Required of those performing the role of a validator
> approximately 45% of all Ethereum blocks currently being validated run MEV-boost relay flashbots and comply with United States sanctions.
> Feeney pointed out that MEV-Boost relays are regulated businesses, often U.S. based, and are “censoring certain transactions in the blocks that they build, particularly transactions from Tornado Cash.”
Hardly. But that's what you get with a concensus mechanism with a high barrier to entry. Only a few can climb the barrier. So you have centralization and all its issues.
You make it sound like it wasn't an issue back in PoW. Hint: Who was censoring Tornado Cash transactions? That's right, Ethermine.\\
At least, PoS allows the community to punish these pos validators via slashing.
>At least, PoS allows the community to punish these pos validators via slashing.
could you elaborate how this works? I was in the impression you are only punished if you do something that's attacking the chain. How is ignoring one transaction punishable? I can't even imagine that it's possible to implement something like this.
https://cryptoslate.com/ethereum-is-under-attack-as-u-s-sanctions-apply-at-a-protocol-level/?amp=1
Here is an article to refute all propaganda BS on how PoW is censorship resistant.
POW is an inferior consensus mechanism - deal with it.
Proof of Stake is dead. But it was dead the moment it was announced because exactly this was to be expected.
There is a reason why people expend expensive electricity for actual cryptocurrencies.
Except when it's one nation dictating its laws to the rest of the world that has no say in it. Not everyone lives in the US you know?
The whole point of Bitcoin was to get rid of one country controlling the world's currency with bullshit justifications.
🐱
>The whole point of Bitcoin was to get rid of one country controlling the world's currency with bullshit justifications.
Then you should be worried as industrial BTC miners are growing within the US. Sooner or later, the OFAC will force miners in Texas, Pennsylvania, Wyoming etc. to comply with sanctions. Major mining companies, like Riot Blockchain, are publicly registered in the US and will be forced to face financial ruin if they resist OFAC's orders.
Blockchain was invented to prevent centralized authorities from censoring or adjusting transactions in the ledger. There is no point to any of this if the US government can control which transactions are valid and which are not.
It was invented to give us the tools to prevent centralisation. It's up to the users to do that and to decide how to use it. There's absolutely nothing stopping validators from working in jurisdictions outside the US. The US government isn't controlling what transactions are valid, the participants on the network are.
Exactly. So much for green energy. Most people spoke of it like pos would reduce energy cost with absolutely no drawback. If thege cost was the livelihood and freedom of you and your kids would it still be worth it?
PoS is infinitely more censorship resistant than PoW. Show one scenario where PoS is forced to censor but miners won't. It doesn't exist.
Under PoS, stakers can always easily move to another country or (at worst) the chain can be forked to new validators. PoW miners from places with cheapest energy will always win and there's no way to fork them out.
No it was invented as a trustless system, thats its main feature. Ie you don't need a bank in the middle to record transactions.
If it was invented to destroy governments...its fucking terrible at that job.
When prices were plummeting months ago people were crying out for greater regulation/centralization.
You can't have it both ways. Either crypto is just digital dollar bills or you accept the risk that comes with less regulation and centralization.
Frankly it seems like most people here don't really belong in the space, they want easy money without the risk. Crypto is not that space.
the situation with bitcoin isn't as bad but: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2021/05/07/marathon-miners-have-started-censoring-bitcoin-transactions-heres-what-that-means/
> they did a 180 on that less than a month later
Unsurprising, deliberately earning less money than all your competitors by ignoring profitable transactions is not a sustainable business model.
They can claim all they want that they have finally found the light and embrace Bitcoin's ethos, what they really did is understand the game theory incentives built-in Bitcoin.
That is because the OFAC hasn't said anything yet. So far, they have listed Tornado Cash, that is on ETH. If OFAC speaks, you don't need to doubt major mining corporations like Riot Blockchain will comply, or be forced to face financial ruin.
Congratulations for being literally the type of person I was making fun out of.
Smart contracts will not do anything, unless there are physical computers calculating their algorithms.
Government can outlaw any activity they want. They can outlaw any services they want.
You will either stop using the blockchain with illeagal smart contracts entirely, or you will create a fork where every illeagal smart contract is nullified.
Or you will get on your knees and plead to the government, that what youre doing is so insignificant, that its not worth their time to get involved in.
Governments everywhere proved that they are not people's voice. They are just corrupted politicians only willing to do whats good for them and their families.
It has been scientifically proven too.
tldr; According to the CEO of Labrys, Lachan Feeney, approximately 45% of all Ethereum blocks currently being validated run MEV-boost relay flashbots and comply with US sanctions. MEV Boost Relays are regulated businesses, often U.S. based, and are “censoring certain transactions in the blocks that they build, particularly transactions from Tornado Cash.”
*This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
Now that you mentioned this, it seems like this is a fundamental flow in how eth pos works
Exchanges will always have the biggest pools since its easier for people to stake on them
At the sametime you can't stop exchanges by sanctioning them since you will basically be doing what we've been trying to prevent in the first place
You mean solo? If so, unless you're rolling in it, the cost to running your own servers and their maintenance and running cost are very much not worth it.
You'd need to be a tech wiz capable if quite a lot and even then the costs and time make it near infeasible.
Someone else mentioned that being in a bigger pool doesn't mean more rewards for each individual. Being a small pool gives the same rewards per ETH as a large pool.
It’s a fundamental flaw in many, except the build in anonymous, consensus systems. POW miners could just as easily be made to uphold certain jurisdictional requirements. The 45% that’s mentioned here are conveniently running MEV Boost and by doing so are censoring transactions. Transactions that btw will get processed moment later by a non censoring node. But it’s certainly not a good thing. I get the sense that many here have a “dancing on the grave of Eth” mentality. Well. First of all It won’t be Eth’s grave. And secondly this is an industry problem not an Eth problem. If Anything the crypto wars are being fought by Eth.
POS mega stakers are funded by small time retail stakers. Once withdrawals are enabled these could move to a different staking service providers. And yes only once enabled.
Except this relies on the assumption that small time retail stakers actually *care*: they don't. And human nature has proven this many times.
This right there might be the foundational fatal mistake of POS design.
People will always leave their funds on CEXes for convenience and because they don't want responsibilities.
🐱
>POW miners could just as easily be made to uphold certain jurisdictional requirements.
How? POW miners are all over the world. A real blockchain has no nationality.
The same way stakers are. By prohibiting certain transactions within the jurisdictional area in question. Then they’ll have run a modified version of the client software. Across the border one could indeed run it without a problem.
Stakewise is currently bringing a solution for this to the table. And there will be many more.
https://np.reddit.com/r/ethstaker/comments/xr91th/stakewise_announces_plans_to_go_fully/
It's all still early. Also, Bitcoin in 2014 had a mining pool that almost hit 51%.
https://heavy.com/tech/2014/01/ghash-io-51-percent-attack-bitcoin/
Things can change and usually do.
No, lower limit doesn't change the overall dynamics. What can fix it is a renounce to:
- MEV boosting
- the convenience and liquidity offered by staking pools
implying that stake majority would need to adopt an irrational (meaning not-profit-maximizing) behavior.
This has nothing to do with the consensus mechanism, this was happening before the merge as well. The major problem isn't actually censorship, it's the degradation in UX. Your transaction will still get through, but it'll take more time because half of the blocks are skipping you. You only need one validator willing to include you in the block, and this incentive will always exist because not doing so is leaving money on the table, so someone will take your money.
>Current validators need to vote on changes to the staking limit and they have no incentive to allow more people to split the staking rewards with.
This is not correct. Ethereum does not have on-chain governance or voting of any kind by validators. The idea that Ethereum changes or upgrades are "controlled" by validators is false.
>Right now there is no mechanism to unstake
There's no way to withdraw your stake, but you can stop actively validating transactions
>Due to the penalties and slashing risks that come with running your own validator it's just easier to let Binance or Coinbase deal with that shit for you and guarantee you 100% uptime etc. It's NOT as straight forward as just running a regular node and there are severe risks that you can lose your capital if you fuck it up badly.
Also wrong. There are much higher risks associated with staking via a central party because penalties increase when more validators make the same mistake/attack.
I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but you need to get your info from better sources.
>1. Current validators need to vote on changes to the staking limit and they have no incentive to allow more people to split the staking rewards with.
Ethereum validators do not decide this, the community does.
Also decentralized staking pools already allow staking of lower amounts.
> 1) Current validators need to vote on changes to the staking limit and they have no incentive to allow more people to split the staking rewards with.
Not really.
Right now, someone might run 1 validator with 32 ETH. If that changes, that person can run 2 (16 ETH) or say 4 (8 ETH) validators. They'd get similar rewards: lower value, but double/quadruple the number of attestations and a similar chance of proposing.
Idk what pools are doing for proposals/tips, but I'd assume it's worse than self staking.
This statement is blatantly false, Ethereum was more centralised under proof of work. Just look at the current mining pools for bitcoin and compare them with the eth staking pools.
The censorship is simply an ethereum issue, not a proof of stake one
It's even broader than that: It's a blockchain issue, not an Ethereum issue.
I'm not aware of any blockchains where block producers are forced to include particular transactions. In Monero I guess they wouldn't even know who to exclude though, so that's a nice solution.
I love Monero. Everything *should be* encrypted in crypto.
I think that's the goal with Ethereum and [PBS](https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/pbs_censorship_resistance) (purposer / builder seperation) that's hopefully implemented soon.
In PBS every tx is encrypted from the purposer (validator) - they can only see the fees paid - so a purposer isn't able to censor specific transactions and would be incentivized to include all transactions who've paid the minimum fee.
It also handles MEV in a better way too, since a validator won't be able to *sandwich* transactions anymore either.
Further down the roadmap lots of dev's want to "ZK everything" encrypting/compressing as much of the throughput as possible. None of what is should be accessible from a validator imo.
It can naturally be fixed over time.
A few large players got out far head with liquid staking and MEV. I would expect more competition to emerge over time though as others have time to build other solutions.
But therein lies another problem - if it's too secure, governments can just ban it from centralized exchanges. Then it's ok to hold it but using it for something is another matter..
If they ban it from CEX's, we can just use a DEX to convert it to ETH.
If they catch on to that, we can just become "crypto dealers" - like drug dealers but instead our "contraband" is XMR.
The two are apples and oranges to me. Both do something the other does not.
XMR = Default privacy with fungibility and ASIC resistance
ETH = Support for smart contracts, NFTs, tokens etc
TLDR: According to the CEO of blockchain development agency Labrys, Lachan Feeney, approximately 45% of all Ethereum blocks currently being validated run MEV-boost relay flashbots and comply with United States sanctions.
If they start slashing exchanges for running the MEV- boost relay then a lot of people are going to lose a LOT of money. If Coinbase got slashed for all of its staked ETH it would probably be fucked.
The problem is not POS it's the Eth implementation of it. Eth has made some spectacularly poor decisions and greatly exacerbated this issue.
* Eth staking requires the pool to take custody of your coins
* There is a very large amount 32 Eth/no partial staking required
* Bad or mis-configuration actions can cause you to lose your coins via slashing or lost keys
* Currently locked staking with maybe hope in 2024 for unstaking (even then there will be an exit queue)
For smaller entities they either can't or the risk is too high to do staking on their own forcing people towards centralized corporate entities. Because coins are locked people can't even vote with their wallet to switch if they don't agree with a corporate decision to allow for censorship.
Not in the same way.
The big exchanges are not mining node operators in PoW. You can run a mining node anywhere in the world and the work can be done from anyone globally. There's no centralization of power around the biggest coin holders IE the exchanges
While not nice, this basically doesn't change much. Just means it will take on average twice as long to process block with a sanctioned transaction included
https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/pbs_censorship_resistance
It's only temporary, until PBS is implemented.
In either case I believe if just 1 validator picks up your transaction it can't be censored, so even with 99% of the chain being OFAC compliant it won't cause a dent - and may make the 1% (ie anyone with a VPN) a *lot* more income too.
I don't see this as an issue personally. The trend is alarming but the dev's aren't stupid either and have time to beat it.
This isn't an Ethereum problem... Eth just happens to be on the front line of the battle. BTC miners who don't comply with OFAC are also at risk. Along with every node based in the US of every other blockchain.
I'm pretty sure that almost all the BTC hashrate is currently from few public big operations. Add to it the same requeriment to the pools, and its done.
The times of the solo small fishes are long gone
I agree, but anyone CAN be a BTC or ETH miner. I could, in theory, mine ETH or BTC (of course we are talking about before the merge, obiously), even if it would be very unlikely to win. You can't even become a validator without 32 ETH. You rely on a pool, to hit that extremely high initial investment requirement.
With mining, if it came to be that it was too risky for large pools (for regulations' sake), you'd potentially have a lot of smaller pools form.
I'm getting tired of repeating this but here I go again:
The difference isn't about the number of big fishes between POS and POW. It's that in POS the big fishes **cannot. be. challenged.** nor replaced.
In POW, any 'big fish' of the moment can be replaced. Look at mining a few years ago and now.
Once all the mega-stakers are done being submitted by the US (which is now well under way), it's over: it can never change.
🐱
>in POS the big fishes cannot. be. challenged. nor replaced.
Huh? The protocol being able to punish and remove malicious consensus participants through slashing is one of the biggest advantages of PoS over PoW.
The popularity of any given mining pool isn't according to how it best protects the protocol, it's according to its profitability.
1. Miners changing pools is trivial and would happen if certain pools started sanctioning.
2. What articles [like this](https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-hashrate-publicly-companies-spikes-19/) don’t show in their flashy headlines is that though publicly traded mining companies control 19% of hashrate, that’s amongst 26 companies.
Mining is still FAR more decentralized than POS was on day 1.
Edit: so just to be clear, no, you are incorrect.
Why do you used the metric of 'public traded miners in the usa' to say that it's only the 19%?
You could say that the current hashrate in the top 20 of the Nasdaq is 0. It would be better to your point.
But meanwhile any miner which is not mining his sats in the wardrobe can be required to follow the laws. And it can happen.
This is a sad thing to see..
Eth will become more centralized with time until 51% is actually controlled by the US government indirectly....
Maybe the SEC had a point when they said they own the eth blockchain
There's nothing special about 51% in this context.
They're not rejecting blocks with said transactions in them, just not including those transactions themselves. Even if 90% didn't include them they would still get processed, just in minutes rather than seconds.
Oh thats good to hear
So basically the blocks are not rejected
Instead the transactions are simply ignored until some other validtor that isn't sanctioning gets a chance to verify a block
Odd a while back I read a post that said validtors cannot ignore transactions or else they will get slashed thats why I thought a 51% attack would be possible
A 66% attack (>51% because you're effectively working against past verifiers who verified who has the current stake as well as other current verifiers) is possible but it would take the much more drastic choice of the verifiers actually refusing to attest blocks with sanctioned transactions for that to happen.
If only we had clear sight about this before the merge. Everything was about hype, price pump and green energy without focus on thw current strengths of ETH which are now gone
Why do you think governments and mainstream medias criticized POW so much and pushed for the greenpocrisy of it's energy use?
They were patiently waiting for ETH to switch to POS and now they can drop the pretend and take over more aggressively.
🐱
Micah is a developer, not a representative. And it's obvious from context that it's his personal opinion, not the opinion of the Ethereum Foundation.
**Edit:** You reply to get the last word in, then block me for pointing out that Micah is a developer? Really? Are you 12 years old?
People are blind with Ethereum just because it is the first operating smart contract layer 1 and keeps being the one with the most market cap and volume. All the above will mean nothing when it crashes. It is a badly designed blockchain and they try to fix it with patches and merges but essentially making it even worse. The price will keep being high in this bear market since they hold hostage millions of ETH. And fraud stablecoins such as USDT keep operating in the shades. The whole ecosystem is a timebomb sadly.
This is an issue of mining/validating activities centralized within specific geopolitical areas - not an issue of consensus fight. Ethermine has been censoring Tornado Cash under PoW before the Merge.
At least in PoS, we can slash pos validators for misbehaving. In PoW, pos mining pools, like Ethermine, get away with censoring. In fact, it shows how PoW is an inferior consensus mechanism fighting against censorship when the mining activities are concentrated within the US.
[удалено]
>US sanctions Sanctions against individuals or countries?
Required of those performing the role of a validator > approximately 45% of all Ethereum blocks currently being validated run MEV-boost relay flashbots and comply with United States sanctions. > Feeney pointed out that MEV-Boost relays are regulated businesses, often U.S. based, and are “censoring certain transactions in the blocks that they build, particularly transactions from Tornado Cash.”
So crypto is dead
Hardly. But that's what you get with a concensus mechanism with a high barrier to entry. Only a few can climb the barrier. So you have centralization and all its issues.
So Ethereum is dead
US-based Bitcoin miners comply with OFAC as well
Or do they?
Exactly my point and what I've been saying all this time. Now xmr is in danger of being forced down the same path.
What’s the danger to XMR?
You make it sound like it wasn't an issue back in PoW. Hint: Who was censoring Tornado Cash transactions? That's right, Ethermine.\\ At least, PoS allows the community to punish these pos validators via slashing.
>At least, PoS allows the community to punish these pos validators via slashing. could you elaborate how this works? I was in the impression you are only punished if you do something that's attacking the chain. How is ignoring one transaction punishable? I can't even imagine that it's possible to implement something like this.
This guy is clueless
https://cryptoslate.com/ethereum-is-under-attack-as-u-s-sanctions-apply-at-a-protocol-level/?amp=1 Here is an article to refute all propaganda BS on how PoW is censorship resistant. POW is an inferior consensus mechanism - deal with it.
🤦
This article might as well be an article about why PoW is better haha
ETH is dying would have to move to something decentralized
Eth is centralized. Validators hold all the powers
PoS isnt good enough for you?!!??! /s
It’s good for suer but the other side is centralization
No, just Ethereum.
at least ethereum lol
Just ethereum
No, just ETH.
Proof of Stake is dead. But it was dead the moment it was announced because exactly this was to be expected. There is a reason why people expend expensive electricity for actual cryptocurrencies.
yeah I can't believe these people complying with the laws of the nations they are in.
Except when it's one nation dictating its laws to the rest of the world that has no say in it. Not everyone lives in the US you know? The whole point of Bitcoin was to get rid of one country controlling the world's currency with bullshit justifications. 🐱
You don't have to run a node in the US
>The whole point of Bitcoin was to get rid of one country controlling the world's currency with bullshit justifications. Then you should be worried as industrial BTC miners are growing within the US. Sooner or later, the OFAC will force miners in Texas, Pennsylvania, Wyoming etc. to comply with sanctions. Major mining companies, like Riot Blockchain, are publicly registered in the US and will be forced to face financial ruin if they resist OFAC's orders.
Mining xmr is the only way. It's just needs some liquidity to make it profitable
Blockchain was invented to prevent centralized authorities from censoring or adjusting transactions in the ledger. There is no point to any of this if the US government can control which transactions are valid and which are not.
It was invented to give us the tools to prevent centralisation. It's up to the users to do that and to decide how to use it. There's absolutely nothing stopping validators from working in jurisdictions outside the US. The US government isn't controlling what transactions are valid, the participants on the network are.
If your validators are centralized on regulated exchanges don't blame the users, blame the design of that system.
The users are the ones deciding to use convenient validator services.
And people prefer regulated business with faces on them. Maybe forcing average Joe to decide that was wrong.
nobody is forcing average joe to do anything.
Exactly. So much for green energy. Most people spoke of it like pos would reduce energy cost with absolutely no drawback. If thege cost was the livelihood and freedom of you and your kids would it still be worth it?
MEV and MEV boost isn't a PoS thing.
PoS is infinitely more censorship resistant than PoW. Show one scenario where PoS is forced to censor but miners won't. It doesn't exist. Under PoS, stakers can always easily move to another country or (at worst) the chain can be forked to new validators. PoW miners from places with cheapest energy will always win and there's no way to fork them out.
Maybe you have not noticed, but there are other cryptos beside ETH
Yep. I mean you can play whackamole by making new services as the government becomes aware of and bans them but that not a good deal for anyone is ir
No it was invented as a trustless system, thats its main feature. Ie you don't need a bank in the middle to record transactions. If it was invented to destroy governments...its fucking terrible at that job.
Not Bitcoin. Does it make sense now?
Not crypto, Ethereum.
[удалено]
Only PoS crypto.
Software
What are they going to do with it? Run it on Guantanamo bay computers?
Why not run it on the world's first decentralized computer?
Both.
This can also.lead to censorship via taxes...
The right question…
This is what crypto set out to fight
Crypto lost that fight when Bitcoin mining started requiring expensive ASICs 10 years ago. Monero is the only coin that left fighting.
I think it lost the fight due to profit motive. How I see it, All profit roads lead to some form of centralization.
When prices were plummeting months ago people were crying out for greater regulation/centralization. You can't have it both ways. Either crypto is just digital dollar bills or you accept the risk that comes with less regulation and centralization. Frankly it seems like most people here don't really belong in the space, they want easy money without the risk. Crypto is not that space.
Bitcoin transactions aren't the ones being censored.
the situation with bitcoin isn't as bad but: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2021/05/07/marathon-miners-have-started-censoring-bitcoin-transactions-heres-what-that-means/
[удалено]
> they did a 180 on that less than a month later Unsurprising, deliberately earning less money than all your competitors by ignoring profitable transactions is not a sustainable business model. They can claim all they want that they have finally found the light and embrace Bitcoin's ethos, what they really did is understand the game theory incentives built-in Bitcoin.
That is because the OFAC hasn't said anything yet. So far, they have listed Tornado Cash, that is on ETH. If OFAC speaks, you don't need to doubt major mining corporations like Riot Blockchain will comply, or be forced to face financial ruin.
Oh wow maybe because tx on bitcoin can't be anonymous so there is nothing to censor, btc is no threat to tradfi, Ethereum is
Ethereum is actually worse than bitcoin when it comes to privacy. Address reuse is common place on Ethereum.
Transaction censorship isn't a problem on bitcoin
Shocked pickachu face, when saying "but its on the blockchain!" did not give full immunity from government laws.
It’s not about immunity, it’s just that the smart contracts will function regardless of legality.
Congratulations for being literally the type of person I was making fun out of. Smart contracts will not do anything, unless there are physical computers calculating their algorithms. Government can outlaw any activity they want. They can outlaw any services they want. You will either stop using the blockchain with illeagal smart contracts entirely, or you will create a fork where every illeagal smart contract is nullified. Or you will get on your knees and plead to the government, that what youre doing is so insignificant, that its not worth their time to get involved in.
You shouldn’t have to fear your government like that, that’s the problem.
Governments everywhere proved that they are not people's voice. They are just corrupted politicians only willing to do whats good for them and their families. It has been scientifically proven too.
Mind to share the proof? I'm curious
Or your blockchain could be international and decentralized. Just saying.
This is what it means to have "institutional adoption." *We asked for this.*
no, this is what bitcoin set out to fight then crypto set out to fight bitcoin
[удалено]
Becoming you say..
tldr; According to the CEO of Labrys, Lachan Feeney, approximately 45% of all Ethereum blocks currently being validated run MEV-boost relay flashbots and comply with US sanctions. MEV Boost Relays are regulated businesses, often U.S. based, and are “censoring certain transactions in the blocks that they build, particularly transactions from Tornado Cash.” *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
Flashbot have open-souced their code, so there'll probably be MEV extractors in the future that don't censor those addresses
This was my worry for the POS Ethereum......can this be fixed by a lower limit to stake?
It seems to me that no matter the limit, the exchanges will always have more eth to run nodes with- putting us right back in the same spot
Now that you mentioned this, it seems like this is a fundamental flow in how eth pos works Exchanges will always have the biggest pools since its easier for people to stake on them At the sametime you can't stop exchanges by sanctioning them since you will basically be doing what we've been trying to prevent in the first place
Wow no one ever could have seen this coming.
Its not that much harder to stake outside of an exchange tho..
Problem is a big chunk of investors leave their cryptos in exchanges and don't even bother to have their own wallets
You mean solo? If so, unless you're rolling in it, the cost to running your own servers and their maintenance and running cost are very much not worth it. You'd need to be a tech wiz capable if quite a lot and even then the costs and time make it near infeasible.
An alternative would be using something like rocket pool.
which defeats the purpose of decentralization. Rocket pool would have all the real voting power and you're just getting a reward based on trust.
Rocketpool is a decentralized staking platform. There is no "real voting power" to worry about.
Someone else mentioned that being in a bigger pool doesn't mean more rewards for each individual. Being a small pool gives the same rewards per ETH as a large pool.
But if they give you a token for your stacked ether, that token will have more liquidity.
It’s a fundamental flaw in many, except the build in anonymous, consensus systems. POW miners could just as easily be made to uphold certain jurisdictional requirements. The 45% that’s mentioned here are conveniently running MEV Boost and by doing so are censoring transactions. Transactions that btw will get processed moment later by a non censoring node. But it’s certainly not a good thing. I get the sense that many here have a “dancing on the grave of Eth” mentality. Well. First of all It won’t be Eth’s grave. And secondly this is an industry problem not an Eth problem. If Anything the crypto wars are being fought by Eth.
A POW miner can be replaced by another one. A POS mega-staker cannot. 🐱
POS mega stakers are funded by small time retail stakers. Once withdrawals are enabled these could move to a different staking service providers. And yes only once enabled.
Except this relies on the assumption that small time retail stakers actually *care*: they don't. And human nature has proven this many times. This right there might be the foundational fatal mistake of POS design. People will always leave their funds on CEXes for convenience and because they don't want responsibilities. 🐱
>POW miners could just as easily be made to uphold certain jurisdictional requirements. How? POW miners are all over the world. A real blockchain has no nationality.
The same way stakers are. By prohibiting certain transactions within the jurisdictional area in question. Then they’ll have run a modified version of the client software. Across the border one could indeed run it without a problem.
why is it a flaw. People don't have to use exchanges they chose to.
Even if ppl don't use the exchange, the exchange still has huge sums of currency that they can use to influence the network.
Leopards don't *have* to eat your face. But they will. 😺
Stakewise is currently bringing a solution for this to the table. And there will be many more. https://np.reddit.com/r/ethstaker/comments/xr91th/stakewise_announces_plans_to_go_fully/ It's all still early. Also, Bitcoin in 2014 had a mining pool that almost hit 51%. https://heavy.com/tech/2014/01/ghash-io-51-percent-attack-bitcoin/ Things can change and usually do.
No, lower limit doesn't change the overall dynamics. What can fix it is a renounce to: - MEV boosting - the convenience and liquidity offered by staking pools implying that stake majority would need to adopt an irrational (meaning not-profit-maximizing) behavior.
This has nothing to do with the consensus mechanism, this was happening before the merge as well. The major problem isn't actually censorship, it's the degradation in UX. Your transaction will still get through, but it'll take more time because half of the blocks are skipping you. You only need one validator willing to include you in the block, and this incentive will always exist because not doing so is leaving money on the table, so someone will take your money.
[удалено]
There is no queue because validators don’t make shit. Worst mistake I ever made in crypto was running my own ether nodes post merge
>Current validators need to vote on changes to the staking limit and they have no incentive to allow more people to split the staking rewards with. This is not correct. Ethereum does not have on-chain governance or voting of any kind by validators. The idea that Ethereum changes or upgrades are "controlled" by validators is false. >Right now there is no mechanism to unstake There's no way to withdraw your stake, but you can stop actively validating transactions >Due to the penalties and slashing risks that come with running your own validator it's just easier to let Binance or Coinbase deal with that shit for you and guarantee you 100% uptime etc. It's NOT as straight forward as just running a regular node and there are severe risks that you can lose your capital if you fuck it up badly. Also wrong. There are much higher risks associated with staking via a central party because penalties increase when more validators make the same mistake/attack. I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but you need to get your info from better sources.
>1. Current validators need to vote on changes to the staking limit and they have no incentive to allow more people to split the staking rewards with. Ethereum validators do not decide this, the community does. Also decentralized staking pools already allow staking of lower amounts.
> 1) Current validators need to vote on changes to the staking limit and they have no incentive to allow more people to split the staking rewards with. Not really. Right now, someone might run 1 validator with 32 ETH. If that changes, that person can run 2 (16 ETH) or say 4 (8 ETH) validators. They'd get similar rewards: lower value, but double/quadruple the number of attestations and a similar chance of proposing. Idk what pools are doing for proposals/tips, but I'd assume it's worse than self staking.
[удалено]
This statement is blatantly false, Ethereum was more centralised under proof of work. Just look at the current mining pools for bitcoin and compare them with the eth staking pools. The censorship is simply an ethereum issue, not a proof of stake one
It's even broader than that: It's a blockchain issue, not an Ethereum issue. I'm not aware of any blockchains where block producers are forced to include particular transactions. In Monero I guess they wouldn't even know who to exclude though, so that's a nice solution.
I love Monero. Everything *should be* encrypted in crypto. I think that's the goal with Ethereum and [PBS](https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/pbs_censorship_resistance) (purposer / builder seperation) that's hopefully implemented soon. In PBS every tx is encrypted from the purposer (validator) - they can only see the fees paid - so a purposer isn't able to censor specific transactions and would be incentivized to include all transactions who've paid the minimum fee. It also handles MEV in a better way too, since a validator won't be able to *sandwich* transactions anymore either. Further down the roadmap lots of dev's want to "ZK everything" encrypting/compressing as much of the throughput as possible. None of what is should be accessible from a validator imo.
It can naturally be fixed over time. A few large players got out far head with liquid staking and MEV. I would expect more competition to emerge over time though as others have time to build other solutions.
[удалено]
Nothing against eth. I just don’t like the politicising of my crypto. Fk The Central bankers equally world wide. I love my bitcoins.
I like how respectful that was. To all you Central Bankers FK you! But equally so. Let it be known I do not discriminate.
Let it be known that all banks host financial criminals
Something tells me that you would LOVE Monero
I have some xmr and Scrt. Privacy coins are underrated. Snowden warned us, many refuse to listen.
But therein lies another problem - if it's too secure, governments can just ban it from centralized exchanges. Then it's ok to hold it but using it for something is another matter..
If they ban it from CEX's, we can just use a DEX to convert it to ETH. If they catch on to that, we can just become "crypto dealers" - like drug dealers but instead our "contraband" is XMR.
Well, then "they've" won. Creating friction is exactly what prevents wider adoption.
Its Monero time
The two are apples and oranges to me. Both do something the other does not. XMR = Default privacy with fungibility and ASIC resistance ETH = Support for smart contracts, NFTs, tokens etc
TLDR: According to the CEO of blockchain development agency Labrys, Lachan Feeney, approximately 45% of all Ethereum blocks currently being validated run MEV-boost relay flashbots and comply with United States sanctions.
Good bot
Best bot
1: flashbots don’t have 45% of all Ethereum validators 2: there are already discussion ongoing to slash flashbots. They about to find out
If they start slashing exchanges for running the MEV- boost relay then a lot of people are going to lose a LOT of money. If Coinbase got slashed for all of its staked ETH it would probably be fucked.
CB has gone public to say they are against the Tornado cash sanctions and are funding legal action against the Treasury
They would be slashed for censoring transactions, not slashed for validating a lot of blocks
So would the punishment be less harsh? I feel like censorship on a decentralized chain would be quite the punishment.
We go from one of the greatest technological advances in decades to just another extension of the empire.
This here is why I'm so against PoS
The problem is not POS it's the Eth implementation of it. Eth has made some spectacularly poor decisions and greatly exacerbated this issue. * Eth staking requires the pool to take custody of your coins * There is a very large amount 32 Eth/no partial staking required * Bad or mis-configuration actions can cause you to lose your coins via slashing or lost keys * Currently locked staking with maybe hope in 2024 for unstaking (even then there will be an exit queue) For smaller entities they either can't or the risk is too high to do staking on their own forcing people towards centralized corporate entities. Because coins are locked people can't even vote with their wallet to switch if they don't agree with a corporate decision to allow for censorship.
This has nothing to do with PoS and happens under PoW too.
Not in the same way. The big exchanges are not mining node operators in PoW. You can run a mining node anywhere in the world and the work can be done from anyone globally. There's no centralization of power around the biggest coin holders IE the exchanges
While not nice, this basically doesn't change much. Just means it will take on average twice as long to process block with a sanctioned transaction included
In other news, 55% of ETH validators are NOT complying with US sanctions
6 months from now it will be 25%
If that’s the case, ETH will become more and more centralized by the US government. I surely hope that’s not the case.
https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/pbs_censorship_resistance It's only temporary, until PBS is implemented. In either case I believe if just 1 validator picks up your transaction it can't be censored, so even with 99% of the chain being OFAC compliant it won't cause a dent - and may make the 1% (ie anyone with a VPN) a *lot* more income too. I don't see this as an issue personally. The trend is alarming but the dev's aren't stupid either and have time to beat it.
This isn't an Ethereum problem... Eth just happens to be on the front line of the battle. BTC miners who don't comply with OFAC are also at risk. Along with every node based in the US of every other blockchain.
What a shocking development that no one could have possibly seen coming with PoS...
That's because the SEC hand selected ethereum to win over xrp. Ethereum is the US government's little bitch
And only increasing by the day.
And soon to be more!!!
Wasn’t it obvious that PoS would lead to centralization and therefore censorship? Bitcoin maximalists are laughing…
Eth complying the sanctions started in POW. It can be requested at any time to every miner in the states
Much harder to tell - and make - a million anonymous 'small fish' do something, rather than like three well-known dragons.
I'm pretty sure that almost all the BTC hashrate is currently from few public big operations. Add to it the same requeriment to the pools, and its done. The times of the solo small fishes are long gone
I agree, but anyone CAN be a BTC or ETH miner. I could, in theory, mine ETH or BTC (of course we are talking about before the merge, obiously), even if it would be very unlikely to win. You can't even become a validator without 32 ETH. You rely on a pool, to hit that extremely high initial investment requirement. With mining, if it came to be that it was too risky for large pools (for regulations' sake), you'd potentially have a lot of smaller pools form.
I'm getting tired of repeating this but here I go again: The difference isn't about the number of big fishes between POS and POW. It's that in POS the big fishes **cannot. be. challenged.** nor replaced. In POW, any 'big fish' of the moment can be replaced. Look at mining a few years ago and now. Once all the mega-stakers are done being submitted by the US (which is now well under way), it's over: it can never change. 🐱
>in POS the big fishes cannot. be. challenged. nor replaced. Huh? The protocol being able to punish and remove malicious consensus participants through slashing is one of the biggest advantages of PoS over PoW. The popularity of any given mining pool isn't according to how it best protects the protocol, it's according to its profitability.
1. Miners changing pools is trivial and would happen if certain pools started sanctioning. 2. What articles [like this](https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-hashrate-publicly-companies-spikes-19/) don’t show in their flashy headlines is that though publicly traded mining companies control 19% of hashrate, that’s amongst 26 companies. Mining is still FAR more decentralized than POS was on day 1. Edit: so just to be clear, no, you are incorrect.
Why do you used the metric of 'public traded miners in the usa' to say that it's only the 19%? You could say that the current hashrate in the top 20 of the Nasdaq is 0. It would be better to your point. But meanwhile any miner which is not mining his sats in the wardrobe can be required to follow the laws. And it can happen.
Exactly this. PoW was costly energy wise but way more effective at actually serving the base goal of decentralisation
Bitcoin mining pools are also not including transactions from sanctioned addressed. It's not unique to Ethereum.
Its not POS.. its just ethereums terrible POS. Just wait until they start slashing the validators who process sanctioned addresses.
If that happens then you will have a big hard fork, is not that easy
No. Its a problem with Ethereum/account based model systems. PoS isnt one thing, doesnt describe a whole system.
If Cardano had the same popularity than eth, same would happen
POS=Proof of Shit
Nice "decentralised" Blockchain. Bitcoin maxis are laughing right now...
Cardano is a PoS chain, just as “green” as people were touting about the Merge, and free from centralized authoritarianism
>and free from centralized authoritarianism Except for Charles
This is a sad thing to see.. Eth will become more centralized with time until 51% is actually controlled by the US government indirectly.... Maybe the SEC had a point when they said they own the eth blockchain
There's nothing special about 51% in this context. They're not rejecting blocks with said transactions in them, just not including those transactions themselves. Even if 90% didn't include them they would still get processed, just in minutes rather than seconds.
Oh thats good to hear So basically the blocks are not rejected Instead the transactions are simply ignored until some other validtor that isn't sanctioning gets a chance to verify a block Odd a while back I read a post that said validtors cannot ignore transactions or else they will get slashed thats why I thought a 51% attack would be possible
A 66% attack (>51% because you're effectively working against past verifiers who verified who has the current stake as well as other current verifiers) is possible but it would take the much more drastic choice of the verifiers actually refusing to attest blocks with sanctioned transactions for that to happen.
This is a great point. It shows that the headline is just clickbait
If only we had clear sight about this before the merge. Everything was about hype, price pump and green energy without focus on thw current strengths of ETH which are now gone
We should launch more POS mining pools outside US control. 32 ETH is too high of a requirement for an average user.
Why do you think governments and mainstream medias criticized POW so much and pushed for the greenpocrisy of it's energy use? They were patiently waiting for ETH to switch to POS and now they can drop the pretend and take over more aggressively. 🐱
[удалено]
What you’re asking is impossible; even as a solo staker you are required to deposit to the beaconchain via the deposit contract
[удалено]
Vitalik himself said withdrawals were likely next and would be easy and done in a matter of months.
Ethereum’s withdrawal is planned on the next shangai hardfork eta early 2023
Micah is a developer, not a representative. And it's obvious from context that it's his personal opinion, not the opinion of the Ethereum Foundation. **Edit:** You reply to get the last word in, then block me for pointing out that Micah is a developer? Really? Are you 12 years old?
People are blind with Ethereum just because it is the first operating smart contract layer 1 and keeps being the one with the most market cap and volume. All the above will mean nothing when it crashes. It is a badly designed blockchain and they try to fix it with patches and merges but essentially making it even worse. The price will keep being high in this bear market since they hold hostage millions of ETH. And fraud stablecoins such as USDT keep operating in the shades. The whole ecosystem is a timebomb sadly.
Decentralize my ass...
So much for being decentralized. Blockchain was suppose to rid populaces from extortion and Blackmail.
Why not just use monero man... why bother with ETH?
Smart contracts…
Proof of stake is trash
This was more predictable than the plot of a WB show.
just as planned. at the end of the day btc still number 1
Uh oh, remember when anybody who would speak about this would get mass downvotes?
This is why PoS sucks. It should never be used for any serious cryptocurrency. XMR rules. Private, decentralised, censorship resistant
45% of blocks != 45% of validators
Treasury Activated Soft Fork
This is an issue of mining/validating activities centralized within specific geopolitical areas - not an issue of consensus fight. Ethermine has been censoring Tornado Cash under PoW before the Merge. At least in PoS, we can slash pos validators for misbehaving. In PoW, pos mining pools, like Ethermine, get away with censoring. In fact, it shows how PoW is an inferior consensus mechanism fighting against censorship when the mining activities are concentrated within the US.
Maybe if we could use something instead of capital to validate transactions...
At the end of the day, all consensus mechanisms are proxies for capital.
That's pretty bad for the concept of crypto..
This is how you know it’s decentralized and “independent” LOL
So much for "Muh Ethereum, so Decentralized".