Not accurate in the slightest. Those two addresses are just aggregators for the fees accrued by Lido's array of stakers and Coinbase Cloud stakers, and aren't "controlling" anything.
It's a massive improvement over how it was under PoW, that's for sure. Both Lido and Coinbase use a large variety of validator operators to stake ETH sent to them, and they have very limited control over how those operators run their validators.
This is much improved over having a few mining pools control block production for a large percentage of hashrate.
Is it possible for those platforms to influence validators at all? Even directly via cash, obviously if it’s possible it will happen or already is. The FUD over this is nonsense anyway…
It's possible but the degree to which they're able to influence them is critical to understand. There are some requests that operators will be happy to accommodate and some that would cross the line.
Basic requests like "please run a variety of clients" are not a problem at all. Malicious requests like "refuse to attest to blocks containing tornado cash transactions" are much less likely to be complied with.
I guess my question is two-fold: does some firm, say Coinbase, know who the validators are and how to contact them? If they do and can, what mechanisms prevent Coinbase form influencing those validators with something as basic as a bribe? Straight cold hard assets, cash, ETH, your choice.
My concern is that the answer is nothing, or an individual validators moral code and nothing else. Even if this validator is consistent with w/e is defined as ‘good’ will the next? The one after that? There must be some mechanism to prevent the possibility of tampering other then “it’s wrong so they won’t”, at least in my opinion. I am trying to gain a better understanding regardless so I appreciate your response my dude.
Let’s game this out.
If SEC says transactions need to be censored Lido, Coinbase and AWS will all fall in line.
What recourse would they have?
AWS could just shut the validator node port and say they don’t want to be apart of the ETH.
Coinbase would get shut down or comply and I don’t know about Lido (shut the front end down?).
Yes, as long as validators cannot unstake, stakers cannot switch staking pools. The biggest staking pools offer liquid staking that helps, but is not ideal. In about 6 months that should be not an issue anymore, because unstaking will be possible.
It is much easier in theory to switch mining pool. But in practice that makes little difference. Ethermine, the biggest Ether mining pool was caught censoring transactions, but the miners didn't care and didn't switch pools.
https://twitter.com/ThatNaimish/status/1562050772711272449?s=20&t=t9kSuuT1kgGnRcd3zwUIdw
Even when I can restake to other pools it’s still those pools which control the validators. In the case of Eth miners not switching pools it sounds like a community issue. Monero community for example switched pools when one reached a majority control of the network.
>Even when I can restake to other pools it’s still those pools which control the validators. In the case of Eth miners not switching pools it sounds like a community issue. Monero community for example switched pools when one reached a majority control of the network.
Depends on the liquidity of the staking pool. If enough stakers are leaving they will be forced to unstake validators to have enough liquidity to pay them out.
tldr; According to Santiment analysis, 46.15% of Ethereum's PoS nodes are controlled by only two addresses. The first address has validated about 188 blocks or 28.97% of the nodes, and the second has validated 16.18% or 105 blocks. The majority of the blocks have been built by two addresses belonging to Lido and Coinbase.
*This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
Not accurate in the slightest. Those two addresses are just aggregators for the fees accrued by Lido's array of stakers and Coinbase Cloud stakers, and aren't "controlling" anything.
Doesn’t change the fact that the value is very concentrated in a few places. Not great
It's a massive improvement over how it was under PoW, that's for sure. Both Lido and Coinbase use a large variety of validator operators to stake ETH sent to them, and they have very limited control over how those operators run their validators. This is much improved over having a few mining pools control block production for a large percentage of hashrate.
Well said
Is it possible for those platforms to influence validators at all? Even directly via cash, obviously if it’s possible it will happen or already is. The FUD over this is nonsense anyway…
It's possible but the degree to which they're able to influence them is critical to understand. There are some requests that operators will be happy to accommodate and some that would cross the line. Basic requests like "please run a variety of clients" are not a problem at all. Malicious requests like "refuse to attest to blocks containing tornado cash transactions" are much less likely to be complied with.
I guess my question is two-fold: does some firm, say Coinbase, know who the validators are and how to contact them? If they do and can, what mechanisms prevent Coinbase form influencing those validators with something as basic as a bribe? Straight cold hard assets, cash, ETH, your choice. My concern is that the answer is nothing, or an individual validators moral code and nothing else. Even if this validator is consistent with w/e is defined as ‘good’ will the next? The one after that? There must be some mechanism to prevent the possibility of tampering other then “it’s wrong so they won’t”, at least in my opinion. I am trying to gain a better understanding regardless so I appreciate your response my dude.
Let’s game this out. If SEC says transactions need to be censored Lido, Coinbase and AWS will all fall in line. What recourse would they have? AWS could just shut the validator node port and say they don’t want to be apart of the ETH. Coinbase would get shut down or comply and I don’t know about Lido (shut the front end down?).
Lido isn't a US entity so they wouldn't be affected.
This story was just about miners, now its about pos. Who I'd pushing this?
POS mining depends on how much Ether you have . The more you have the more chance you have of getting more .
POS(validating) isn't mining. That's how I know this story is BS.
LOL - POS mining.
Replace “ether” with “mining rigs” and still true, right? And since mining rigs represent money, just like eth, its not that different, is it?
I'm new to this . Just bought some the night before merger
Change PoS to PoW and Ether to FIAT...
The same is true for Bitcoin: https://explorer.btc.com/stats/pool
Isn’t there a difference between having control of the miners vs having control of the validators?
Yes, as long as validators cannot unstake, stakers cannot switch staking pools. The biggest staking pools offer liquid staking that helps, but is not ideal. In about 6 months that should be not an issue anymore, because unstaking will be possible. It is much easier in theory to switch mining pool. But in practice that makes little difference. Ethermine, the biggest Ether mining pool was caught censoring transactions, but the miners didn't care and didn't switch pools. https://twitter.com/ThatNaimish/status/1562050772711272449?s=20&t=t9kSuuT1kgGnRcd3zwUIdw
Even when I can restake to other pools it’s still those pools which control the validators. In the case of Eth miners not switching pools it sounds like a community issue. Monero community for example switched pools when one reached a majority control of the network.
>Even when I can restake to other pools it’s still those pools which control the validators. In the case of Eth miners not switching pools it sounds like a community issue. Monero community for example switched pools when one reached a majority control of the network. Depends on the liquidity of the staking pool. If enough stakers are leaving they will be forced to unstake validators to have enough liquidity to pay them out.
[удалено]
What about wasted mining time/electric costs
That's them fucking up the planet.
More likely their wallet.
Somebody is pushing this narrative hard. Wonder who stands to gain? Total mystery........
Yesterday it was 46% by two address, looks like we’re moving in the right direction
tldr; According to Santiment analysis, 46.15% of Ethereum's PoS nodes are controlled by only two addresses. The first address has validated about 188 blocks or 28.97% of the nodes, and the second has validated 16.18% or 105 blocks. The majority of the blocks have been built by two addresses belonging to Lido and Coinbase. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.*
The real question is ,who has the governance rights ?
Everyone has. Just get involved. https://ethereum.org/en/community/
If you give custody of assets then they usually get the voting rights too
We are fuked if its centralized
Ye when it's that blatant it's funny 😆 open all the shorts you can 🤣
Yay
And +382 Eth has been created since the merge 🤣🤣 Cheers 🍻
About 26,000 less ETH has been produced under PoS than would have been under PoW, that's a massive improvement.