Something else to note is that transactions on the IOTA network are feeless. This means IOTA has an inherent competitive edge over virtually all blockchain networks and traditional payment infrastructure. The fifth and final fast-scaling cryptocurrency is Cardano ADA 4. Back in , Cardano was capable of around TPS. However, with the eventual launch of the Hydra upgrade, which I'll discuss in a moment, theoretical targets of 1,, TPS have been postulated. Arguably the greatest thing about Cardano is its development team, which has laid out clear steps as to how the network will be improved over time.
The Shelley upgrade in the summer of increased the number of nodes each network participant could run, and ultimately sent the number of daily transactions on the blockchain skyrocketing higher. This was followed by the Goguen update in September Goguen introduced smart contracts to the network, and opened the door for it to compete with Ethereum over dApp development.
However, the Hydra upgrade, which has no timetable, could really turn heads and raise eyebrows. Hydra would funnel transactions to off-chain staking pools, which are known as Hydra Nodes. The idea here is that moving transactions off the main blockchain ensures the network won't slow down while being rapidly scaled.
Cost basis and return based on previous market day close. Calculated by average return of all stock recommendations since inception of the Stock Advisor service in February of Discounted offers are only available to new members. Calculated by Time-Weighted Return since Volatility profiles based on trailing-three-year calculations of the standard deviation of service investment returns.
Invest better with The Motley Fool. Get stock recommendations, portfolio guidance, and more from The Motley Fool's premium services. Premium Services. Stock Advisor. View Our Services. Our Purpose:. Latest Stock Picks. Key Points. Bitcoin and Ethereum are extremely popular, but they're only capable of handling a respective seven and 13 transactions per second.
Today's Change. Current Price. Move over Bitcoin and Ethereum, because these crypto networks can scale much quicker. Image source: Getty Images. Questioning an investing thesis — even one of our own — helps us all think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer. Why Solana Is Rising Today. Motley Fool Returns Market-beating stocks from our award-winning service. Stock Advisor Returns.
Join Stock Advisor. Our Most Popular Articles. Get Started Now. Author: Jeffrey Craig Date: November 2, Transactions per second TPS refers to how many transactions the network can process in a second, followed by how rapidly the network can confirm a trade or an exchange. If a cryptocurrency is experiencing an increase in its transaction volume, the average speed will be cut back. Transactions are the underlying unit of activity on any blockchain. How rapidly transactions are processed is critical in determining how useful a given cryptocurrency will turn out to be.
Transaction per second TPS refers to the number of transactions that a network can process each second. The faster the network is, the better it manages congestion. As a result, this gives it a higher payment efficiency and thus, a higher chance of adoption , institutional or individual. Bitcoin transactions operate more like cash i. Moreover, Bitcoin is not currently broadly accepted and must be used through an exchange.
Visa and Mastercard are widely accepted but they charge fees. These companies offer fraud protection, but Bitcoin unfortunately does not. Some benefits possessed by Bitcoin in comparison to PayPal include lower transaction costs, time reduction, more freedom to perform transactions, and they are decentralized in nature.
Some altcoins , however, surpass Bitcoin in these characteristics, which has given rise to a blossoming decentralized finance DeFi market. Many altcoins aspire to become the next Bitcoin by naming themselves as inexpensive alternative methods for making digital transactions. In addition, their networks in fact already offer higher speeds and greater utility. However, its implementation has many limitations. For example, Proof-of-Work PoW , the consensus mechanism used to create blocks is energy-intensive and tedious.
|Ethereum in 2018||332|
|Buying ethereum debit card||707|
|Btcp price bittrex||600|
|Como comprar bitcoins en argentina||664|
|Ethereum average tps||729|
|Ethereum average tps||927|
|Ethereum average tps||535|
Base-layer space cannot be minimized too much, as users and applications still need it to eg. Hence, if necessary, having execution shards instead of 1 could provide significant relief. Most of it comes down to how to implement much of this Layer 2 future while still keeping it simple enough for users and beginner devs of the system to not:. Incorporating different layers with different security guarantees and different requirements will put a lot of pressure on multiple areas of the ecosystem, especially user adoption and usability.
Otherwise we are just building Ethereum for the niche tech. I absolutely agree with this. That said, I think there are ways to minimize the tradeoffs! Additionally perhaps most importantly? I expect that a lot of the work will be done by the major defi projects, who have a large incentive to economize on fees and to make sure that their systems continue to be easy to use; we can do a lot by leaning on them as highly motivated early adopters.
Even Gitcoin has already helped the ecosystem ease quite a bit into seeing what an L2-centric world will look like. You mentioned a few rollup projects. Most of them are using fraud proofs as their security model apart from Zksync and Deversifi. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. For these reasons:. How can those contract keep consistency when a mint function fired on RU? Anyway, some investigation of secure RU contract design would be needed.
ZKP generation can be much better decentralized due to its self-verifying nature than OR aggregation. Fraud proof markets are a solution to the problem, they cannot drive adoption once the problem is not relevant anymore. The compiler progressed pretty well and a lot of well known contracts can be compiled to Yul now such as Uniswap, Gnosis Safe, etc. I did not know there was a deadline for launch though, and obviously the Yul IR work is planned to take longer.
Besides that, we were lately talking about this exact topic you raise, to consider the requirements of layer 2 systems when designing the Solidity language. We are in the process of discussing a standard library and some ideas regarding dialects, which would definitely be helpful.
I have made a claim about this proposal on The Ether, which allows for signalling of if you are for the more roll-up centric road-map or against the more roll-up centric roadmap. Additionally, it will allow you to see the top arguments on the for and against side. I did my best to summarize the core points of vbuterin and souptacular discussion so far, but feel free to write your own arguments that are better than mine in order to flesh out the trade-offs.
For optimistic zk rollup we need to publish 2 nullifiers and 2 new utxos per transaction and one proof 2 compressed g1 and one g2 point. Also, to keep the rollup working we should publish anywhere encrypted messages from users. A simple note is amount, owner, salt , we should publish at least one note and ephemeral public key per tx.
So, it is about bytes and this cost should be the same for both zk and optimistic constructions. You are a product of your own inability to take action against ASICs for almost 3 years now. They have increased network security costs so high that none of the GPU community was healthy enough to voluntarily take a cut in fees due to them finally getting to break even. Of course, you could aggregate the proofs for many transactions in the block without checking them on-chain, but this construction would not be an optimistic rollup—it would be a ZK rollup with optimistic verification: combining the worst of both worlds.
You compare optimistic rollup with proving system, developed for zk rollup in proving single transactions case with zk zk rollups. As you mentioned, the proof size will be some kilobytes. Btw, is there any community approved methods to store off-chain data for private transactions like encrypted utxo? If both user and data storage forget the data, assets will be stuck. Also, if data storage forgets the data and the user could not send it directly to the receiver, assets will be stuck too.
A rollup-centric ethereum roadmap ethereum-roadmap , layer What would a rollup-centric ethereum roadmap look like? The Short Term: Advancing Eth1 for Rollups In the short term, one major outcome of this is that Ethereum base-layer scaling would primarily be focused on scaling how much data blocks can hold, and not efficiency of on-chain computation or IO operations.
There are a few things that follow from this: ENS needs to support names being registered and transferred on L2 ; see here for one possible proposal of how to do this. Layer 2 protocols should be built into the wallet , not webpage-like dapps. We ideally want to make L2s part of the wallet itself metamask, status, etc so that we can keep the current trust model. This support should be standardized, so that an application that supports zksync payments would immediately support zksync-inside-Metamask, zksync-inside-Status, etc.
Q: Why is ETH 2. A: ETH 2. The reason we have phases 0, 1, 2 is to break things down conceptually, and in terms of incremental releases to limit risk. Q: What work is being done to make the research behind ETH 2. Are there any efforts to translate research specifications into other languages? A: Are there any efforts to translate research specifications into other languages?
Once the spec is more mature I expect the community to pick this up, somewhat similar to how Andreas's books get translated. English seems to be the a lingua franca for research and development. Q: After PoS, if a node gets hacked, can the hacker make the node to lose its stake by confirming false transactions? A: When your validator gets penalised it is automatically deregistered to prevent further damage. We have a mechanism called "partial slashing".
The idea is that, if something goes wrong with your validator it only gets penalised a bit if not many other validators also mess up around that time. So in the optimistic case of a lone hack you should recover most of your funds with your withdrawal key kept secure, e. A: That will likely be unlocked with abstraction which includes gas abstraction. Q: Assuming the number of network nodes remains the same and the network graduates to full PoS A: Rough ballpark figures.
Q: What is the most updated timeline for rolling out PoS? Since Vitalik already said 'research is done', what are developers' incentives to push things forward? Are there any specific measures taken to ensure a smooth transition? A: I expect the beacon chain the core PoS chain to launch late Ideally the spec should be close to final in Q1, cross-client testnets in Q2, security audits in Q3, mainnet launch in Q4. So November and January would be my two best guesses.
Having the Ethereum 2. For example: private eth network run in a shard connected to main eth network from which it takes just security from validators. Private transaction with ZKsnarks shard s. Encrypted data shards. Erc20 like coin launched on ETH 2. A: Every shard has the same data availability layer, and the option to use EVM2. That's common base-layer infrastructure. At the application layer contracts can be powered by non-EVM2. There's also a huge L2 design around state channels, plasma, cross-shard communication, etc.
So at the application layer I expect lots of non-homogeneity across shards, as well as a lots of homogeneity thanks to standardisation. How much thinking is being devoted to the greater infrastructure requirements of Eth 2. A: PoS enables goodies such as economic finality and sharding.
It is also much cheaper in terms of inflation cost for hodlers, as well as ecologically than PoW. Q: What do you feel is the biggest unsolved challenge left in Eth 2. A: I really honestly think that there are no unsolved research challenges at this point. It's mostly "how do we make this thing more elegant and take up fewer lines of code and have fewer edge cases" on the research side. Better understanding the incentives and various actors that might arise in a stateless and highly abstracted execution model.
There is really great work being led by both the EF eWASM team and the Consensys Quilt team to better understand the design space and active build prototypes to vet ideas. Q: Previously, a release date of January for Phase 0 was informally articulated. Do you feel this date is realistic and achievable? A: Thanks for noting its informality. We need: long-running test nets however that is defined , formal verification of the deposit contract, and clients to be ready for prime time, but right now it looks like everything will come together in time.
We also don't want to rush clients into developing buggy software just to be ready by an arbitrary date. If anything, I think BLS standardisation efforts are the most likely to slow us down. We as a greater blockchain community are trying very hard to have a standardised signature scheme for better interoperability between all the chains. There is a high degree of consensus on this already, but establishing a new standard is always a slow process.
The client teams are doing a great job and continuing to push the envelope. I expect exciting progress to be made in the coming months, but I also expect that the last mile might be long. Q: Are the researchers happy with the current state of the economics of Ethereum 2.
A: I don't think it's productive for us to worry about the absolute numbers at this point; the network will launch, and either the rewards will prove sufficient or they won't. The other thing worth worrying about is centralization incentives, but that's difficult to work out "in theory land"; much of the result in practice has to do with how lazy people are. Q: My biggest worry about ETH 2. A: Composability between shards is definitely unchartered territory but there are reasons to be optimistic:.
The shards are designed for homogeneity unlike, say, Polkadot or Cosmos to facilitate cross-shard communication. There are design patterns which abstract away the boundaries between shards. For example, one could consider shards 0 and 1 as a combined data availability substrate for an execution engine which requires more bandwidth. These design patterns will be more easily exploitable in the context of programmable execution engines.
The shards are designed to be friendly to "fast optimistic finality" thanks to shard attestations which are somewhat analogous to block confirmations in the context of Eth1. What this means that is, in practice, the shards may act as one logical blockchain thanks to quick probabilistic finality of individual shards. A: My best guess is early See here. Q: Under the specs there is a " block.
A: In order for Eth2 to finalise Eth1, 2 things are needed, Eth2 must vote on Eth1 as is implemented as you point out and Eth1 must change its fork rule to follow the finalised blocks on Eth1. The latter requirement requires an Eth1 hardfork. It is therefore easier to just have validator finalise the things you mention for now and later on add in Eth1 finalisation. Additionally, it is safer to launch without Eth1 finalisation in case of a Eth2 black-swan event in the early days.
A: It got considerably simpler over the last year. If you do a word count on the spec, it seems to be considerably smaller than the yellow paper at this point. There's a lot of things in eth2 that are much simpler than eth1. But there's definitely lingering complexity and I deeply care about minimizing it. While the research path has been somewhat tortuous and hard to follow, the end product is arguably simple and clean.
Expect more educational material highlighting the simplicity of the current design. I expect phases 1 and 2 to be lines of code combined assuming WASM as primitive. That's just the phase 0 consensus deposit contract, beacon chain state transition function, and beacon chain fork choice rule. Q: Why are there so many teams building eth2. I understand the point of client diversity but don't you think 6 clients seem to be pushing it?
Supporting so many clients would also divide the resources in terms of funding. Which clients do you see as the geth and parity of eth2. I expect specialisation—one can focus on the browser e. Lodestar , resource-constrained devices e. Nimbus , the enterprise e. Artemis , prototyping e. Trinity , etc. A minimum of two production-ready clients are necessary for launch.
I expect the first-mover advantage to be strong. We definitely don't want a duopoly! I expect a power law distribution, and it's definitely likely that some of the clients will not survive to see significant usage on mainnet. My guess on why so many clients showed up to do the hard work is that eth2. I'm pleased that there are so many great teams doing the hard work, but recently, I've been more focused on finding contributors to do value-add work outside of the core client implementation.
Formal verification, academic analysis of protocols, testing, light clients, web3 interfaces and developer tooling, validator clients with great UX that plug into any underlying node, etc, etc. Q: Are the Ethereum 2. For example, will Prism ever get merged to Geth? On Prism: "Likely not. Other than the language Go , Prysm and Geth have very little in common. Q: what happens when I stake 32 eth, and get slashed once? A: Validators get kicked out when they get slashed. There is another ejection mechanism if your balance goes below 16 ETH from accumulating non-slashing penalties.
There is an additional penalty related to the number of other slashable offenses that have occurred in the recent time period. If more validators have been slashed recently, you lose more ETH. This highlights the importance of having a discorrelated validator setup from other nodes and potentially having some fault tolerance setup with yourself before you sign things.
A: There are micro-penalties for not voting to finalise the same blocks as other validators and the inactivity penalty for offline validators for when the chain is not finalising for an extended period of time. Q: i hear a lot of hype around staking rewards, but what are the penalties for getting slashed? If your validator node goes offline for 18 days, and the beacon chain is not finalizing, then your balance will be reduced by "up to If a validator behaves provably maliciously, then they are slashed by having their balance reduced.
Assuming client software is written well, this should be basically impossible to happen to you. Minimum penalty is 1 ETH, but it goes up linearly in the number of people slashed at the same time as you. See here for more [Carl]. Important to note that if you are offline, but the chain is still finalizing you only stand to lose approximately the same as you would have gained. A: The execution engine abstraction in phase 2 is quite exciting, taking account abstraction to the next level.
It allows for the consensus part of execution to be an ultra thin layer of abstraction on top of data availability. Assuming WASM as a black box, it may be on the order of lines of code to specify. There's an initial proposal from Vitalik here. The idea is that even the notion of a "transaction" is an application-layer detail which can be specified as WASM code. I'm lately most excited about this. I understand theres an effort to spread the cost out among various communities, but I think many people feel this might just end up being an expensive science project where the rewards dont justify the costs and if you itemised Eth 2.
I appreciate that the researchers are a tackling a difficult problem with randomness for a blockchain. I actually think the main value of the VDF is that it provides global trustable secure randomness to applications that need it. The other "promise" of VDFs is that they are a new cryptographic building block with the rather unique notion of time.
They can used for proofs of space, proofs of replication, proofs of history, anti-frontrunning, expiring zk-proofs, and hopefully further applications which are hard to predict today. Q: I'd like to know more about the data availability layer of Ethereum 2. Part of my political platform includes integrating blockchain technology with government operations. For example, I'd like to see all of America's public records stored on a public, open source, sufficiently decentralized blockchain.
Would it make sense to build something like this on top of Ethereum 2. Why or why not? A: Realistically you would want an incentivized data storage platform like Swarm, with hashes of the documents stored on the ethereum blockchain. But I'd recommend thinking harder and trying to figure out how to answer the deeper question "how could we use blockchains as a tool to minimize opportunities for misbehavior in government?
An internal-use stablecoin where only government agencies can hold balances but transactions are visible to and auditable by the public. Get your country I'm speaking generically to all readers here :D to make an Estonian-style E-ID system that lets people make digital signatures that can be verified by anyone publicly. This is not technically a blockchain application, but it would be a tool useful in many blockchain applications [Vitalik]. Are there any other researchers on the research team that are as convinced of Ethereum's future, besides Vitalik and Justin of course?
No need to call someone out. Just percentages, ie. A: Somewhat ingrained in our culture, the research team doesn't talk much about net worths. Having said that, the research team has a lot of fresh blood e. The aforementioned Carl here, let's put it this way: financially, emotionally, and intellectually, I am heavily exposed to ETH. Q: How many Eth2. A: I asked the same question a few days ago. At this moment, it is still an open question and will likely be until much loser to the time.
Obviously having more clients is better, but that should be played off against the launch date. I am currently torn between 2 and 3. At the end of the day, it will come down to who is ready and when. Q: I understand that about 10 million eth is expected to provide good enough security for the network. As i understand, the side with less total eth staked will be slashed, so won't this malicious actor be able to effectively kill the network?
One of the beautiful things about PoS is that these attacks can be handled with grace. We, as a community, can go in and hard-fork out the malicious actors so they have no more voting power. The malicious actors just burnt a lot of money to temporally halt a network. Q:Do the client teams feel their implementations will be sufficiently robust enough, stable enough, and easy enough to use that normal nerds like myself can safely run their node software, stake 32 ETH on it, and not be slashed or lose ETH due to client bugs?
My biggest concern is losing ETH while being a well intentioned actor. One key component in the incentive design is that penalties for going offline and for being slashed are only high if many other validators go offline at the same time. So any bug that doesn't hit every node at the same time should only cost you a minimal amount. Q:suppose ethereum reaches 1 mllion tps, ledger size will grow 1 terabyte everyday, any solution to this?
A: The sharded eth2. This is not necessarily state size. The current approach to state and state execution is to take a "state-less" approach in which blocks must contain the merkle witnesses of the relevant state to perform the tx executions. This is reduces the amount of state any consensus node must store, but does bring up other issues about state size, who stores it, how users get it, etc. Much of the state rent research that ledgerwatch has driven in the past year or so will likely come into play.
Question 1: Would staking be made easy-to-do, so "ordinary" people can earn interest on their holdings? Question 2: Does staking pose any risks of losing ETH by accident? Trying to understand if you can stake without any risks unless you "intentionally" try to harm the network eg. I expect a cottage industry will be setup around accessibility. Infrastructure to be built includes staking pools centralised—think Coinbase—as well as decentralised one as well as plug-and-play "validator in a box" solutions.
Trying to understand if you can stake without any risks unless you "intentionally" try to harm the network. Penalties should be marginal for validator nodes that go offline for short periods of time every once in a while. A: The current approach is to fold eth1 into eth2 as an execution environment.
In practice, this will mean that we would need to have a hard fork on the eth1 side to rebalance some gas costs opcodes that read storage or read accounts would see their gas costs increased to , and after that at some point there will be a "flag block height" from which the eth1 state root will be moved into the eth2 system or possibly some one-time processing will be run on the eth1 state to make some optimizations, eg.
Q: Regarding Proof-of-Stake and wealth distribution and issuance reduction , by the looks of it the majority of ETH will be held by the minority of entities, does that cause any concern since a single entity can run multiple validator nodes and earn more rewards? It's a question from inequality perspective not security; if ETH were to take a significant role in the global economy, wouldn't this widen the gap between rich and poor by orders of magnitude MUCH worse than the current economic system?
Basically, economic inequality on steroids. A: I definitely think income inequality issues from crypto are an issue! It's a big part of why I am not a single-cryptocurrency maximalist. But I still think that PoW is not better than PoS from an inequality point of view, because although PoW does distribute coins into "fresh hands", you need so much capital to become a PoW miner that PoW itself is a big rich-get-richer mechanic in practice.
Q: I know its still early but are there some rough estimates of when we might see Spec freezes for Phase 1 and 2? That said, the current minimal execution design with EEs for phase 2 once better researched and prototyped is a super simple addition on top of phase 1 [Danny]. Q: Please ELI5 "explain like I'm five" why the need for a second chain instead keeping on evolving the first one? We would be constrained by the Eth1 gas limit, which would severely affect performance e.
We would be mixing the consensus and application layers. This means the consensus layer is subject to the application-layer DoS vectors e. It would also mean "enshrining" application-layer contracts, which is far from ideal from a governance standpoint which should be as neutral as possible with regards to deployed contracts i.
The DAO interventions should be the exception, not the norm. We would be constrained by the EVM, which is notoriously hard to safely program complex contracts in. We would be subject to the Eth1 block time Poisson distribution as opposed to the regular—and shorter—slots durations in Eth2. Q: I am considering to stake during phase 0, but i am a bit concerned about the inactivity leak.
I am asking this as there may be certain situations in which I think I will be offline for a while, and I do not want my balance to slowly leak out due to that. The incentives are deliberately designed to be forgiving to avoid discouraging amateur setups to promote decentralization.
A: With shards, and validators in a committee, a minimum of , validators are needed to crosslink every shard every slot. In this case, security is obviously insanely degraded, but the protocol can technically move forward. But yes, below the , validator 4.
Q: if i understand finalization correctly, the more validators you have the longer it takes to finalize. A: Correct. In Eth2, more validators should not lead to significantly longer finalization times. By making use of BLS signature aggregation and by grouping the validators into committees, we're able to support hundreds of thousands and hopefully into the millions of validators. What's your opinion on this?
I'd say this would be the remit of the community, not the EF. Note that the Eth2 designers avoided giving early validators a special reward e. We want to learn whether or not the basic incentivises are sufficient to incentivise participation. I actually like the idea of an NFT. The deposit contract is readable in such a way that proofs can be made to a separate contract to generate NFTs. Been talking to Austin Griffith about this.
I don't think an NFT would hinder our ability to understand the pure incentivizes here. It's at best a trophy and of little economic value imo. Q: How is the work on evaluating the feasibility of producing dedicated VDF hardware coming along? A: At this point there's reasonably high confidence that VDFs including building hardware are viable. A few updates:. A team of 3 ex-Intel people Simon, Sean, Kelly from Supranational is dedicated to the hardware aspects. The Rivest timelock challenge open for 20 years, designed to last 35 years was cracked in a few months using an FPGA see here, and here.
There's also code on Github. Work by Erdinc Ozturk has improved the state-of-the-art circuit depth for the modular exponentiation in VDFs. The ePrint paper was submitted a few days ago and should be published soon. A prominent complexity theorist Ryan Williams from MIT is working on circuit depth lower bounds for modular multiplication. Significant progress was made by Ligero on the RSA ceremony. We are planning for a ceremony with unprecedented scale participants in In addition to the Ethereum Foundation and Protocol Labs i.
Filecoin , a new blockchain project to be announced with the FPGA competition is helping with funding. Q: Is there a chance for obligatory anonymity of future validator withdrawals? Force every withdrawal to go to a shielded pool - like zcash does with mining rewards.
A: I definitely support moving toward more and more privacy being a default over time! I'd say validator deposits are more important to mix than withdrawals, as that way it becomes harder to locate the nodes of specific validators which seems like it would increase security and censorship resistance. Q: What are the main incentives to run a beacon node for validators if they can just connect to high-up time beacon nodes? If there are beacon node providers with high up-time - how is this going to be decentralized?
A: There is an anti-centralisation incentive mechanism baked in. Basically, validators get punished for going offline the more other validators are offline at the same time. So "uncorrelated downtime" should be optimised in addition to "high uptime". Q: If, as a validator, I know that I'm going to be offline for a period of time, is is possible to 'pause' validating without suffering an inactivity leak?
It's safe to be offline during that time, but it does prevent you from re-entering. If we want to, in some future version we could add a "re-enter" feature that allows immediate re-depositing without waiting to withdraw first Q: Do we have clarity yet on whether currently locked-down smart contracts eg metronomes 4 contracts by Jeff garzik will continue to work seamless in ETH2. And how can storage costs be added to locked-down contracts in ETH 1. In other words can we all assume immutable contracts on ETH1.
A: The current plan is that eth1 will be folded into eth2 as an execution environment via the stateless client approach, in which case, yes, contracts will keep working as expected. Can QCs just monitor the entire blockchain and automatically attempt to hijack any transaction with insecure signature scheme during one blocktime, even if the sender has no previous outgoing transactions? A: Even if a quantum computer gets announced as immediately usable tomorrow, it is possible to do an emergency procedure to secure the funds of everyone who has not yet publicly released their public key or a signature ie.
Winternitz signatures. Finality greatly mitigates the sync latency bottleneck, and the requirement for consensus participants to store historical blocks. I'd also add that I expect light clients to be massively more viable in eth2 than in eth1. About the same order of magnitude load as a bitcoin light client to stay synced as opposed to eth1, where light clients are not light enough in practice to run on phones Any wiki, tips, or advice on how to proceed contributing and profiting for Ethereum?
A: Eth2 has no mining. Q: Approximately when is ETH issuance supposed to drop dramatically? I believe the figure I've come accross is 10x reduction in issuance, is this correct also? Further reductions would happen when the PoW chain stops entirely.
If so, are there concerns exchanges will list ETH 2. Will this change? A: In Eth2 the economic security is not a direct function of the block rewards. Instead, it is a function of the total amount at stake. Q: As ETH 2. I'd say it's likely there will be a bi-directional bridge eventually though unlikely to happen in Even better than a bi-directional bridge based on light clients, which comes with non-negligible latency is native integration of Eth1 into Eth2 see here.
Q: Will the issuance rate be enough to incentivize validators given the competition from say DeFi products and will it be changed in the future if needed? But over time I do expect interest rates on ETH to slide up as more forms of staking become available eg.
I would think arbitrage would solve the issue but haven't thought too deeply on the subject myself. In paticular, if ETH 1. The greater the price delta, the greater the incentive to deliver a two-way bridge ASAP. Q: Is it still the plan that the frequently rotated notaries perform stateless validation of the blocks? If yes, are there any insights into how much extra network overhead will sending blocks with merkle proofs incur?
If no, is there any other mechanism to prevent adversaries that can corrupt a shard quickly from applying an invalid state transition? Is it still the plan that the frequently rotated notaries perform stateless validation of the blocks?
Now that execution engines are application layer, the answer is technically 0 : For execution engines that use large Merkle trees e. Eth1 the rough estimate at one point was 8x. Validators can send a deposit of 32 ETH to the deposit contract which is then transferred to the beacon chain where they can begin validation.
If Eth2 has an Eth1 execution engine, then it could be pretty painless, but even if not, an ERC20 token could just be transferred by copying over its state root. Q: Sorry in advance if my questions are dumb but I didn't follow closely Ethereum 2.
Rewards depend on the total number of validators, individual validator performance, and the gas markets. I'm proud to have been able to make a contribution in a beautiful piece of infrastructure I believe will radically change the world in a positive way :. Q: When sharding is released, will there just suddenly be shards in existence, or will there be a small but growing number of shards as usage goes up?
A: All shards will be launched at once. Growing the number of shards is probably unneeded complexity. Shards with lots of unused capacity will have lower gas prices attracting more users. Q: How can the average person help with eth2. Are there any organized efforts underway? A: Educating yourself enough to feel comfortable to participate as a validator would be fantastic : [Justin].
Q: After the scaling issues are solved will this be an economical platform to host backend logic on? How will this compare to running your own server or going through a cloud hosting company in terms of cost and ease of use for light or heavy workloads? A: It's unlikely that Eth2 on its will be used as a backend for heavy workloads, the data throughput is likely just too high. That said, it works really well as a dispute resolution layer so a centralised service can run the backend optimistically and if someone disagrees with the execution, they can contest and have it resolved on Eth2.
Does the circulating supply of ETH 2. Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple. Eth2 is such a big upgrade over Eth1 that it is easier to implement as an entirely new chain than to upgrade. See Justin's ELI5 here for more. The large majority of it, yes. Rewards are also issued on the Eth2 chain so that increases the supply there too. A: My concern with doing something like this is its inflexibility. It is basically impossible to cover all the possible cases and even if we could, I'd argue that such an approach is too inflexible to handle the intricacies of exactly how something has failed.
Handling it on a case-by-case basis seems like a better solution to me. Q: Are there any plans to have the ETH 2. For example like proposed with Casper, every th block will be validated by PoS. Are there any plans to have the ETH 2. My best guess is this will happen in That's fine.
Your balance will reflect the deposit, and the balance in excess of 32 ETH can be transferred to another validator phase 1 or to a shard phase 2. A laptop should be sufficient. We'll know more in a few months when the numbers for block sizes and gas limits of shard blocks get finalized. Q: What's your opinion on Harmony one's approach to a high scalability smart contract platform using PoS?
I read you're involved in discussions with them, have you helped each other in developing code? What's your opinion on Harmony one's approach to a high scalability smart contract platform using PoS? I had a brief look at their whitepaper which seems to be inspired by Ethereum. So I guess my opinion is that their approach to scalability is great : [Justin]. Q: If Eth 2. Could the token be considered a security token? Do you think this will will be able to be managed by a Raspberry Pi 4?
I'm aware that it is being worked out to have ARM64 binaries ready soon, the question is if it seems realistic not to have a computer running at home and instead running something smaller and cleaner environmentally speaking like a Pi4.
A: That depends on "N". I personally fully expect a RPi3 to be able to run at least one validator node, but we'll only know this when clients are closer to delivery. Q: Is there any clarity on the transition process regarding basic aspects like whether Beacon eth can be sold on exchanges for example, and whether the PoW chain knows of the Beacon eth? Better asked, how do you ensure there is one network when there are two chains?
That will come later, see here. The long term plan is to natively integrate Eth1 into Eth2. Q: Can you explain somewhat precisely how cross sharding communication would work. As in how does shard node A talk to shard node B without going through some sort of intermediary?
If they can do this talking, why can't it be used for eth to talk to say bitcoin. A: The intermediary is the beacon chain, or infrastructure optimistically predicting what will eventually get finalised in the beacon chain. Q: How would you objectively judge the level of technological advancement of current eth and current bitcoin as far as the very limited function of sending coins from A to B is concerned? Q: Presuming you agree price drives security, and presuming you agree all cryptos reside in a very competitive environment, are there any plans to address the increased issuance that the Beacon chain would bring?
And related, what would you say to the criticisms that have already been expressed whereby if you can reduce issuance by say 10x, you can increase it too. Or asked in a more open question manner, what do you think of this process through which increases or decreases of issuance are made?
A: It's possible Eth2 will cause net-negative issuance. The reason is that ETH gets burned via transaction fees. Pushing code to the beacon chain will also burn ETH. Finality, the penalties also burns ETH. Q: Will phase 0 contain any scalability improvements? How many transactions per second will Ethereum be able to handle with Sharding? This could be used to allow eg. That's a kind of scalability improvement, and an underdiscussed one imo.
Phase 0's purpose is tracking validators' states and producing randomness, asking about its scalability is not really meaningful. As a basic calculation, if each shard has the same throughput as Eth1. That said, the above numbers are kinda meaningless as Eth2 is designed to be used along with L2 scaling solutions like Rollups and OVM which could yield insanely high throughputs.
Q: Can you address points 2 - 4 in this tweet? There has not been that much work done on writing "policeman" software that would detect slashable violations by validators and penalize them, but I am not worried about this. Even if no one writes the code, that just means the security model degrades to honest majority, which is not the worst.
If a client implements the code badly, there's no consensus risk, they could just ship with badly written code that only works half the time and it would catch half the slashable violations. But this cannot enforced at the consensus layer, and we've already seen alternatives e. The spec clearly defines the slashing mechanism for surround votes. It is to an extent decentralised e. It would be nice to have something even more robust but this is research territory—not required for launch of Eth2.
Q: Why aren't Beacon nodes rewarded? Wouldn't this allow the network to be more decentralized? A: Validators are rewarded. Beacon nodes that are not validators are not rewarded in protocol because the protocol can't tell who's a beacon node vs just pretending to be one eg. Though non-validator nodes may be able to earn money in eth2 through incentivized light client protocols.
Q: In regards to the recent proposal of vitalik to use the bcash chain as a short-term scaling solution until eth 2. A: The main motivation for proposing an interim solution if you don't like bitcoin cash for political reasons, I also recommended ethereum classic, I think it's also a good choice is to make it easier for the work on building these layer 2s to be able to get off the ground in parallel with finalizing the work on the eth2 layer 1 itself.
In general, the ethereum community is large, so doing things in parallel is its advantage. I don't think EF will have to drive this. Q: Pretty basic but what's a realistic estimate of throughput after every is put together? A: Somewhere between and TPS depending on what execution environment and transaction type you're using. Q: Could you say anything about the adoption of Ethereum Blockchain? Are there plans to create something like a B2B team actively approaching "qualified" companys? A: I'd say the Ethereum Foundation's primary focus is the consensus layer research, development, education, maintenance, etc.
JD: As the spec currently stands, on average 2. JD: At the consensus layer block size and state size are basically orthogonal considerations. Consensus-layer state size will always remain very small since we lean heavily on stateless clients. In theory application-layer state "L2 state" can grow up to 2.
For execution engines without state rent, you can expect state to grow roughly as fast as Eth1 state grows today. Multiply that by shards and the situation is possibly not long-term sustainable. This is a significant reason why I personally believe we should progressively launch execution engines as opposed to allowing anyone to deploy EEs at launch , starting with an EE that has state rent. JD: At the consensus layer non-validator nodes don't play any role.
At the networking layer they can act as lubricants to relay message. They may also help create blocks for block proposers, i. JD: Nodes can be run by anyone who wants "direct" access to Eth2 e. Relayer nodes may be run by specialised businesses. Q:For someone that needs to run a node EtherScan , what will the resourcing look like? The bad news is that bandwidth should grow by roughly x to keep track of all shards.
But then again, that's not terrible news because a good internet connection especially server-class can handle 4 JD: For recent blocks we have quite sophisticated infrastructure, including proofs of custody in phase 1 and data availability proofs possibly phase 2.
For historical blocks we rely on the ecosystem to keep them around. Q:What will "historical blocks" be needed for. As in, if they were lost forever, what would be messed up? JD: Historical blocks are required to recompute application-layer state, and may also contain application-layer receipts. If they were lost forever which I don't expect would ever happen then applications without at least one synced full node may lose user state.
JD: Hard to tell. Naive dApp design would suggest that dApps would aggregate into clusters within shard boundaries. We are exploring dApp designs that are somewhat shard-agnostic, i. JD: Cross shard communication is a huge design space, just like "plasma" or "state channels". At the consensus layer we don't provide much infrastructure beyond crosslinks. I'm expecting significant experimentation in the early days followed by standardisation, somewhat similar to the token transfer design space and the ERC20 standard.
One big idea is the concept of "optimistic crosslink" which are shared between shards in advance of the real crosslinks, and which with high probability will match the actual crosslinks that get finalised. JD: Because shards would be stressing the beacon chain and shards would be under-utilising the beacon chain. Keep reading. Follow your interests down all the little paths and begin to build a mental model of the ecosystem.
If you find an error, typo, bug, etc, submit a PR. Also check out the issues and PRs in the spec repo. We are constantly discussing changes, fixes, updates and anyone can contribute. If you are a dev, open up one of the eth2. These allow you to touch the codebase, contribute a bit, get the lay of the land, and provide the foundation to tackle bigger issues from there.
For implementation, there are multiple topics: Consensus layer - implement the spec! This can be made sustainable by doing two things: Lower the inflation e. Completely removing inflation—relying on transaction fees only—would also be possible see below for security argument. Use Ethereum 2. This requires Ethereum 1. I don't see this as a practical solution, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise : [Justin Drake] A follow up: I'll add that if any specific user wants to migrate their application to the 2.
Observing the emergent behavior is going to be super fascinating : [Danny Ryan] Q: Can we run the same validator on multiple machines - in order to avoid penalties if one machine was compromised? Competitors definitely also have good ideas, and learning from each other is part of the game : [Justin Drake] Q: Do we need to run a full node to also earn from network fees or would the validator client handle this?
VDF announcements to come in February : manufacturing hw is a costly, difficult endeavor often subject to unforeseen issues and delays. Short answer: yes, of course : Long answer: the ethresear. A: Why should anyone move to the beacon chain. Will The beacon chain allow tokens to be send. Gutfeeling: how much "unsolved computer science problems" for phase 1, 2 and 3 roughly? I understood for phase zero it has arrived at 0. Will we consider some kind of tax baked into the system to ensure sustainability of core developments and infrastructure?
A: For how long is the 32eth locked up when running a validator client? Note, one of the design goals in the spec readme -- "to minimize complexity, even at the cost of some losses in efficiency" We're excited to see new efforts like the "Ethereum Cat Herders" and scheduled release cycles emerging in 1. A: Eth2. Phase 0 - The Beacon Chain This phase is the launch of the core system level functionality of the new PoS chain the beacon chain. At this point the chain will have Casper finality, an RNG, shuffling into the various validator roles, and simulate crosslinking in the currently non-existent shard chains.
Phase 1 - Shard Chains data This phase is the launch of the shard chains, but only as a blockchain of data. Execution and state comes in phase 2. At this point, validators will additionally build these data chains and finalize the each shard back into the beacon chain via "crosslinks" and attest the availability of the data. These crosslinks were already being created in Phase 0, but had a stub for the shard hash being finalized.
In this phase, that hash becomes "unstubbed". Shard data chains begin to have some utility for applications that need a high availability data store. This is when users and applications will begin to migrate to Serenity and use it to it's full potential. Cross shard txs will be available at this point, and users can begin developing any number of "layer 2" execution engines on top.
A: sounds Greetz A: Decentralized identity systems are definitely very interesting, but imo out-of-scope for blockchain base layers. If you are a validator, you will receive rewards for operating a node and signing consensus messages. If you run some sort of application, it can be beneficial to run a beacon chain to directly sync the shards you need. You also might serve light clients and applications as a business.
I fully expect some some entities to experiment with this model. If you are a hobbyist, you might just like running the protocol directly for self-sovereignty : [Danny Ryan] A2: Financial rewards through ETH inflation.
Do Quantum Computers pose a permanent threat to ownerless legacy addresses with significant funds Yes, definitely a threat. Q: How soon will staking pools be live when Ethereum staking goes live? A: Yes, Eth2. We need a trustless solution : [Justin Drake] A follow-up: Though I would add that trusted hardware could be a great thing for individual validators to use to increase their security.
Please message me if that sounds like your cup of tea : [Justin Drake] Q: What happens to the beacon chain in the event of a controversial hardfork on the Eth 1. I'm not aware of any unbiasable randomness schemes that only have strong liveness, other than VDFs : are there any theoretical problems in this space, relevant to Ethereum 2. Or just good book recommendations in general A: I don't read many books nowadays.
A: How do you prevent single shard corruption attacks? By randomly shuffling validators across shards. A: Ethereum 2. Note that storing shard blocks since genesis is not required. Early is realistic and still the target. A: Composability between shards is definitely unchartered territory but there are reasons to be optimistic: The shards are designed for homogeneity unlike, say, Polkadot or Cosmos to facilitate cross-shard communication.
The UI layer is also an opportunity to abstract away the boundary between shards. A: A few notes on client diversity: There's more than 6 clients being developed—it's closer to 8. I expect consolidation—a bunch of clients may not survive
In the context of blockchains, transactions per second (TPS) refers to the number of transactions that a network is capable of processing each second. The approximate average TPS of the Bitcoin blockchain is about 5 – though this may vary at times. Ethereum, in contrast, can handle. Ethereum Transactions Per Day is at a current level of M, up from M yesterday and down from M one year ago. This is a change of % from. The number of Ethereum transactions added to the mempool per second. 'Transactions per second' is an indicator that measures the scalability of the Ethereum.