5 ms·

46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses

75 points by greenail 4y ago

helsinkiandrew 4y ago
This will probably get lower over the next few days but it still doesn't look very distributed compared with the existing Banking system. It's hard to tell the difference between ETH running on infrastructure maintained by Binance, Binance, and FTX etc and USD going between JPMorgan, Citi, and Goldman. I read a statistic that over 50% of the Ethereum Mainnet is on AWS (but can't find it now) - hopefully that isn't all in the same Virginia data centre.
- PaywallBuster 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/solanobahn/status/1547604262527463424 https://twitter.com/solanobahn/status/1547604262527463424
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  I agree but there people are likely overpaying. Heck, it should be Hetzner or OVH.
  - syrgian 4y ago
    Considering that you can get penalized if your validator is offline, I think any gain in reliability from using the most reliable provider you can is going to pay off.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      Having a single VM on Amazon doesn't provide substantially better reliability.
dboreham 4y ago
What is this showing us? When I look here : https://beaconscan.com/slots https://beaconscan.com/slots I don't see these addresses in the proposer column.
ChrisRR 4y ago
Can someone explain what this means to us not in the loop?
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  When it comes to blockchains, it is considered good to have the "work" be spread across a wide number of parties. The goal is to have decentralized consensus. If any one entity, or a small number of entities, gain a significant share of either the mining hash-rate, or the staking pools, then there is a possibility of something called a 51% attack. While the two institutions from the tweet are unlikely to perform such an attack, their significant share of ETH raises questions about how decentralized the platform truly is. One such question that arises is, can the US Government impose restrictions on these pools so that transactions involving sanctioned addresses are not included?
- RunSet 4y ago
  Rich get richer.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    The people staking get richer at the same rate on average as everyone else staking.
    - verdverm 4y ago
      It takes $50k to start staking, not so friendly to anyone but the rich at there get go
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        You can join a staking pool if you don't have enough.
bongobingo1 4y ago
Wealth transfer complete? I assume that isn't the take away, right? Right?
brotchie 4y ago
Lido and Coinbase
lawn 4y ago
I tend towards the theory that POS is more centralizing than POW, and the question is will it stay decentralized or end up with one address (or rather one entity) controlling 50%? With POW a miner needs to continually provide new investments to be competitive, with new and more effective hardware and electricity. But with POS you can just keep your coins in one place, and it will keep building up with no new investments at all (except running a node, a relatively small cost). And in POS if someone ever reaches 50%, then it can forever hold that position, and it's essentially game over (baring a drastic hard fork). It doesn't seem that unlikely that one big exchange will accomplish it.
- pphysch 4y ago
  More likely, a) a cartel will opaquely control >50% of the network and b) probably already does Fraudsters have a strong incentive to maintain a patina of integrity (for their given industry)
- mrits 4y ago
  From a centralization perspective there isn't much difference between POS and POW. Miners are becoming corporations that can be bought and sold.
  - admax88qqq 4y ago
    Sure there is. The continued investment required for PoW is the difference. If a PoW coin ever becomes centralized, it can become decentralized by new parties investing in more hashing power. If a PoS coin ever becomes centralized, then it stays centralized. You can't just "buy" more stake unless the 51% player agrees to sell you some. It really seems like PoS is the rich get richer without having to expend any effort. They stake their coins (costing nothing) and get rewards. If you have more coins to stake than others on average, you'll win the block rewards more often than others, increasing your ownership share. In PoW, because computers are constantly getting faster/more efficient, your existing mining hardware depreciates with time and you have to continue to invest to maintain your dominance.
- charcircuit 4y ago
polygamous_bat 4y ago
Reminds me of my favorite crypto joke: "cryptocurrency is an alternate banking system for people whose primary complaint about the 2008 financial crisis was that they weren't _in_ on it."
- porknaut 4y ago
  And those that exaggerate all its deficiencies are upset they weren’t in on the cryptocurrencies. Wonder what comes next…
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    It's hard to find a successful pyramid scheme or bubble that I'm not upset I wasn't on the ground floor of. I'm also upset that I didn't win the lottery. It doesn't mean that I secretly think pyramid schemes, lotteries, and beanie babies are good, and that I'm naysaying them because I didn't get a piece. I would naysay them 10x as much if they had made me rich. I'd be rich and an authoritative source, who's going to stop me from talking shit about the things I dislike?
- njarboe 4y ago
  It is very hard to get approval to be a bank and they are highly regulated. Many in crypto liked the idea of being able to run a bank out of their bedroom similar to any other SaaS business. Like many jokes, a truth told sideways can be quite funny.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- seer-zig 4y ago
  The primary complaint about the 2008 (and the entire move to fiat) is (1) the government gets to print money at its own whim, deflating everyone's hard work. (2) fiat is inherently based on usury, which billions of people find appalling and abhorrent. What happened in 2008 was the natural outcome of such a system, and it will continue to happen if things are not fixed.
mesozoic 4y ago
Web 3 is going well
casualrandomcom 4y ago
What do you make of this https://twitter.com/thwjanssen89/status/1570426961411067904?s=20&t=Wu-YrqMU16qlq2EVhZqCNw https://twitter.com/thwjanssen89/status/1570426961411067904?... comment?
- croes 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/TralfamadorianH/status/1570444676272128011 https://twitter.com/TralfamadorianH/status/15704446762721280...
yabones 4y ago
We've successfully subverted and revolutionized the global centralization of financial control by... concentrating wealth and power... Wait...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tucnak 4y ago
m4jor 4y ago
These are just bots
- croes 4y ago
  Doesn't change the underlying problem.
taolegal 4y ago
funny how they just ceded true decentralization to Bitcoin & the usual detractors will miss out due to deep-seated prejudices you may as well just use a central bank or traditional database, POW is unlike the rest and for good reason
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Bitcoin ceded true decentralization to mining farms a long time ago.
  - taolegal 4y ago
    nah, as long as it's still easy for an individual to run a node and store the entire blockchain on their own it's miles ahead of anyone else
    - eterps 4y ago
      https://mobile.twitter.com/ercwl/status/1555719147941683200 https://mobile.twitter.com/ercwl/status/1555719147941683200
      - taolegal 4y ago
        Making blocks is much different than accepting blocks. Blocks have to be verified & accepted by peers aside from getting over the hurdle of POW. He complains about BTC arguing that the ability to “make a block” is the true basis of decentralization. But it’s the ability to verify & reject blocks that’s important. And anyone can maintain their own BTC blockchain from the beginning of time relatively easily (less than $500). Trustless is the way.
        eterps 4y ago
        > But it’s the ability to verify & reject blocks that’s important. And anyone can maintain their own BTC blockchain from the beginning of time relatively easily (less than $500). And on Ethereum you can't?

75 points by greenail 4y ago

This will probably get lower over the next few days but it still doesn't look very distributed compared with the existing Banking system. It's hard to tell the difference between ETH running on infrastructure maintained by Binance, Binance, and FTX etc and USD going between JPMorgan, Citi, and Goldman. I read a statistic that over 50% of the Ethereum Mainnet is on AWS (but can't find it now) - hopefully that isn't all in the same Virginia data centre.

PaywallBuster 4y ago
https://twitter.com/solanobahn/status/1547604262527463424 https://twitter.com/solanobahn/status/1547604262527463424
encryptluks2 4y ago
I agree but there people are likely overpaying. Heck, it should be Hetzner or OVH.
- syrgian 4y ago
  Considering that you can get penalized if your validator is offline, I think any gain in reliability from using the most reliable provider you can is going to pay off.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    Having a single VM on Amazon doesn't provide substantially better reliability.

dboreham 4y ago

What is this showing us? When I look here : https://beaconscan.com/slots https://beaconscan.com/slots I don't see these addresses in the proposer column.

ChrisRR 4y ago

Can someone explain what this means to us not in the loop?

BitwiseFool 4y ago
When it comes to blockchains, it is considered good to have the "work" be spread across a wide number of parties. The goal is to have decentralized consensus. If any one entity, or a small number of entities, gain a significant share of either the mining hash-rate, or the staking pools, then there is a possibility of something called a 51% attack. While the two institutions from the tweet are unlikely to perform such an attack, their significant share of ETH raises questions about how decentralized the platform truly is. One such question that arises is, can the US Government impose restrictions on these pools so that transactions involving sanctioned addresses are not included?
RunSet 4y ago
Rich get richer.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  The people staking get richer at the same rate on average as everyone else staking.
  - verdverm 4y ago
    It takes $50k to start staking, not so friendly to anyone but the rich at there get go
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      You can join a staking pool if you don't have enough.

bongobingo1 4y ago

Wealth transfer complete? I assume that isn't the take away, right? Right?

brotchie 4y ago

Lido and Coinbase

lawn 4y ago

I tend towards the theory that POS is more centralizing than POW, and the question is will it stay decentralized or end up with one address (or rather one entity) controlling 50%? With POW a miner needs to continually provide new investments to be competitive, with new and more effective hardware and electricity. But with POS you can just keep your coins in one place, and it will keep building up with no new investments at all (except running a node, a relatively small cost). And in POS if someone ever reaches 50%, then it can forever hold that position, and it's essentially game over (baring a drastic hard fork). It doesn't seem that unlikely that one big exchange will accomplish it.

pphysch 4y ago
More likely, a) a cartel will opaquely control >50% of the network and b) probably already does Fraudsters have a strong incentive to maintain a patina of integrity (for their given industry)
mrits 4y ago
From a centralization perspective there isn't much difference between POS and POW. Miners are becoming corporations that can be bought and sold.
- admax88qqq 4y ago
  Sure there is. The continued investment required for PoW is the difference. If a PoW coin ever becomes centralized, it can become decentralized by new parties investing in more hashing power. If a PoS coin ever becomes centralized, then it stays centralized. You can't just "buy" more stake unless the 51% player agrees to sell you some. It really seems like PoS is the rich get richer without having to expend any effort. They stake their coins (costing nothing) and get rewards. If you have more coins to stake than others on average, you'll win the block rewards more often than others, increasing your ownership share. In PoW, because computers are constantly getting faster/more efficient, your existing mining hardware depreciates with time and you have to continue to invest to maintain your dominance.
charcircuit 4y ago

polygamous_bat 4y ago

Reminds me of my favorite crypto joke: "cryptocurrency is an alternate banking system for people whose primary complaint about the 2008 financial crisis was that they weren't _in_ on it."

porknaut 4y ago
And those that exaggerate all its deficiencies are upset they weren’t in on the cryptocurrencies. Wonder what comes next…
- pessimizer 4y ago
  It's hard to find a successful pyramid scheme or bubble that I'm not upset I wasn't on the ground floor of. I'm also upset that I didn't win the lottery. It doesn't mean that I secretly think pyramid schemes, lotteries, and beanie babies are good, and that I'm naysaying them because I didn't get a piece. I would naysay them 10x as much if they had made me rich. I'd be rich and an authoritative source, who's going to stop me from talking shit about the things I dislike?
njarboe 4y ago
It is very hard to get approval to be a bank and they are highly regulated. Many in crypto liked the idea of being able to run a bank out of their bedroom similar to any other SaaS business. Like many jokes, a truth told sideways can be quite funny.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
seer-zig 4y ago
The primary complaint about the 2008 (and the entire move to fiat) is (1) the government gets to print money at its own whim, deflating everyone's hard work. (2) fiat is inherently based on usury, which billions of people find appalling and abhorrent. What happened in 2008 was the natural outcome of such a system, and it will continue to happen if things are not fixed.

mesozoic 4y ago

Web 3 is going well

casualrandomcom 4y ago

What do you make of this https://twitter.com/thwjanssen89/status/1570426961411067904?s=20&t=Wu-YrqMU16qlq2EVhZqCNw https://twitter.com/thwjanssen89/status/1570426961411067904?... comment?

croes 4y ago
https://twitter.com/TralfamadorianH/status/1570444676272128011 https://twitter.com/TralfamadorianH/status/15704446762721280...

yabones 4y ago

We've successfully subverted and revolutionized the global centralization of financial control by... concentrating wealth and power... Wait...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tucnak 4y ago

m4jor 4y ago

These are just bots

croes 4y ago
Doesn't change the underlying problem.

taolegal 4y ago

funny how they just ceded true decentralization to Bitcoin & the usual detractors will miss out due to deep-seated prejudices you may as well just use a central bank or traditional database, POW is unlike the rest and for good reason

encryptluks2 4y ago
Bitcoin ceded true decentralization to mining farms a long time ago.
- taolegal 4y ago
  nah, as long as it's still easy for an individual to run a node and store the entire blockchain on their own it's miles ahead of anyone else
  - eterps 4y ago
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ercwl/status/1555719147941683200 https://mobile.twitter.com/ercwl/status/1555719147941683200
    - taolegal 4y ago
      Making blocks is much different than accepting blocks. Blocks have to be verified & accepted by peers aside from getting over the hurdle of POW. He complains about BTC arguing that the ability to “make a block” is the true basis of decentralization. But it’s the ability to verify & reject blocks that’s important. And anyone can maintain their own BTC blockchain from the beginning of time relatively easily (less than $500). Trustless is the way.
      - eterps 4y ago
        > But it’s the ability to verify & reject blocks that’s important. And anyone can maintain their own BTC blockchain from the beginning of time relatively easily (less than $500). And on Ethereum you can't?