5 ms·

I'm working on destroying proof-of-work blockchains. I have a plan for BTC, but I'm not sure how to approach ETH. Advice would be appreciated.

high_byte 5y ago
for eth - just wait?
betwixthewires 5y ago
Interesting, what approach are you taking with BTC and what's the reason that approach won't work for ETH?
- myWindoonn 5y ago
  I imagine overwhelming miners with legitimate but expensive work. The way to generate this work is relatively sensitive to low-level blockchain parameters. BTC happens to fit the approach, but ETH doesn't. This isn't surprising because the approach was originally invented for BTC alone, prior to the proliferation of many different blockchains.
jlokier 5y ago
If you're interested in eliminating proof-of-work for ETH, you should really take a look at the proof-of-stake network in progress. Keywords: "Eth2", "proof of stake" and "the merge". When proof-of-stake takes over, there won't be any miners. The block proposal process is done by stakers instead. Some of the incentive issues with miners still exist with stakers, but raw competitive power consumption isn't one of them. It's true that proof-of-stake has been talked about for years, but it has picked up momentum since late last year, as the staking network was actually launched. The proof-of-stake network has been staking real ETH since end of last year, but does not yet handle mainnet ETH contract transactions. It's called Eth2, but that's caused some confusion, because it's not really a second version to run alongside the first, it is the R&D branch into proof-of-stake and other technical improvements, with mainnet ETH expected to adopt it in due course. So, the Eth1 components have been renamed "execution layer", Eth2 components renamed "consensus layer", and through a series of testnets and API developments which have been quite active this year, a big change called "The Merge" is being worked on by multiple funded groups (for client diversity) of core Eth developers at the moment. The Eth2 staking network that already exists has demonstrated the viability, and the investment of real ETH in serious quantities has built up some cryptoeconomic stability prior to its deployment as the ETH consensus layer. The time lag is intentional - you don't want to suddenly switch all ETH over to a network with too few invested stakers.
- myWindoonn 5y ago
  The proposed PoS scheme for ETH will run afoul of regulators as soon as a big-enough crime is financed on ETH. I do not need to put effort into destroying those things; they are ticking time bombs. PoS separates participants into pigs and chickens, and the pigs could find themselves liable as money handlers.
  - jlokier 5y ago
    > I do not need to put effort into destroying those things [proof-of-stake blockchains] You originally said you want to destroy proof-of-work blockchains, and were looking for advice on how to do that with ETH. It's already being destroyed on ETH by proof-of-stake. You asked for advice, that's the advice. You don't need to do anything except wait. Now you are saying you don't need to put effort into destroying proof-of-stake. Why is that relevant here? It suggests to me your goal is different from what you originally stated. Are you looking to see the destruction of more than just proof-of-work? The destruction of BTC and ETH, even if they switch away to another consensus mechanism?

high_byte 5y ago

for eth - just wait?

betwixthewires 5y ago

Interesting, what approach are you taking with BTC and what's the reason that approach won't work for ETH?

myWindoonn 5y ago
I imagine overwhelming miners with legitimate but expensive work. The way to generate this work is relatively sensitive to low-level blockchain parameters. BTC happens to fit the approach, but ETH doesn't. This isn't surprising because the approach was originally invented for BTC alone, prior to the proliferation of many different blockchains.

jlokier 5y ago

If you're interested in eliminating proof-of-work for ETH, you should really take a look at the proof-of-stake network in progress. Keywords: "Eth2", "proof of stake" and "the merge". When proof-of-stake takes over, there won't be any miners. The block proposal process is done by stakers instead. Some of the incentive issues with miners still exist with stakers, but raw competitive power consumption isn't one of them. It's true that proof-of-stake has been talked about for years, but it has picked up momentum since late last year, as the staking network was actually launched. The proof-of-stake network has been staking real ETH since end of last year, but does not yet handle mainnet ETH contract transactions. It's called Eth2, but that's caused some confusion, because it's not really a second version to run alongside the first, it is the R&D branch into proof-of-stake and other technical improvements, with mainnet ETH expected to adopt it in due course. So, the Eth1 components have been renamed "execution layer", Eth2 components renamed "consensus layer", and through a series of testnets and API developments which have been quite active this year, a big change called "The Merge" is being worked on by multiple funded groups (for client diversity) of core Eth developers at the moment. The Eth2 staking network that already exists has demonstrated the viability, and the investment of real ETH in serious quantities has built up some cryptoeconomic stability prior to its deployment as the ETH consensus layer. The time lag is intentional - you don't want to suddenly switch all ETH over to a network with too few invested stakers.

myWindoonn 5y ago
The proposed PoS scheme for ETH will run afoul of regulators as soon as a big-enough crime is financed on ETH. I do not need to put effort into destroying those things; they are ticking time bombs. PoS separates participants into pigs and chickens, and the pigs could find themselves liable as money handlers.
- jlokier 5y ago
  > I do not need to put effort into destroying those things [proof-of-stake blockchains] You originally said you want to destroy proof-of-work blockchains, and were looking for advice on how to do that with ETH. It's already being destroyed on ETH by proof-of-stake. You asked for advice, that's the advice. You don't need to do anything except wait. Now you are saying you don't need to put effort into destroying proof-of-stake. Why is that relevant here? It suggests to me your goal is different from what you originally stated. Are you looking to see the destruction of more than just proof-of-work? The destruction of BTC and ETH, even if they switch away to another consensus mechanism?