5 ms·

In Ethereum, you need 32 ETH, which is around ~$120k. That's prohibitive a normal person. After EIP1559 goes into effect, it's not out of the question that th

In Ethereum, you need 32 ETH, which is around ~$120k. That's prohibitive a normal person. After EIP1559 goes into effect, it's not out of the question that the price could rise 7x given the power laws at play. What happens when the cost to stake a node is $1M+? What happens 50 years from only the very richest .00001% can afford to run a node? I'm concerned EIP1559 and PoS is a very short sighted implementation that will move towards centralization of the network. There should be a floating minimum, or have no minimum at all to run a node. Not sure the exact tech solution, or I'd be submitting a pull request :).

meowkit 5y ago
32 ETH was set when it cost much less. That can always be changed if the number or validators is not sufficient to decentralize the network.
- fredfoobar 5y ago
  Yeah yeah, everything can always be changed in the future.
  - everfree 5y ago
    Ethereum regularly undergoes hard forks to change its parameters. There's no schelling point over protocol specifics with Ethereum like there is with, say, Bitcoin.
- roskelld 5y ago
  Genuine question: Who decides that?
  - fredfoobar 5y ago
    When there is a prominent founder, everyone usually tends to defer to them (in this case, Vitalik, see what happened to ETC vs ETH).
- chrischattin 5y ago
  That's was my point. The ability to stake shouldn't be based on an arbitrary and temporary exchange rate. What happens if USD/ETH is $0.0001? $1B? It should still work regardless of the exchange rate. Current implementation depends on the exchange rate and creates an incentive structure towards centralization.
  - exo762 5y ago
    > Current implementation depends on the exchange rate No, it does not. You are staking ETH, not USD. Essentially, you are staking a percentage of all ETH, percentage capped from below.
    - chrischattin 5y ago
      The decision to use 32 ETH was a trade off based on the exchange rate at the time, 32ETH being ~$5k, which the devs thought was enough so that it wouldn’t be cost prohibitive to get involved and hurt enough to stay honest. When the exchange rate changes dramatically, like it did and will in the future, it changes the incentive structure in staking. So, yes, the current implementation’s incentive structures do depend on the exchange rate.
  - cdiddy2 5y ago
    32 ETH wasn't chosen randomly. There is a cost to having too many validators on the network. 32 ETH was chosen to make sure that didn't happen while still being low enough to allow for a lot of validators.
hanniabu 5y ago
There are discussions to lower the ETH collateral requirements. Right now there is no validator cap so that will lead to issues. The goal is to first set a max validator cap with a rotating validator pool. However, there's still higher priority items to complete first like the merge, unlocking withdrawals, and likely also sharding. Given that, it's liking like this change would come 2 years from now unless priorities change (and assuming there's consensus for such a change).
miohtama 5y ago
You can do pooled staking with smaller amounts, with little bit lost security: https://capitalgram.com/posts/ethereum-2.0-staking-and-stakewise/ https://capitalgram.com/posts/ethereum-2.0-staking-and-stake...
russianbandit 5y ago
We’ll solve that problem in 50 years, don’t you think? BTC and ETH are just pioneers in the future of financial systems.

meowkit 5y ago

32 ETH was set when it cost much less. That can always be changed if the number or validators is not sufficient to decentralize the network.

fredfoobar 5y ago
Yeah yeah, everything can always be changed in the future.
- everfree 5y ago
  Ethereum regularly undergoes hard forks to change its parameters. There's no schelling point over protocol specifics with Ethereum like there is with, say, Bitcoin.
roskelld 5y ago
Genuine question: Who decides that?
- fredfoobar 5y ago
  When there is a prominent founder, everyone usually tends to defer to them (in this case, Vitalik, see what happened to ETC vs ETH).
chrischattin 5y ago
That's was my point. The ability to stake shouldn't be based on an arbitrary and temporary exchange rate. What happens if USD/ETH is $0.0001? $1B? It should still work regardless of the exchange rate. Current implementation depends on the exchange rate and creates an incentive structure towards centralization.
- exo762 5y ago
  > Current implementation depends on the exchange rate No, it does not. You are staking ETH, not USD. Essentially, you are staking a percentage of all ETH, percentage capped from below.
  - chrischattin 5y ago
    The decision to use 32 ETH was a trade off based on the exchange rate at the time, 32ETH being ~$5k, which the devs thought was enough so that it wouldn’t be cost prohibitive to get involved and hurt enough to stay honest. When the exchange rate changes dramatically, like it did and will in the future, it changes the incentive structure in staking. So, yes, the current implementation’s incentive structures do depend on the exchange rate.
- cdiddy2 5y ago
  32 ETH wasn't chosen randomly. There is a cost to having too many validators on the network. 32 ETH was chosen to make sure that didn't happen while still being low enough to allow for a lot of validators.

hanniabu 5y ago

There are discussions to lower the ETH collateral requirements. Right now there is no validator cap so that will lead to issues. The goal is to first set a max validator cap with a rotating validator pool. However, there's still higher priority items to complete first like the merge, unlocking withdrawals, and likely also sharding. Given that, it's liking like this change would come 2 years from now unless priorities change (and assuming there's consensus for such a change).

miohtama 5y ago

You can do pooled staking with smaller amounts, with little bit lost security: https://capitalgram.com/posts/ethereum-2.0-staking-and-stakewise/ https://capitalgram.com/posts/ethereum-2.0-staking-and-stake...

russianbandit 5y ago

We’ll solve that problem in 50 years, don’t you think? BTC and ETH are just pioneers in the future of financial systems.