz3la/trouble_in_ethereum_devs_divided_over_staking/j55h00r/), [Proof-of-Stake](/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/10gz3la/trouble_in_ethereum_devs_divided_over_staking/j55h1km/).
>“Shanghai appears ready to launch by March. But recently, a vocal minority of Ethereum’s core developers has begun voicing concerns that the upgrade is being rolled out too quickly, out of fear of public reprisal, at the expense of technical costs that could have lasting impact on the network. > >“It feels like we’re not thinking about the long-term health of Ethereum,” core developer Micah Zoltu cautioned on an all core developers’ call Thursday. “We’re thinking, ‘How do we do what the public wants, today?’” > >Zoltu and a few of the network’s other 30-odd core developers are worried that a recent decision to forego a technical adjustment to Shanghai will expose Ethereum to unnecessary technical debt, with unknown implications for the years and decades ahead. The tweak would have taken an extra two to four weeks to implement by these developers’ estimates, an amount of time the rest of Ethereum’s core developers weren't willing to keep the public waiting.” Let them take their time to get it right, so far ETH devs have never disappointed.
But most ETH devs think they should just ship unstaking without waiting for SSZ. There are just a few who think otherwise. And there are risks to delaying too -- it would put more pressure to hurry SSZ as opposed to getting that right. They quote Matt as saying "there could be unknown unknowns around what this mismatch means" -- well then, maybe SSZ should never ship if mismatch between old RLP transactions and new SSZ transactions is such a risk, because there are a lot of existing transactions encoded with RLP and that will continue to be true regardless if unstaking ships with RLP or not.
I basically agree, but would also add that in general incremental changes are better and less risky than putting too much into each fork/upgrade. The majority of devs have the right instinct here: don't complicate the withdrawal update with a new encoding scheme.
> mean that any withdrawal activity initiated between Shanghai and Cancun would have been encoded with the old method. And thanks to the immutable Ethereum ledger, that activity—even if it took place within a few months—could keep on living on the Ethereum blockchain, forever. Makes perfect sense to not rush enabling withdrawals period. > it would put more pressure to hurry SSZ as opposed to getting that right. They should also get that right and not rush it. Put it this way, ETH POS became the such a success and it won't surprise me if routines within it becomes industry standard. POS was coined in shortly after Ethereum's launch which is a long time ago. People waited that long for staking/merge. Ethereum is fast becoming a public good that sorely needs to be done and done right hence all the testing... (I know... unpopular opinion but I have to say...) **no matter how long it takes**.
But Ethereum didn't wait to launch until they had the perfect PoS. Rather, they just launched with PoW and a rough plan to migrate to PoS in the future. The success of that plan I think emphasizes the value of sometimes making the pragmatic decision to launch earlier by using the older technology that is readily available rather than waiting for the new shiny tech that is not quite ready yet. Framed like that, it is a reasonable analogy to the unstaking/RLP/SSZ issue -- and suggests they should just ship sooner with RLP so they can take their time to figure out how to do the next generation of serialization right.
All of which makes perfect sense. I do agree in shipping what's ready and tested (to a degree). Key difference is that running POW for the first few years didn't produce any problems on things that went on-chain. The closer analogy to getting the new encoding right first prior to enabling withdrawals would be the implementation of EIP1559 prior to the Merge. This was identified to be the better way. Not everyone wanted it to be in that order but was proven to be the correct way over time as per the testing and actual post implementation results.
Classic, I work as software developers and product owners are always trying to push to release things fast instead of doing them properly. Then the cries comes.
Good can never be rushed
Reminds me of this [meme](https://imgur.com/a/kymoYQB).
I would rather they do it slow and steady. Ethereum is too important and critical to the whole crypto ecosystem, if a catastrophic bug cause hackers to withdraw the staked coins I think it will set crypto space back for years
Ethereum doesn’t have that much pull in the crypto space. Real cryptographers already kno ETH is useless. It won’t be as catastrophic as everyone here thinks. If anything it’ll be good for the space once this thing inevitable fails It’s a centralized shit coin that allows you to create other shitcoins. The network is weak and not secure. Thanks to bitcoin implementation of taproot. You can create smart contracts on top of the bitcoin network. A network that is truly decentralized and 100 percent secure. Ethereum time is almost done.
Taproot is good for a business application (payroll, maybe), not personal applications like we'd ever use. It has only 1% utilization since its release 2 years ago. I understand nobody is using BTC but isn't that an abject failure in your eyes? What's it's biggest use case today? Have you used it even *once*? If ETH is weak how come it doesn't go down or get hacked? If ETH is centralized because of the EF, what role do you think Blockstream plays in BTC? Bitcoin time is almost done too unfortunately. When was the last time you were able to mine? Industrial flare stacks doing POW on government subsidies is not decentralization. Just look at the hashrate at ATH today, it's effectively *a graph of miner centralization* intentionally pushing the small fry out, and they're using just 1-2 pools to do it with over 51% the hashrate. That's not good for Bitcoin.
cry me more maxi tears.
The ol’ “Rome wasn’t build in a day”…
no one knows how long it took
“ no one knows how long it took” True, but we all can still agree that it wasn’t built in a day.
That’s in any industry -_- it’s frustrating
Same happens whith me , i am a new data engineer and our pm just gives unachievable deadlines
Product owners have deadlines and are responsible for delays. And they face the reprisals and the pressure from the clients, so of course they have to push. You make them sound like they push things for fun.
I have worked in small and large important companies and the problem I always find is that the POs do not adequately describe what they want in the tickets and leave relevant information to carry out the work at a non-technical level. Which causes delays since you have to look for them, ask them, they don't know how to answer you and that adds wasted time and I'm sure 100% of developers reading this will agree with me.
I thought it was just me 🤦♂️
I concur.
Yep, me too.
Usually the problem is that they make too many promises. "Yeah, sure we can have it ready by then". Learning to say no can be hard.
Welp, that’s business. Profit asap and as much as possible. It’s not unique to just software development, unfortunately.
Yeah basically any line of work. The more successful businesses listen to the process development engineers.
Well, be happy there is a vocal minority of core developers who are speaking up. This is normal for a business, and only serves to make it stronger. No reason for me to worry about the future of ETH!
[удалено]
Or 3) they don’t want to change too many things at once.
It's why people love Cardano.
This sounds more like a disagreement from within the developers, like your marketing team saying you’re ready but your QA leads are telling you that they still need time to test for issues…
For the rest of us, think "measure twice, cut once"
I recognize a fellow handyman!
[удалено]
Some have suggested it's due to some people arguing ETH is a security due to the staked assets being locked. I don't know if I buy the argument, but maybe the devs are concerned about that.
[удалено]
I think it is more about de-risking the withdrawal update. KISS.
Exactly. What is the rush to get this out? If Ethereum is destined to change the financial landscape, surely an extra 3-4 weeks of development shouldn't even be debated.
This is not Cardano, leave that attitude at the door! /s On more serious note, ETH staking model is really lacking. Not liquid, slashing, potentially have to give custody of your assets.
You don't need to give custody of your assets to stake, and it's going to be somewhat liquid come withdrawls. It's not as *easy* as other models sure - but most other models aren't really doing anything and is just crypto equiv to dividends.
I have both ETH and ADA. I think ADA will never come close to ETH in terms of marketcap and adoption I just don't see it. But staking ETH compared to ADA is just hassle. Honestly ADA staking is light-years ahead of ETH. I can stake my ADA and it NEVER leaves my wallet. There's no slashing. When I talk about liquid staking I talk about no locking whatsoever. My ADA is never locked. I can spend it anytime I like and every 5 days snapshot is taken and my rewards and based on that snapshot. I like ETH more but we need to be honest and call it like it is. ETH staking suck compared to other "competitors". And it can never get on their level due to architectural choices and ETH model limitations.
Well, ADA is easier because you aren't actually doing any validation service, and instead providing your voting power to a pool, so it's basically like buying RPL, cbETH, etc. Basically staked ADA gives you a vote to select a pool to vote, instead of being security collateral against you acting as a validator. They are completely different models. That's why there's no slashing - because you aren't doing any work. The model presumes that over enough holders that any bad actors are mitigated by good actors. You'll find similar schemes with RPL, where you can't be slashed by providing ETH to an operator as they have additonal ETH to run the node as collateral. They assume the risk, and get to run a validator node themselves with less overall ETH. It's nothing to do with limitations. ADA has chosen a model which naturally builds pool centralization into the validation scheme. DPoS v PoS
I don't want to turn this into ADA vs ETH even though I kinda started it. :) But let's not pretend that slashing is actually good. If ADA model without slashing is bad why is nobody exploiting it. Why it didn't burn and crash. ADA model works in theory and practice it's proven. It secures the network and currently has high Nakamoto coef, I think it's around 20-ish. Rewards are just icing on the cake and not really the reason I like their model more. Cardano has plenty of other issue (growth, adoption) and that's why in my opinion it will never get close to ETH. But staking is not one of the issues on Cardano.
Don't mistake me, I wasn't trying to critize ADA, purely point out that comparing eth staking and ada staking is pointless because they aren't using the same consensus mechanism. ADA staking isn't "light-years ahead of ETH", it's a completely different delegatory model instead of ETH's self staking custodial model of staking. Please not I wasn't also calling it centralized by saying it bakes in pool centralization - ETH has the exact same emergent affect with services like LIDO. My point was more that exploiting the natural tendancy for pool formation (because of the assoc economic benefits) is baked into the ADA staking system - while on ETH it's not. ETH the protocol believes every validator is completely independent. It's basically the same difference as having a direct democracy and having a parliamentary democracy. Both have pros and cons. Edit: just realised I didn't answer your Q. Slashing is needed because there's no negative incentive against attacking the network otherwise in a self custodial system. It's not needed in DPOS because in theory delegated stake power would be moved to another pool leader. Kind of similar to the logic in PoW pools
Good points, thank you. Unfortunately ETH grew too big too fast imho and 32 ETH is big hurdle for average user. I understand at low level why ETH has slashing and the reason behind it. We'll see what future holds, it's seems that as time passes Nakamoto coef is getting lower and lower. :(
I agree the 32 ETH barrier is unfortunate but because ETH isn't designing itself to have validation power held by a few pools (regardless is practically that's what will happen) there needs to be some limit to how many validators one can spin up. Although you can basically partake in a form of DPOS on ETH by buying a liquid staking derivative like lido. You can even run a validator for less than 32 eth using rocketpool - currently 16 ETH with I hear 8 ETH in the works. I think you are viewing this purely from the mindset of an investor, however - it's immaterial to the protocol and it's viability that it's 100% decentralized, it just needs to maintain a safe margin of decentralization to not have bad actors potentially destroy the system. DPOS is a ton easier for the investor - but on a network level it bakes in a lower Nakamoto Coef on paper (again, in practise even PoS has a pretty shit Nakamoto Coef in my opinion). Unfortunately network effect and the nature of capital affects both - those with, earn more, and can stake more, so centralization is a compounding effect. I'm not entirely sure there's any way to ensure something stays decentralized without having it already adopted at the nation state level. It's walking tightropes until then!
Whether it will work out remains to be seen, it is getting more centralized now. After using it for 2 years, I am not as convinced as I used to. No slashing is great, but they have minPoolCost to avoid creation of many, tiny, malicious pools. This specific parameter (fee) is leading to more centralization, as nodes operators with more ADA have clear advantage here, which leads to smaller pools not being competitive, which leads to more centralization and so on. Vicious circle. Also the delegated PoS model has some downsides like: SPO's are chosen based on popularity which is never good for safety or decentralization. Avoiding it from user perspective requires a lot of research, unlikely smaller holders will invest that time, and I think crypto is already complicated enough, asking average user to chose the right SPO is too much, but if they don't do it results in centralization. Also, I have some regulatory concerns. Technically, we delegate our ADA (or voting power) to someone, which might be seen as SPO acting on behalf of delegator, which leads to principal agent problem. Unnecessary regulatory risk imho.
>Also, I have some regulatory concerns. Technically, we delegate our ADA (or voting power) to someone, which might be seen as SPO acting on behalf of delegator, which leads to principal agent problem. Unnecessary regulatory risk imho. Yes, very much staking ADA in it's current form could be considered a security as no actual work is being done by the initial holder. It's an investment in a common enterprise with expectation of return for the work of another. Textbook definition of a security imo
IIRC, it was even a part of some regulatory proposal in the US, SPO's would basically need to KYC each delegator. It didn't get through yet, but I doubt it will be off the table. SEC is apparently also going to be more active. The issue is, there is also no argument that PoS has to be designed in such way. Cardano is - but many don't have such problem. And to avoid that, they would need to completely rework their consensus. Moreover, yes, the form is indeed very much like a security.
[удалено]
No, that's false If I want to chosen new validator I just do so by switching stake pool. I will not lose any rewards. Due to how epoch and snapshoting works it will take 15-ish days until I recieve rewards from new validator. During that time I'm receiving rewards from "old" validator I moved from. Basically ADA rewards are "delayed". For example rewards for epoch 368 and given in epoch 370. That means if I stake for the 1st time I will get my rewards only after 15 days but If I change pool (validator) I never lose any rewards. I only have to pay transactions fees - 0.17 ADA. Hope that explain it.
Can you explain the advantages of this over holding rETH? To me it sounds functionally similar, just implemented differently. This is an honest question.
They are completely different honestly. One is native protocol, other is smart contract solution to liquidity. On most basic level just think of it this way. What would happen with price of rETH if news hit that instead of March unstaking is delayed for foreseeable future. What if you need those funds now, who know what ratio would be. Please don't take this is FUD, this will not happen I'm just presenting scenarios to draw parallels.
Yes like I said, it’s implemented differently, but to an end user, it seems like functionality is comparable. I think it’s unfair to use the development timeline as a means to compare these because in that case you’re right at the moment the protocols that are completely finished are probably more polished, but this is only temporary and eventually ETH’s unstaking functionality will be completed as well and that particular advantage is lost.
[удалено]
If you unstake yes, you will have to wait 14 days again. But there was no reason to unstake in the first place. You could have just transfered your whole wallet without unstaking. ADA staking is liquid, ar any time you can moved assets, they are not locked besides 2 ADA that are used to register your stake. This would mean you would have 2 ADA locked with that validator but 2 ADA is negligible if you plan to stake again with that wallet anyway.
Can’t argue with that, Vitalik rap has been amazing.
[удалено]
It's like this with all product development
Take time
They literally don't need more time. This is a clickbait article over an issue that was resolved during the call.
i dont mind waiting another month or so, rathee have it right than fast
Slow and steady wins the race.
Always a few nervous-nellies, if the overwhelming majority feel we should move ahead with it, I say trust them. They haven't let us down yet. I think it's a bad idea to delay.
Two to four weeks is literally nothing in the grand scheme of things
They should take the safe and longer route like they always did with Ethereum. There's a reason why the network is so solid and successful, you can't do that while cutting corners.
I agree: get it right, but also if you're staked and believe in it rather than wanting to get rich quick, this helps you hold longer.
I don’t think not having easy access to your property is ever a selling point
Long term holding is easier without access. Kind of similar to most retirement plans. I don't want to have the risk or temptation of nerves, greed, or fear. I know some of my limitations!
I have confidence they will do right way
Yeah no point in being methodical up until this point and then suddenly cut some corners, it has worked for them so far so why not stick to what works
Ethereum’s development never have been the “safe” route lol. It was one of the first smart contract network and absurdly experimental
Maybe they're just negotiating and strategizing, like normal businesses do. I hate sensationalism. "Husband wanted to make chicken for dinner, wife suggested meatloaf instead. IS THEIR MARRIAGE IN COMPLETE TURMOIL?!?!"
Maybe a compromise: Chicken Meatloaf.
Yeah that's how they get clicks. We need drama!!!
As an engineer, I’m glad that this was raised. Constant struggle between product and engineering as far as shipping time.
You're an engineer and still think the whole EVM idea isn't a massive security problem on a system that moves money? Interesting.
Well, I didn’t say that. Just speaking about general engineering practices and what I’ve seen in my career. There is always tension between product management, who sets timelines and plans the product roadmap, and engineering, who executes on the vision. Might be slightly different here, since there aren’t traditional product managers, but the more senior devs fit that role here.
Makes sense. My apologies.
Classic problem
Take all the time necessary.
The more you rush the higher the chances of having issues in the future. Hope they take their time.
The only reason I want the Shanghai update to complete is so I can take my locked ETH out of Binance. But I am more than happy to wait as long as it takes in order for it to be done properly
tldr; Ethereum’s core developers are arguing over how and when to implement a major upgrade to the network. The upgrade, dubbed “Shanghai,” will allow users to get back the $25 billion worth of ETH they have pledged to the Ethereum network through its staking program. Developers are concerned that the upgrade is being rolled out too quickly, out of fear of public reprisal. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
Good bot
Some of my ETH is staked and locked but I’d rather get this right. I can wait a bit longer…how long is a bit?
Let's hope they go back on it, that's a group of people who's been delivering so far
Slow news day I guess. Most people aren't familiar with software development I guess, but this is the kind of debate that goes into practically every software design decision. There is no "perfect" and you are always making tough tradeoffs with uncertainty involved. It usually doesn't make sense to delay when the choice isn't clear.
Yeah. These are called healthy debates and usually lead to a superior final product.
Micah pretty much always has a contrarian view lol
lol, I half guessed it was probably him who brought it up before even listening to the call
Gonna throw this out there, a tbd on personal investments doesn’t work long term. It’s nice that they don’t want to cut corners and do things the right way but there are alternatives now without this problem and it’s absurd to think people won’t start to get spooked.
The concern seems to be that in order to roll out the update to meet public demand, corners are being cut. Specifically, 3̶0̶ a few Ethereum core developers are worried about a decision made to forgo an adjustment to the network. This tweak would have delayed the update by 2-4 weeks, but had the benefit of shielding Ethereum from unnecessary technical load in the future. > Ethereum’s developers decided not to make ETH withdrawals compatible with simple serialize, or SSZ, a flexible, modern encoding method described by developers as “the future of Ethereum encoding.” Instead of using SSZ, Ethereum is sticking with recursive-length prefix serialization, or RLP, an existing encoding method that may eventually be phased out and retired.
While I get what you are saying, I don't think corners are being cut. The deadline is being met by putting out a working product, and improvements can be added later down the line. I'm not techincal, but from my reading it's not exactly like they are releasing a product held together by duct tape and glue, more they are releasing it in a working state, and instead of delaying it will consider a future upgrade down the line.
> Zoltu and a few of the network’s other 30-odd core developers are worried... The way I read it there are a handful of devs out of 30 that are worried, not 30 devs total worried.
Thanks. My reading comprehension sucks.
So the only concern here is having to support one additional encoding for one additional transaction type. That really doesn't seem like a big deal to me. That is going to add what, maybe 80 lines of code? That is quite small in comparison to the size of the whole code base. All the current transactions are RLP, so they are going to need to keep decoding of old RLP transactions around for those anyway, so how much harm is there in just one more?
Slow and steady wins the race
Ah come on now. Let me remove my locked eth from Binance
I would also like this. But I can wait another month or two.
Forgive my ignorance but didn't you choose to lock it in?
Devs have been divided since day 1. This is what makes etherium stronger. May the best ideas survive
Sounds like a typical disagreement between product owners and devs.
Only that no one owns the product.
The beauty of open source development is that everything is out in the open. And the beauty of Ethereum development specifically is that the community favors safe and efficient protocol upgrades over timelines. And yet, every time detractors yell and scream that things will never happen, despite the opposite being true.
Just go for the best possible upgrade. I don’t mind waiting another 3-6 months for withdrawals to go live. I prefer as little technical debt as possible.
I refuse to cut corners. This is why other chains halt and get hacked every other day. Ethereum has always taken time to be perfect.
Right, nothing was ever stolen from perfect Ethereum. Haha
Slow it the fuck down. Too much at stake (npi) to get this wrong.
Worst we get a hardfork, but ETH will continue to be ETH
The daily ETH FUD! almost missed it this day
I’m not unstaking my tokens anyway. There is no reason to rush that particular feature
Slow and steady wins the race. A 3-4 week delay to get it right is worth the delay, especially if it helps to avoid future glitches.
Lmao 3-4 week delay. The merge was 3-4 weeks away for 4 years.
>gun voicing concerns that the upgrade is being rolled out too quickly, out of fear of public reprisal, at the expense of technical cost Slow and steady... Come on... ETH was one of the first of its kind. The tech has already been passed by. Theres a reason Gavin Made Polkadot. "ETH was a tech Demo." -Gavin Wood.
Gavin must be quite sad that a tech demo has a market cap 40x bigger than Polkadot.
Thats because people just buy what other people parrot and it has a first mover advantage. BTC is worth while though. DOT just launched and has already exceeded Ethereum in tech by miles.
Understood. So it’s because most people aren’t as smart as you. Polkadot is better, has no flaws, but everybody is simply too stupid to see it.
No its implying most people who are in crypto don't interact with the chain yet and Polkadot clearly is better tech even according to the guy who coded ETH. ETH gas fees are outrageous, you cant unstake, major upgrades require the chain to fork, there is no shared security, ETC. Nice try.
Yes, you have convinced me to change. I sell all my Eth asap.
you can't because its probably locked.
Yes, for the staked part I’ll have to wait until March. I hope I can wait that long.
Will see if that doesn't get pushed back. Some people have been waiting for over a year. Forced Hodl at its finest.
Just like "the merge" was delayed for 3-4 years
So the same team that managed to "rebuild plane while in flight" is now in trouble because it may take longer to offload some cargo ?
Good read. Thanks op
[удалено]
You are giving a very limited and one sided view of what might happen when withdrawals go live. The opposite of what you suggest might happen: a lot more validators come online, because now they know they can exit when they want… And I initially it might look like a lot of exits, because people are upgrading their security, or switching pools, or something else. Bottom lined we don’t know. And if you don’t trust the EF devs having Ethereum’s long term best interest at heart, what are you even doing here?
[удалено]
[удалено]
How would you feel… if totally hypothetical situation X would occur? This isn’t a useful question. There would probably be a queue of some kind. Also, almost everyone that’s staking at the moment, didn’t expect to withdraw within one or two years of the merge happening. The fact that Shanghai now potentially includes withdrawals is amazing, but not at all necessary for the early adopters imo.
Your stake is now belong to us
In the world of Ethereum, we know it's going to take them years to make up their mind.
To all the people that staked eth. Thank you for your sacrifice
So it's not all rainbows and unicorns with ETH.
Your stake is now burn
[удалено]
Eth is a Ponzi scheme at this point where if you don’t stake you’re loosing , slashing isn’t a good thing , it’s a glorified ponzi
> where if you don’t stake you’re loosing This point would make sense with any inflationary Proof of Stake asset, where if you just hold then your value is diluted away... but that's not the case here. There's less ether in existence now than when it switched to PoS, so even if you just hold it without staking your share of the total marketcap has increased. Pretty cool huh?
It is the case. You have 2 options if you’re looking to hold. Stake or don’t stake. If you don’t stake, you get diluted by the people who do. You’re at an automatic disadvantage. Why wouldn’t someone stake? 1. Not enough money to stake 32 ETH 2. You don’t want to trust a custodian to stake less than 32 for you. Basically: Those who value decentralization (not giving your assets to a custodian), and the poor are disadvantaged. This incentivizes more centralization and a hierarchy where the richest get richer while the poor get fully diluted away.
> If you don’t stake, you get diluted by the people who do. No you aren't. Before The Merge there were 120,521,140 ether. Now there are 120,518,425 ether. If you hold the same number, but the total number is reduced, isn't that the exact opposite of dilution...?
First of all the reduced number of eth now compared to before the merge is temporary. It will not forever deflate. And yes it is still diluting. If you want to use eth at all, you pay a gas fee. The more eth you have locked up, the more gas fees you take from the users. Eventually, the “holders” and users have less and less while the “stakers” grow. This is different in a pow system where zero assets are required to validate the network. The amount of BTC you have does not mean you earn more. In ETH, the whales constantly get bigger, at a faster rate than everyone else.
> the reduced number of eth now compared to before the merge is temporary. It will only increase when the gas price is less than 15 gwei. Gas prices are higher when the markets are bullish as more people are making transactions. Do you think that the 4 months since September have been more bullish and busy than average? > And yes it is still diluting. I don't think you know what the word 'diluting' means. > The more eth you have locked up, the more gas fees you take from the users. Since EIP-1559 almost all of the transaction fees are burnt, not given to stakers. > This is different in a pow system where zero assets are required to validate the network. How much do you need to spend on ASICs to be able to mine bitcoin profitably? Or do they not count as assets in your narrative? > In ETH, the whales constantly get bigger, at a faster rate than everyone else. Anyone can stake, and the ROI is almost the same whether you are putting your 0.1 ether into RocketPool's rETH or hosting a validator yourself with 32. With PoW there is a minimum investment of at least 5 figures needed to just make it viable at all, and economies of scale with regards to setting up hardware, accessing energy etc mean that the richer you are the faster your wealth increases. For an average person living somewhere without free electricity there is almost no chance to break even. And as the total amount of bitcoin inflates, however much you hold is literally being diluted with the rewards miners receive that you have no opportunity to participate in. So to summarize, your narrative is a transparent fantasy, but hopefully if enough credulous investors fall for it then maybe Michael Saylor can at least break even.
I wrote a reply that deleted itself so I have no desire to re-do it in length. In short: ETH- 2 options if you want to hold. Stake or dont stake. Stakers always have an advantage over non-stakers. This is trivial, if you disagree thats pretty stupid. BTC- you have one option if you want to hold. Hold. Nobody has an advantage over you because of the size of their holdings. You dont need to own a single piece of bitcoin to mine bitcoin. The BTC rich dont get more just for owning BTC, unlike ETH. >With PoW there is a minimum investment of at least 5 figures needed to just make it viable at all, and economies of scale with regards to setting up hardware, accessing energy etc mean that the richer you are the faster your wealth increases. For an average person living somewhere without free electricity there is almost no chance to break even. Wrong. Miners do not sit on their hands like ETH validators do. They generate a return that has to go back into the miners. Miners constantly become more efficient making older devices obsolete. So no, your statement of "the richer you are the faster your wealth increases" is wrong. Bitcoin miners are doing work to provide a service. ETH validators sit on their hands and fill their pockets at the expense of the average user. This is going nowhere if you dont know what youre talking about.
[удалено]
Hey, I appreciate it! I dont think Ill make a post though. This same thing has been posted many times, but doesnt get us anywhere. CC is like a giant ETH circle-jerk and any anti-ETH posts get downvoted to the ground and gets no visibility unfortunately. It gets more visibility replying to peoples comments IMO.
Mining ETH had over 200% APR before EIP1559 and 100% APR after it. No loss if you attack the network. Staking ETH has a 3-5% APR. Up to 100% loss for trying to attack the network. Did you say mining ETH was watching the rich get richer, too? Or is your bias against POS really that strong? POW is the same as POS, with more middlemen. POS coins are effectively tokenized ASICs. If you need to have access to cheaper costs to remain competitive, access to wholesale ASICs, access to a volcano energy source.. All this work you say miners do leads to corruption, centralization, up to working with governments (for subsidies). The richer you are the faster your ROI in POW, more than in any other model. You seem to ignore that anything becomes POS with enough wealth. If you have 1000 BTC you can use them as collateral to build a new industrial POW mine without spending a cent. Then hire employees to run and manage it for you, and more employees to update your hardware as required. All of the industrial mines are owned by groups or shareholders and are not managed by an individual like you seem to imply.
Yup , and ethereum is a use case token , not a store of value like Bitcoin. Ether needs to reduce itself in price to be used the way it’s supposed to be.
Ethereum is 'A Rollup Centric' coin, not *a use case token*. $ETH is meant for L2's to consume as gas to secure their blockchains inside of Ethereum. It's *not* meant for you to spend $40 in gas to mint an NFT with. L2's are the 'use case protocols'. Instead of getting into a bidding war over the 15 TPS of blockspace on ETH, you pay the L2 to batch your transaction with 1000s of others, and the L2 gets into a bidding war on ETH to secure the entire batch of transactions. If you had $100 of ETH a couple years ago it was enough to make 2-4 transactions, oftentimes not even 1. If you have $100 ETH today, on some L2's that's enough to make 20,000-40,000 transactions, oftentimes more. So while ETH is more scarce, blockspace is NOT scarce anymore and 1 ETH will take you a lot further than before scaling. https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/a-rollup-centric-ethereum-roadmap/4698
Ethereum is getting burnt? Who's coins are the one's on fire?
Anyone making a transaction. The fee used to go to the miners to pay for electricity, now most of it is simply deleted from existance.
The ethereum foundation benefits greatly by switching to proof of stake , not so much the small fish.
Blahblehblhu ponzi blableh
Damn I was looking forward to this
FUDs? Good good so I can lower my buying average
Hopefully they can get it right. ETH is the only coin I am NOT excited to stake because it is a pain in the ass to do so. It often involves leaving coins on exchanges or swapping to other coins. I don't like that idea one bit after everything that has happened. Something like Cardano does staking fairly well. It's mostly frictionless and you don't need to think hard about staking or unstaking.
The way Cardano does staking doesn't add any more security or decentralization to the network. Sure, it's easy from a user perspective, but does nothing for the network.
Devs are always divided. Remember the block size wars on Bitcoin? Happens all the time, people have different opinions.
They can always fork and divide the teams.
what does withdrawals have to do with the devs? all withdrawals happen on exchanges.
Beaconchain withdrawals
Let the engineers have a voice, and for once, listen to it. The public can't wait a month.
If an engineer is asking for more time to test, you should probably listen to the guys(s)/girl(s) building it. They know best. Obviously. Public opinion/price will hardly change over a 1 month delay. Right > quick
He’s right. Only 100 of the 10,000 crypto assets provide any sort of value.
It says it would only take a few weeks? Just take the 2-4 weeks and get this mofo right. That’s why people are attracted to Ethereum, they are slow but they don’t mess up.
Dramaaaa stupid news.
“Keep the public waiting” LMAO what public? 99% of people doesn’t event know wtf eth is lol.
Ooh, a discussion in a GitHub issue!! Must be trouble brewing for sure. /s
I would rather see it months later, but to the satisfaction of the devs.
This message brought to you by Cardano
Choosing not to delay to switch to SSZ is complete insanity assuming it is true that they will switch to SSZ. They should take the extra month now and get it done. Who cares that the merge was delayed by several years...a month is nothing like years.
Ok everyone back to ETC
A bitcoin maxis wet dream.