21 ms·

This reminds me of the nerve-biting period up to the James Webb launch. The devs put off this transition for so many years trying to plan for every contingency

This reminds me of the nerve-biting period up to the James Webb launch. The devs put off this transition for so many years trying to plan for every contingency, but we still can't be certain they didn't miss a crucial flaw. In a system where the only thing holding back malicious actors is technical constraints, it only takes one bug or one misaligned incentive for a vicious cycle to take down the entire Ethereum ecosystem. An exploitable detail in the PRNG used to select the validators, for instance. And like a space telescope, there is no opportunity to realistically experiment with the change beforehand, nor an easy way to make adjustments after launch.

wmf 4y ago
there is no opportunity to realistically experiment with the change beforehand Yeah, it's a shame they couldn't test the merge three times on the Ropsten, Sepolia, and Goerli testnets.
- Szpadel 4y ago
  if someone would find some critical flaw, wouldn't burn it on public testnet, but wait till it's possible to exploit with major profit on mainnet
  - latchkey 4y ago
    exactly this. even better, their own test suites haven't passed yet at all... https://hivetests2.ethdevops.io/ https://hivetests2.ethdevops.io/
latchkey 4y ago
It is order of magnitude easier for them to make changes after launch since the code and developers are here on earth and not floating in space.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  Especially given Ethereum's decision power being entirely centralized in the hands of the developers (unlike bitcoin for instance) who has shown willingness to hard-fork when they consider it necessary. In fact, the move from PoW to PoS illustrate this concentration of power: the miners lose a lot but they had no say in the decision.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    Miners knew from day one that PoS was eventual. As a very large ETH miner, I'm not that concerned about that part of things. Why? The business model for my company was built around a larger idea than just mining. Mining was just a great way for us to bootstrap the business. Let's also not forget that there are other coins out there to mine. There is a huge potential for something to take ETH's place... whether that happens or not is up in the air and really depends on someone to step up and take it. Easier said than done, but the possibility is there.
    - littlestymaar 4y ago
      > Miners knew from day one that PoS was eventual. It keep getting repeated over and over as if it was an argument, but if someone warns that they will harm you, then do it, and eventually gets away with it, it is actually a proof that they have unchecked power over you, and clearly not an argument against the existence of such a power imbalance…
      - latchkey 4y ago
        That is an interesting view on things. Where is the 'harm' here? ETH miners had a choice to mine, or not. If you didn't like the rules that were set out LONG in advance, then don't play the game. Similar to how people say not to depend on an API from a single company because that company could shut you down. Except in this case, the company told people, in advance, that some day in the future, they were absolutely going to shut you down.
        littlestymaar 4y ago

wmf 4y ago

there is no opportunity to realistically experiment with the change beforehand Yeah, it's a shame they couldn't test the merge three times on the Ropsten, Sepolia, and Goerli testnets.

Szpadel 4y ago
if someone would find some critical flaw, wouldn't burn it on public testnet, but wait till it's possible to exploit with major profit on mainnet
- latchkey 4y ago
  exactly this. even better, their own test suites haven't passed yet at all... https://hivetests2.ethdevops.io/ https://hivetests2.ethdevops.io/

latchkey 4y ago

It is order of magnitude easier for them to make changes after launch since the code and developers are here on earth and not floating in space.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
littlestymaar 4y ago
Especially given Ethereum's decision power being entirely centralized in the hands of the developers (unlike bitcoin for instance) who has shown willingness to hard-fork when they consider it necessary. In fact, the move from PoW to PoS illustrate this concentration of power: the miners lose a lot but they had no say in the decision.
- latchkey 4y ago
  Miners knew from day one that PoS was eventual. As a very large ETH miner, I'm not that concerned about that part of things. Why? The business model for my company was built around a larger idea than just mining. Mining was just a great way for us to bootstrap the business. Let's also not forget that there are other coins out there to mine. There is a huge potential for something to take ETH's place... whether that happens or not is up in the air and really depends on someone to step up and take it. Easier said than done, but the possibility is there.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    > Miners knew from day one that PoS was eventual. It keep getting repeated over and over as if it was an argument, but if someone warns that they will harm you, then do it, and eventually gets away with it, it is actually a proof that they have unchecked power over you, and clearly not an argument against the existence of such a power imbalance…
    - latchkey 4y ago
      That is an interesting view on things. Where is the 'harm' here? ETH miners had a choice to mine, or not. If you didn't like the rules that were set out LONG in advance, then don't play the game. Similar to how people say not to depend on an API from a single company because that company could shut you down. Except in this case, the company told people, in advance, that some day in the future, they were absolutely going to shut you down.
      - littlestymaar 4y ago