Відео

tbh I need to learn more about actual cryptography to understand it. It seems to be using elliptic curve pairing based cryptography to aggregate signatures together similar to the BLS signatures used in Ethereum. These aggregated signatures can then be used in things like state proofs and are basically just the validators all signing something and aggregating their signatures together so it doesn't use much space.

@@altexplainer nice, no problem. I’ll continue to watch these videos anyways - I appreciate the content

It's already been released. No one it using it though

ETC uses proof of work and isn't used anywhere near as much as ETH. One of the main things that add value for cryptocurrencies is network effects. The more people who use a crypto, the more valuable it becomes. ETC isn't really being used so isn't better than ETH.

They still have their private key that can create signatures. They can't create blocks from after they stopped staking but can create blocks from before this. e.g. They started staking at block 100 and stopped at block 150. The chain is now on block 200. The attacker can't create a valid block after 150 but can create a valid alternate block between blocks 100 and 150. They could create this alternate block but this time in their alternate chain, not make the un-staking transaction. Then they can continue building the chain on-top of this block as in this alternate chain, they are still an active validator. No one else who is online would recognise this alternate chain as they could see it wasn't made on time but for new nodes joining the network, they will see 2 valid chains and will need help deciding which is correct.

@@altexplainer Very well explained, very knowledgeable !!! big hugs !! But why does it have to be 51% staked for this secret fork to happen ? and how could this secret fork chain be heavier than the real chain ? And did anything like this ever happen in the past in ethereum history and how was it solved ?

This attack is theoretical for proof of stake chains. Ethereum uses weak subjectivity as mentioned in the video to prevent it from happening in the first place.

1. Yes attestation is basically the same as a vote. 2. Only 16 random validators are chosen to produce a BLS signature. You only need 1 person to do it per committee but 16 are chosen for redundancy incase the 1 person chosen is offline or doesn't receive the signatures from everyone. 3. Yes if many validators aren't voting they will get punished by the inactivity leak so will eventually go below 16.75 ETH which is when they will be ejected from the active validator set. The validators that were voting will then make up a higher percentage of the active validator set so should be able to hit 67% again and reach finality. Thanks, glad it's been useful

Yes this is correct. All consensus methods are basically ways to vote

Glad I could help, I also had to do a lot of reading to finally figure out data availability. The way it's normally described is not intuitive

eth2book.info/capella/part2/incentives/rewards/ This is a good resource for more in-depth areas of Ethereum staking. The reward for validators comes from newly minted Ether but it's hard to predict the exact rate of minting as the more validators in the network, the more Ether gets minted. The burn rate still works the same as EIP-1559 and is also difficult to predict as it comes from how much users are willing to pay in transaction fees. During bull markets there will be more fees burned and during bear markets there will be less.

You are right, it looks like I accidentally used 1,200,000,000 for the calculations. I don't think I can do anything to edit the video but I'll see if I can add a correction somewhere. Thanks for pointing it out

No problem at all just wanted to make sure I was understanding ok. Great video btw - best I've found on UA-cam. Its well paced and gives credible, and deep explanation with highly effective visuals. More please, greatly appreciated! @@altexplainer

I don't think the trilemma is solvable so it's more down to what aspects you think are more important. I think crypto's main use case is being high security so chains that aim for high security and decentralisation are best. Then to get scalability we should use L2's. Out of the L2's I've looked at, rollups and validiums seem the best and Ethereum is by far the furthest ahead with using these so currently Ethereum is the closest to solving the trilemma. For governance, it's going to be difficult to beat the existing social consensus model. Using stake seems like a worse option as it leaves any vote up to a few whales who own all the stake. I don't really see any good governance models out there yet and think a lot more experiments will be needed. I also don't think L1's should be experimenting with governance at all and we should leave all governance experiments to L2's until one of them finds something good.

Which would take priority? If there's a fork and fork A has the majority of the hashpower but fork B has the majority of the stake which one wins? If proof of stake always wins over proof of work in a fork, why not just fully switch to proof of stake?

The L1 will only accept new updates from the rollup if the rollup provides data. If the rollup shuts down without sharing the latest data, the latest changes won't be accepted on the L1 so users can still withdraw from the L1 from an older state as the newer states aren't valid. Erasure coding means if you have 50% of the data you can recreate 100% of the data. This means if you sample some of the data from a node and have made enough samples to be statistically confident that the node has more than 50% of the data, then you can be confident that enough data has been shared so that 100% of the data can be recreated. This allows a light client to only sample a small amount of data to confirm a large amount of data has been published/made available without having to download all the data itself.

@@altexplainer thanks but what if the sequencer shuts down after posting to L1? If you do not withdraw immidiately, then the data is not available anymore?

If they post to L1 without sharing the data the L1 will reject their post. You will be able to withdraw through the last valid post that did contain data.

Just watched the video, he doesn't really explain how to get the dapp with all the users to a Hydra head though which is the big problem. Then you also need to prevent any single user from closing a head for everyone. Still waiting for Cardano to explain this as currently Hydra doesn't look that useful tbh.

Yeah miners could just leave in that case. The mining pool decides the block and all miners contribute hash power to creating the block. If they disagree with the blocks that the mining pool is producing, they can switch to another mining pool and contribute hash power to a different block. The attack I described is incentivising miners to join mining pools that produce empty or highly censored blocks because the mining pools are able to give extra rewards due to a subsidy from a country like Russia/China.

Essentially Avalanche is much much faster whereas Ouroboros is one of the slowest consensus methods outside of bitcoin. The advantage of Ouroboros is that it will stay online even if the majority of participants go offline for whatever reason whereas Avalanche is set up to freeze if only 20% of participants are offline. Avalanche is designed for speed whereas ouroboros is designed for robustness. I may make a video on subnets in the future but I personally don't think subnets or side chains are particularly good for scaling and rollups/validiums are the far superior technology. Subnets make the assumption that a subset of the stakers are honest but you can only make this assumption if you are randomly selecting the subset. If you are hand selecting the stakers like subnets then you can hand pick a subset of malicious stakers to run the subnet and eventually steal everyone's funds. I personally don't think they are that different to sidechains and don't think either are good long term solutions.

@@altexplainerok interesting. I’ve been very interested in learning about how these Avalanche and Ouroboros as well as Polkadots consensuses allow anyone to make their own custom brand new blockchain and plug into the consensus model each has and attain “automatic decentralization”. The reason to connect all these blockchains is to improve interoperability and communication between blockchains which they say is absolutely going to be necessary.

You can't attain "automatic decentralisation" from just using a certain consensus model. The decentralisation part comes from how decentralised the participants of the consensus model are. If you only have 1 person with 100 computers participating in the consensus model, it's not decentralised. Interoperability is not really possible in the way people talk about it. The bitcoin token is only the bitcoin token when it is secured by bitcoin nodes. If there is a bitcoin token being secured by polkadot nodes, it's no longer a bitcoin token as the security properties are different. It is now a wrapped bitcoin token. You can't actually transfer assets between blockchains without changing the security properties. Some methods like sharding and rollups allow for almost the same security properties between chains and so for example people don't refer to ETH on a rollup chain as wrapped ETH but instead as just ETH as the security is almost the same as ETH on the L1 but really it is also wrapped ETH under the hood. If you don't care about maintaining security when transferring between chains then that's not a difficult problem and was solved already with any bridge. When you send BTC to Coinbase that means bitcoin is interoperable with Coinbase. For me, interoperability is just a marketing term and is either impossible or already possible and very easy.

@@altexplainer what do you think about how in Ouroboros proof of stake, the person that wins the slot doesn’t have to be limited to only making 1 block for Cardano, but also has the ability to make 2 or 3 or more blocks at the same time while they’re in that slot, and the notion that several of these stake pool operators can make several blocks at once while they’re in a slot in an epoch? Like what may happen when Midnight and other chains join the network. And they’re incentivized to do multiple blocks for multiple chains to get rewards for the blocks created by those chains as well. And delegators will also want to delegate to pools that are giving them multiple rewards on multiple chains. So when somebody wants to build a brand new blockchain, rather than having to figure out their own science to a consensus mechanism, and then recruit people from scratch to join their network, the can join an already existing network like Cardano, Avalanche, Polkadot, or whichever they like. They have that option too.

If the validators are creating more blocks that means more work for nodes which leads to node requirements increasing. Increasing the node requirements means less people can afford to run a node at home meaning the network is less decentralised. If you are going the route of making validators require powerful hardware, Solana is already very good at this. Rollups/validiums are the answer to someone wanting to build a new chain without having to build a consensus and recruit people from scratch. There are teams like sovereign labs who I think are working on making it easy for anyone to launch a rollup. Imo, if the scalability solution is not using zero knowledge proofs, it's an outdated design and rollups are probably better.

Glad it was helpful!

Hedera requires extremely powerful nodes with excellent internet connections to run whereas Cardano can be run on very cheap nodes by anyone. I can run a Cardano node on my old laptop. I can't run a Hedera node so can't actually validate it myself. The level of decentralisation is completely different.

If I do it will be in a few months

@@altexplainer Na dont worry. It goes down too much. Not worth investing in it. Cardano just handled that attack like a champ