ETH is so done

[Anonymous No.55343023]

>Lets raise the required staking amount from 32 to 2048
>No no no its not centralized
>its so our vc frens that will likely lose all can make money from you goys
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.55343054]

>"raise maximum allowed per validator from 32 to 2048"
>gay retard illiterati interprets that as "required minimum"

cope and sneed and post your alt against eth chart

[Anonymous No.55343062]

>>55343054
Oh, since 2 hours I am an anti crypto and going to support law enforcement with 10 years experience and 8 Million from crypto to fuck the industry

[Anonymous No.55343113]

Hmm I wonder why they are doing it. I suppose jpm needs more money.

[Anonymous No.55343126]

Refer to this : https://crocswap.medium.com/discrimination-of-toxic-flow-in-uniswap-v3-part-4-c09656ec016e

Always has been, same with bitcoin lighting since mainnet is not usable at all

[Anonymous No.55343134]

>>55343113
>ETH declared security
>price goes to single digits
>7 years investment down the drain
>Hop to scam more idiots with validators and mev bots
>keeping the clown gang out of the game
>While interpol does its job

[Anonymous No.55343146]

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门

[Anonymous No.55343286]

>>55343023
the only people in eth are desperados who missed bitcoin

[Anonymous No.55343287]

>>55343113
maybe they can faster the process, so the queue time wont be months, just weeks...

[Anonymous No.55343300]

>>55343023
Tell me where this is from so I can laugh about eth baggies.

[Anonymous No.55343306]

>>55343300
found it on tradingview, source is apparently cointelegraph

[Anonymous No.55343313]

>>55343300
https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-validators-may-have-to-stake-2048-eth-devs-discuss

[Anonymous No.55343321]

>>55343023
don't care. im still DCAing in ETH like a madman. when the next bullrun comes I'll finally be free

[Anonymous No.55343337]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-validators-may-have-to-stake-2048-eth-devs-discuss
make sure to leave a laughing smiley
also, looks like the insect connection is getting fucked because Kwon is singing

[Anonymous No.55343342]

>>55343023
>>55343054
Wow, more stupid, literally made up fud. They're raising the MAXIMUM, not minimum. Holy fuck the anti-crypto shills are digging deep for FUD these days.

[Anonymous No.55343357]

better to have 1 entity with a big node than a lot of smaller ones. the 32 limit gives a false sense of decentralization

[Anonymous No.55343389]

>>55343342
Not just fud faggot, what do you think 10 years of insider knowledge from somebody that just tried to ignore the bullshit and finally had it with the insects can do to chinas-western private sectors game as a whole, not just the tiny niche that is crypto

[Anonymous No.55343432]

>>55343389
What in the absolute fuck are you trying to say?
>Lets raise the required staking amount from 32 to 2048
This is a FALSE statement. They are raising the maximum to 2048, you can still stake with 32.

[Anonymous No.55343434]

>>55343342
Correct.
>>55343357
I wonder how they will work around that.

[Anonymous No.55343459]

>>55343432
On this website, I just play with prey inserting fake narratives and feedback into the machine
Outside this website, I provided information that is the economic equivalent of a nuke on china. I still don't like the United States, but I despise china more, and I hate the transnational private sector oligarchy

[Anonymous No.55343611]

>>55343306
>>55343313
Thx

[Anonymous No.55343627]

>>55343023
>the average fudder is this mentally disabled
>doesn't understand what minimum and maximums are
>>55343062
10 years experience sticking dildos in your ass doesn't count

[Anonymous No.55343632]

>>55343023
Man metheads are fuding their own coins so much since the validator unstaking fud failed and 100k eth started to be removed from the market to stake every day.

They truly want to make it go under the radar until the us elections.

[Anonymous No.55343637]

>>55343627
Do you faggots still think I am a woman/tranny

[Anonymous No.55343653]

>>55343637
Well you have the brains of one, so ya

[Anonymous No.55343664]

>>55343653
You really don't have any creativity. Or the ability to understand, that somebody that operates practically in the open and knows about the entire game of psychological profiling can play around with prey

[Anonymous No.55343745]

>>55343664
>dunning kruger

[Anonymous No.55343765]

>>55343745
Check your internal archives, if you have access, and try to make sense of that shit

[Anonymous No.55343773]

>>55343765
No

[Anonymous No.55343797]

>>55343611
No worries

[Anonymous No.55343803]

>>55343773
yeah, filtering through all the proxies and IPs and pinning them together without reasonable doubt should make that a not so easy job, even if done by a machine learning and indexing tool

[Anonymous No.55343808]

>>55343803
Too many words. I just know you're stupid. Also dumb. A little hint of retarded too.

[Anonymous No.55343811]

>>55343306
Stopped using tradingview since learning about tokenmetrics, x10 better I'm every aspect

>>55343321
Someone who gets it, that's the gwei

[Anonymous No.55343825]

>>55343811
>ponzimetrics
>buy meth Gweilo
you should focus again on fentanyl

[Anonymous No.55344091]

>>55343825
He probably needs something stronger, like your mom

[Anonymous No.55344107]

>>55344091
very creative, as expected by a chink slave. Really who is programming you idiots?

[Anonymous No.55344136]

>>55343811
This just proved how retarded you're
Have fun getting rekt with your paid AI app

[Anonymous No.55344536]

>>55343023
Don't care, Ethereum is a gay bankerchain

[Anonymous No.55344619]

>>55343023
ETH is going nowhere. We warn you about it.

[Anonymous No.55344745]

>>55344136
It's literally free but yeah have fun staying poor while I keep rolling in those three figure PNL on a daily

[Anonymous No.55345030]

>>55344619
ETH is going to 10k rather

[Anonymous No.55345047]

>>55345030
>t. thousands of NPCs

[Anonymous No.55345049]

>>55345030
>gweilo please by unemployed chinese youth bags
>please gweilo village starving
its funny how chinks tried to make pajeets the bad goys. Really uncreative insects. so easy to trick. No wonder the british managed to easily fuck china

[Anonymous No.55345066]

>>55344536
Vitalik might be gay, never seen him with a bitch even with all that money

>>55343825
Now why so pained anon?
Did you get liquidated on a trade?

[Anonymous No.55345092]

>>55343023
LOL, Ethereum fanboys are getting ahead of themselves again! Talking about growth potential and dominance? Please! Ethereum may have its little dApps and upgrades, but it's nothing compared to the king, Bitcoin. While Ethereum tries to be everything for everyone, it lacks the simplicity, security, and rock-solid foundation of Bitcoin. Ethereum's network effects? They're nothing compared to the global adoption of Bitcoin. Don't be fooled by the hype, Bitcoin is the true leader in the cryptocurrency world, and Ethereum will always be in its shadow.

[Anonymous No.55345095]

>>55345066
No. I know what failed chink commie scam crypto is. Trades are closed in profits and I never got scammed. Too much experience identifying chinks larping as pajeets

[Anonymous No.55345115]

>>55345092
nigger don't fool yourself, their is no crypto adoption. We just run a campaign to bait insects before closing the faucet and letting those disgusting yellow piss humans starve

[Anonymous No.55345265]

>>55343313
>with several users pointing out that such a significant change in staked ETH would lead to fewer validators and thus make the network more centralized
Except it wouldn't, since all those validators were owned by the same entities beforehand anyway. This has no effect on centralization.

[Anonymous No.55345276]

>>55345265
>don't worry gweilo
>it was centralized beforehand
>please keep using the scam

[Anonymous No.55345384]

>>55343023
Can someone explain how staking internet tokens makes them valuable? It seems to me that if you want to stake something to secure value on a blockchain then you should be staking something of actual value.

It's like if I gave you 1000 anon tokens in exchange for letting me borrow your car. How does the fact that I staked these worthless tokens give them value?

[Anonymous No.55345409]

>>55345384
not at all. The thing with pos crapto is that if enough fools dump their liquidity in this shit chain chasing chink ponzis that larp as indians, you can get an advantage over other scammers sandwiching and meving fools. But with no liquidity and no demand, this shit is worthless and staking that bullcrap is a negative value proposition because you cant dump it when you want and have to wait for your crap to unstake

[Anonymous No.55345565]

>>55343023
oh wow i tough op was a methead fuding his own coin, worse he is lying.

it's the maximum balance not the minimum to increase descentralization forcing big institutions to run multiple nodes.

[Anonymous No.55345576]

>>55345565
no. It clearly states minimum

[Anonymous No.55345598]

>>55345576
https://www.theblock.co/post/235386/ethereum-developers-consider-raising-validator-limit-from-32-to-2048-eth

https://ethresear.ch/t/increase-the-max-effective-balance-a-modest-proposal/15801

[Anonymous No.55345673]

>>55343054
it says "have to." I can read.

[Anonymous No.55345924]

>>55343321
Not just in ETH anon. I'm also diversifying into DOT and COSMOS, while accumulating KREST for airdrops.

[Anonymous No.55345934]

>>55343342
These are just scared 30iq maxis,probably... Or you are right.

[Anonymous No.55345947]

>>55343023
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.55345965]

>>55345047
You know how many nigger maxicuck with 30iq said that it wont reach the 1420 prev top again? Thousands at least.

[Anonymous No.55345992]

>>55345265
Yeah, it could bring transparency, but they can still run multiple smaller nodes, its just like the lookintobitcoin >1 btc adresses, 10k addy or more still can belong to 1 person.

[Anonymous No.55346003]

>>55345576
This user is a paid glow or a bot.
Liberal fascist™

[Anonymous No.55346018]

>>55345965
>>55345992
>>55346003
how new are you on the job chang?
3angy small wiener posts in a row trying to do damage control

[Anonymous No.55346030]

>>55343023
This is why ETH is a shitcoin.

Centralized premined bullshit.

[Anonymous No.55347817]

ETH was useless after the merge

[Anonymous No.55348261]

>>55344107
Listen man you're not making sense. I'm not trying to be mean but I think you should checkm into a mental hospital. It's like a hotel. Just for a while to chill

[Anonymous No.55348306]

>>55348261
Psychopathy and other antisocial behavior can't be treated and you are too low IQ to understand what is happening or to see the big picture

[Anonymous No.55348507]

>>55343023
We all know.

[Anonymous No.55348776]

>>55343023
>devs discuss
post links to the actual discussion, retard

[Anonymous No.55349037]

>>55345673
>I can read.
But the article authors can't. The title is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.55349765]

>>55346030
Centralized assets are a big no for me anon. I'd rather go for the likes of Ocean, Sylo and Flux where no one has a monopoly on the tokenomics.

[Anonymous No.55349793]

>>55345947
What's the make it stack ? It could look good with my Rio and Mni stash for massive gains.

[Anonymous No.55349979]

>>55343054
>>55343342
raising the maximum effectively raises the minimum. if i have 32 eth (achievable for a poorfag) then i sit alongside richfags as an equal and have the same share of transactions distributed to me as any other miner with the maximum stake.

if they raise this to 2k, of which i have no hope of achieving but richfags do, now i either have to suck it up and accept a considerably lower share of transations or shut off my validator. either way, those with the ability to risk the maximum stake get preferential treatment and the common folk get fucked all the while centralising the network.

so yes, they did raise the minimum, just indirectly.

[Anonymous No.55349996]

>>55343023
Why are people spending hard earned cash on a parasitic pedophile?
What the fuck is wrong with any of you?

[Anonymous No.55350011]

>>55343611
Hang this pedophile in a lamp post.
He so skinny it would take days.
Nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.55350032]

>>55349979
It makes no difference if a whale has 10 validators of 32 ETH each or one validator with 320 ETH. The effective balance is the same, and so is the ratio to your 32 ETH.

[Anonymous No.55350050]

>>55350032
It makes a difference. If you are unable to see why you need to lurk more. Eth is now done for good. It was already done with the merge, but if they go with this proposal eth is practically worthless. And there is in no universe a way to salvage the failures that developed eth, while selling unregistered securities

[Anonymous No.55350070]

>>55350032
uhuh so why not remove the maximum limit then?

[Anonymous No.55350107]

>>55343321
What price are you planning to let go? I think 8k I will let my stack go to hell before I get stuck waiting for 10k like I got fucked waiting for 5k lol

[Anonymous No.55350113]

I thought Effereumz isn't centralized, how can one entity change the rules

[Anonymous No.55350179]

>>55350070
Your reading comprehension is shit, you are functionally illiterate.

[Anonymous No.55350264]

>>55350179
and you're a faggot that can't answer a simple question but here we are

[Anonymous No.55350277]

>>55350107
dont fucking wait for a price
everyone waits for that golden price in their head. just average out it will keep you sane.

[Anonymous No.55350305]

I love being a Bitcoin maxi. Win after win after win. It's almost cheating.

[Anonymous No.55350335]

>>55350277
I have been holding coins since 2017. Tbh it all lost any sense a long time ago

[Anonymous No.55350344]

>>55350050
>It makes a difference.
It does not. 32 * 10 = 320. The effective balance is the same.
>If you are unable to see why you need to lurk more.
This is not an argument and I've been almost daily on /biz/ since 2017. Anyway does /biz/ teach you how Ethereum works under the hood or does it teach you what's the hottest shitcoin?
>>55350070
>why not remove the maximum limit then?
MAX_EFFECTIVE_BALANCE has to have some value or you'd have to rework a lot more stuff. 2048 is a nice and clean multiple of 32 that's big enough (any bigger wouldn't really have any more benefit IMO). The discussion is ongoing https://ethresear.ch/t/increase-the-max-effective-balance-a-modest-proposal/15801/3

[Anonymous No.55350346]

>Buying ETH in 2023 with the current infinitly better projects out there.
Unless you have a gas fees fetish, my god this board iis lost.

[Anonymous No.55350404]

>>55350346
No, this board is run by meth heads. New liberal fascistic meth heads imagine themselves as antifascists while being lead by the nose by a bunch of unironic fascists

[Anonymous No.55350463]

>>55350404
Literally every Ethereum proponent has left this place long time ago. It's now an ETH-hating circle jerk between alt-L1 shill jeets and Bitcoin maxis. What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.55350611]

>>55350463
No. They are still around in moderation position trying to sell meth shitcoin and keeping meth the predominant evm scam

[Anonymous No.55350670]

>>55350305
what are you going to get next bull? a 2x? at least ETH can grow even if its shit behind the curtain. Most people are in crypto to make money not for the principal of the tech.

[Anonymous No.55350711]

>>55350611
I hate to be the guy who tells a schizo to take his meds, but seriously, how are these mods promoting ETH? Obviously they aren't censoring any competitors like the daily paid avalanche threads that infest this board. No wait. Maybe it's a deep scheme where Ethereum people spam overly forced and obvious jeet shilling of their competitors. Maybe, just maybe, your delusions are right. Don't take the meds, they are designed to keep you in the matrix. Wake up, you're in a dream.

[Anonymous No.55350744]

>>55350711
>BTC maxis hyping their 2-3x gains
>ETH haters hyping their random projects that are likely to fail
ETH is too safe/obvious for anyone not attached to their little scam projects or their principled Satoshi worship.

[Anonymous No.55350868]

>>55350344
>it doesn't make a difference
???
isn't it more centralized?
isn't the purpose of 32 so you have lots of different validators in different parts of the world?

[Anonymous No.55350966]

>>55350670
>what are you going to get next bull? a 2x?
if we're talking appreciation from ATH, just shy of a 1.5x for btc, probably won't even break $100k.
but how much you think you can pocket the difference investing on eth?
eth is a far riskier investment.

[Anonymous No.55351031]

>>55350670
ETH is going to die and Vitalik is going to dump on you just beforehand. Imagine when Infura gets told to shutdown operations in the US. Get booted out of the largest liquidity market in the world.
Bitcoin is the end game. The sooner you get that through your head the better.

[Anonymous No.55351042]

>>55350868
The minimum staking amount is not changing, only the maximum. Currently the minimum is the same as maximum, 32 ETH. Instead of running multiple 32 ETH validators someone with lots of ETH can just run a single bigger one, and someone with over 32 ETH could stake his "leftover" ETH that's not enough for another full 32 ETH validator. Even at this moment a single validator node (hardware) can run hundreds of validators (software) so there's no changes needed in the real world.

[Anonymous No.55351081]

>>55351031
>Imagine when Infura gets told to shutdown operations in the US.
Okay, I'm imagining. Everyone who's using Infura will swap to another RPC provider. Viola, (nonexistent) problem solved.

[Anonymous No.55351105]

>>55351042
I already understand all that.
and reiterating all that doesn't answer the question.
you increase the max, objectively there would be less validators in total, and therefore consensus is more centralized, is it not?

[Anonymous No.55351413]

>>55351105
>objectively there would be less validators in total, and therefore consensus is more centralized
If someone is staking 320 ETH he has 10 validators but is still a single entity with a single validator node. There would be no difference if he ran a single validator of 320 ETH vs. ten 32 ETH validators. 1 * 320 = 10 * 32. It's like asking a kid if he wants 50 two cent coins or a single 1 dollar coin. Yeah there's more coins in the first option but the amount is the same. There would be less validators in total because currently we count every 32 ETH validator as one, after the update there would be validators of different sizes. Instead of 5000 one cent coins we would have different denomination coins that all amount to $50 (but less coins because we can have bigger coins than 1 cent). No change in centralization of consensus, just easier to run a single big validator instead of multiple small ones, like it's easier to carry a single big coin than multiple 1 cent coins. I really went far with this.

[Anonymous No.55351438]

This thread created so much butthurt that I am more than confident with keeping my short on eth open

[The buyer of /biz/ No.55351601]

>>55343023
Its a proposition

[The buyer of /biz/ No.55351613]

>>55343146
>t.

[Anonymous No.55351638]

>>55350305
That's how it is when you hold based assets anon. I keep on accumulating and I'm looking forward to buying more with my Brillion testnet rewards when it comes.

[Anonymous No.55351645]

>>55351413
>No change in centralization of consensus,
>just easier to run a single big validator instead of multiple small ones,
those two statements are contradictory.
>like it's easier to carry a single big coin than multiple 1 cent coins.
that's the point.
I choose what node I stake to.
I have 320 eth.
currently I'm forced to split that as 10 different validators.
which means potentially my validators are spread across 10 different nodes. they might not actually do that, but we're encouraging splitting/diversifying the voting power.
vs I increase the max to 320, I just stake it all at once on 1 node, because we've removed the pain point that helps encourage decentralization.
but please tell me if I'm missing something.

[Anonymous No.55351993]

>>55351645
Okay so are you talking about client diversity or validator centralization? I've explained why it makes no difference to validator centralization in my very understandable coin analogy so here's why it makes no difference to client diversity: when you run a validator with more than 32 ETH you don't need a separate new node for every validator and you can run tens of millions USD worth of validators on a single node, single hardware, single client implementation. There's no difference now vs. after the (potential) update if you want to run a new node for every 32 ETH validator. You should read stuff beyond /biz/, you will learn absolutely zero technical stuff here.

[Anonymous No.55352867]

>>55351993
>There's no difference now vs. after the (potential) update if you want to run a new node for every 32 ETH validator.
I understand you CAN have the same behavior as now, after the update.
but it's encouraging centralization of validators.
so, imagine I want to stake 320 eth.
old way, if I really want to stake them all on node A, I'd stake 32 eth 10 times in a row.
but most people would say oh, I have options and I get different staking rewards depending on that node's performance, ok so, I'll stake some here, I'll stake some there, and I end up with 160 eth on node A, 96 on node B, and the remaining 64 on node C.
vs the proposed update is, I just stake all 320 eth on node A, because it's convenient, and it seems to have the most people staking, so I think it's the safest.
and you're telling me this is not more centralized then before.
the update is encouraging consolidation of validators to fewer nodes, of course that's going to be more centralized, it will be more consolidated.
the coin analogy is retarded because USD isn't used for consensus as staked eth is.

[Anonymous No.55352874]

The more the methead seeth the more the short is save. CS failures and communication degrees, from voice chat. lol

[Anonymous No.55353333]

>>55352867
>centralization of validators
You're talking about centralization of client implementations on an individual staker's level, not validator (ETH stake, voting power) centralization. This has no effect on the network level, only an individual staker's level. Network level "client implementation decentralization", also known in the industry as client diversity, is a discussion of its own, but it's not validator centralization and you're mixing the two.
>but most people would say oh, I have options
Most people only want to buy one set of hardware and want to learn one set of EL+CL combo. They have the same options before and after the update.
>I get different staking rewards depending on that node's performance
A validator node generates same profit no matter what implementation it is, it's just RNG. Actually, in a case of a massive bug the minority clients are safer from big slashings, so you have an incentive to "centralize" there to increase "decentralization" (client diversity) on the overall network.
>I just stake all 320 eth on node A
This is how it is currently and this is how it would be after the update. Staking services/techies etc. will keep using multiple clients, nothing changes.
>the update is encouraging consolidation of validators to fewer nodes
I disagree. There's no new incentives to add or remove nodes from the network after the update. It's exactly the same as it's now.
>analogy is retarded because USD isn't used
Do you know what an analogy is? My point was 10 * 32 = 1* 320 even if 10 > 1.
Your arguments are getting all over the place and I feel like you're doing everything to keep it going. You're mixing the terms of validator centralization and client diversity (and earlier validator key pair and validator node) and even on client diversity you're talking about an individual staker and not the overall network. It's fine if an individual staker isn't running all clients, it's fine to centralize on one EL+CL combo.

[Anonymous No.55353453]

>>55352867
>it seems to have the most people staking, so I think it's the safest
If you use a majority client you will suffer bigger slashings in case goes down because of a bug. There's this incentive to use minority clients, but sure I get the bias that many people want to use the most popular client. This is no different before or after the update.
>>55353333
Checking myself. Want to talk about how centralized my wife's affection is? Centralization is bad, maybe I should go to reddit to incentivize decentralization. This has as much to do with Ethereum centralization as this anon's argument.

[Anonymous No.55354058]

>>55353333
>I disagree. There's no new incentives to add or remove nodes from the network after the update. It's exactly the same as it's now.
you try to condescend and make this so complicated because you don't like the answer.
staking will consolidate on fewer nodes.
the network will be objectively more centralized.

[Anonymous No.55354218]

>>55354058
Tell me what changes with this new update that would reduce node count? There is no new incentives to either side and I've dissected all your arguments. Your first argument was about validator count dropping and leading to centralization, which was proven wrong with the elementary coin analogy, then your argument was for a single staker's validator diversification which obviously is not node centralization. I'm not making it complicated, I'm probably just wasting my time arguing someone too ignorant and stubborn.

[Anonymous No.55354234]

>>55354218
>single staker's validator diversification
Or more accurately single staker's client implementation diversification.

[Anonymous No.55354692]

>>55354218
>I'm not making it complicated
you are as I only made one argument, which again for reference, is staking will consolidate to fewer nodes.
and the reason for that is the update is making that consolidation an unintentional decision, again, e.g. I have 320 eth, currently if I want to stake all that on 1 node, I need to do it 10 times, whereas after the update, I stake 320 on 1 singular node because it's convenient.
I mean for fucks sake, I don't know why I'm even arguing with you, the eth foundation says it'd make the network more centralized. e.g.
>"Michael Neuder, an Ethereum Foundation researcher and key proponent of the proposed change, made the case for this increase, during the most recent Ethereum core developer consensus meeting held on Friday. He said while THE CURRENT VALIDATOR CAP [OF 32] PROMOTES DECENTRALIZATION, it inadvertently leads to an inflation of the validator set size."
>https://www.theblock.co/post/235386/ethereum-developers-consider-raising-validator-limit-from-32-to-2048-eth

[Anonymous No.55354964]

>>55354692
>if I want to stake all that on 1 node, I need to do it 10 times, whereas after the update, I stake 320 on 1 singular node because it's convenient.
The convenience difference of staking on one node with 10 validators vs. one node and 1 validator in negligible. There is convenience difference on staking on two or more nodes vs. one but this exists today and is not going to change if the effective limit is raised. There. Is. No. Fucking. Difference.
>Neuder
Vishal from The Block obviously didn't do his job right because nowhere in the CL call did Neuder say what is quoted in the article. He only said it's a trade-off between UX and spec change complexity. Neuder's proposal is from 59:40 to 1:21:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybgQuRcz9sg

[Anonymous No.55355008]

>>55354692
>you are as I only made one argument
Your first argument was "objectively there would be less validators in total, and therefore consensus is more centralized" the second one was "which means potentially my validators are spread across 10 different nodes". Note that "validator" is not the same as "node". One node can have many validators, as you now know.

[Anonymous No.55355077]

Eth is fucked.

[Anonymous No.55355148]

So much FUD in this thread and it's sad to see. I don't know where to start.

[Anonymous No.55355360]

>>55354964
from mikeneuder proposal
>Why we shouldn’t increase it
>considerations around committees – Given validators have differing stake, partitioning them into committees may result in some validators having much larger impact over the committee than others. Additionally, by reducing the validator set size, we decrease the safety margin of random sampling. For sync committees, this is not an issue because sampling the participants is done with replacement and proportional to effective balance. Once a sync committee is selected each validator receives one vote. For attesting committees, some validators will have much more voting power by having a larger effective balance. Additionally, with less validators, there is a higher probability that an attacker could own the majority of the weight of an attesting committee. However, with a sufficiently large sample, we argue that the safety margins are not being reduced enough to warrent concern. For example, if the validator set is reduced by 4x, we need 55% honest validators to achieve safety (honest majority) of a single slot with probability

[Anonymous No.55355559]

>>55350335
You would have made a lot by staking anon. Crypto has a lot of earning streams and AI gems like Fet and Peaq which gives users ownership of machines has caught my attention.