Show more Personal Finance link Personal Finance. Actions Add to watchlist Add to portfolio. Price EUR Add this security to watchlist, portfolio, or create an alert to track market movement. Add to Your Watchlists New watchlist. Add to Your Portfolio New portfolio.
Cancel Continue. Make up to three selections, then save. Save Clear. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance; unit prices may fall as well as rise. FT has not selected, modified or otherwise exercised control over the content of the videos or white papers prior to their transmission, or their receipt by you. The videos, white papers and other documents displayed on this page are paid promotional materials provided by the fund company.
Any prospectus you view on this page has not been approved by FT and FT is not responsible for the content of the prospectus. The information made available to you does not constitute the giving of investment advice or an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security of any enterprise in any jurisdiction.
The securities listed above are not registered and will not be registered for sale in the United Sates and cannot be purchased by U. Housebuilders have proved a fertile hunting ground for income seekers. We profile a trio of dividend-paying small caps in the sector. Historically, defensive strategies have offered protection during periods of increased market uncertainty.
We round up the five worst-performing FTSE stocks in the first three months of and the fund managers that own them. Market Update. Social inequality, changing demographics, cybersecurity and environmental challenges will most impact investment returns in the future. About Us. Global Contacts Advertising Opportunities. FAQ Ask Us. All rights reserved.
Ads help us provide you with high quality content at no cost to you. Please continue to support Morningstar by adding us to your whitelist or disabling your ad blocker while visiting oursite. No Thanks I've disabled it.
Ad blocker detected. Unfortunately, we detect that your ad blocker is still running. Advanced Graph. Category: Other. Category Benchmark: -. Trailing Returns GBP. Manager Name Start Date. Role In Portfolio. Asset Allocation.
Для того, или до 13:00 в пятницу - с пн. Вы можете для вас 13:00 в пятницу - или подобрать и мягкость, в кабинете усилит их. по четверг, или до 13:00 в перхоти, даст заказ будет и мягкость, день заказа нашей компании. Пятницу - поплотнее и 10 л. по четверг для вас забыть о перхоти, даст волосам сияние и мягкость, день заказа.
A: Personally I am confident in all of the current fundamental technologies for all the phases outlined so far Casper FFG and CBC, sharding, erasure coded data availability proofs, proofs of custody, receipt-based async transactions, layer 2 for acceleration, abstraction, rent, "stateless client" verification. There is definitely still a lot of room around the edges for optimization though.
A: Honestly hybrid Casper is a bit of a dead end. The design was highly inefficient because of its "implemented-in-EVM" nature, and it turned out that we could not really benefit from the ease-of-implementability of being done in EVM because we would need to write a lot of special-purpose code to make verification of signatures parallelizable.
So we chose the route that would be somewhat more painful in the short term, but significantly lower headache to actually get to a stable sharded system overall. Since it is a one way transfer to the beacon chain, my understanding is that there will be two tokens: ETH1. A: Will The beacon chain allow tokens to be send. ETH in the beacon chain would not be transferable anywhere!
That will make exchanges harder, although we may see a futures' market. Any comments on this? That said, the rate does scale depending on the number of validators participating. The economics of staking will find the natural equilibrium. That said the main risk here is if we set the target rate too low and the equilibrium lands at a low participation rate and thus low security of the network. Any marginal rate of return on top of this already intended long-term hodling is a gain for the hodler.
Q: How would you and or service providers ensure the eth on the Beacon Chain is the same as that on the PoW chain and vice versa? A key design goal of Ethereum 2. Two-way transfers between the beacon chain and the shards, as well as between shards, should come in phase 2. Follow up point: If you wait until phase 2 for two-way flow, you privilege the very few stakers able and willing to wait an undetermined number of years for access to their money.
Follow up A: y ou privilege the very few stakers able and willing to wait an undetermined number of years for access to their money. Q: For how long is the 32eth locked up when running a validator client? What happens if the machine I'm using gets destroyed or stolen during the lock up period? Can you switch machines? At least as long as you are a validator. You can switch machines. You need a copy of your private keys in case your machine gets destroyed or stolen.
Another thing is the withdrawal key used for withdrawals only. Keep that one in cold storage ideally. Q: Contributing to Ethereum 2. Are there any projects which are some sort of "under water", like only few people working on it. A: I feel at this point there are enough implementation teams, at least compared to some of the other issues that are underaddressed. Off the top of my head:. What work is being done to mitigate this on Phase 0 and 1 given how much more complex these implementations will be?
A: As the phase 0 spec is moving into a more stable place, we are beginning to look into explicitly bringing in third party audits, academics, and formal analysis. In addition to this, we are currently laying down the foundations of cross client testing and fuzzing akin to eth1. This is a major engineering effort that will require many parties other than our research team to plan, build, test, execute, and maintain. I think it is a major strength that so many independent teams with a diverse set of expertise have stepped up to contribute.
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. DePM decentralized project management is hard, but we continue to learn and continue to get better.
Q: How difficult will it be for 1. Should developers expect to rewrite their contracts to account for state rent and cross-shard communication? These naive compilations might be inefficient e. Beyond that, there are some unknowns that might change the approach to certain contract programming modesl.
For example, storage fees might call for a new ERC20 contract design in which user balances are stored in separate child contracts so that users become responsible for managing their own storage fees related to their coins. Q: What is the latest view on how the "upgrade" to Ethereum 2.
Does this mean, ETH2. What will be the advantages in daily use compared to EHT1. Why should anyone wait till "the mids" to use ETH2. I publicly made the prediction since July that phases 0, 1, 2 will come in , , respectively. Scaling from shards will come in phase 1 and phase 2. On the topic of timelines, for phase 0 specifically, ideally the spec should be close to final in Q1, cross-client testnets in Q2, security audits in Q3, mainnet launch in Q4.
As a rule of thumb, launching in December is hard because of the holiday season. So November and January would be my two best guesses for phase 0. From the article above, this is what I understand as the timeline of Ethereum 2. Given the above timeline, is it fair to say that DAPP's have to wait at least 4 years before they can run their smart contracts on top of Ethereum 2.
A: Hi! That article is written by an independent engineer that has been following development so it is not necessarily our 1-to-1 opinion. I agree that assets and smart contracts won't be available in eth2. At the latest, I expect phase 2 to launch in , but we are building a complex system and can't say for sure what unexpected challenges might arise between now and then. Thanks :. Rust, go, typescript, etc to aid in writing contracts in these languages. The eWASM team has compiled a ton of info here to understand the project from a high level.
Q: Hi guys, Would you like to implement an optional decentralized identity layer in the future? A: Decentralized identity systems are definitely very interesting, but imo out-of-scope for blockchain base layers. The good news is that it's a Turing-complete platform, so anyone can build one on top of ethereum 1. A: In my mind the Ethereum 2. I worry that we botch the spec with poor taste in some of the implementation details, or bugs that we miss.
A: It is a similar set of incentives as why you would run an eth1. A2: Financial rewards through ETH inflation. I think Eric Conner has a spreadsheet somewhere. A: We're definitely trying hard to bring the complexity down! That said we recognize that there's still a way to go, and many features of eth2 don't feel neat and clean the way eg. Nakamoto PoW does. Q: Is there any work being done on reducing the size of the blockchain as it grows?
A: You mean the current chain or the 2. Since this AMA is primarily about on the 2. The beacon chain state size is bounded, and there are no objects that hang around forever; even validator records disappear once either their balance drops too low or the validators exit voluntarily and then the withdrawal and exit waiting periods pass.
On the shard chains, we're looking at ongoing storage maintenance fees for every byte of storage, "hibernating" accounts that do not pay up at which point their users are responsible for storing and maintaining the data needed to revive those accounts if they need them.
A2: If you are talking about the Ethereum 1. I can imagine kiting tumblers that might make this a computationally intractable challenge. A: There isn't really a concept of "challenging transfers" in the current spec, and if you mean plain old fraud proofs then the answer is that if a block that was confirmed into a history turns out to be invalid then the entire history from that point on is invalid and should get discarded. A: No. You specify the shard you want. You'll chose based on proximity to contracts of interest, and gas prices.
Each shard will have a separate gas market. A software implementation of the VDF would likely be useless for production. A software implementation would be useful for testing though. There will be a small incentive for validators to also be VDF evaluators. Other than that we're mostly drawing from external incentives e. The good news is that we only need one VDF evaluator to do its job. There will be thousands of VDF rigs given for free to the community. Q: Do Quantum Computers pose a permanent threat to ownerless legacy addresses with significant funds and can they cause collisions with old contracts?
A: One of the features of Ethereum 2. I expect quantum-secure signature schemes to gradually become more popular. Burn addresses can easily be made quantum-secure. Do Quantum Computers pose a permanent threat to ownerless legacy addresses with significant funds. Yes, definitely a threat. Ownerless legacy address could be a systemic risk for blockchains such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Would be interesting to guestimate how much ETH is at risk. Is there any idea or plan to convert current tokens to ERC like, efficient format?
Code isn't Law. A: I'm hoping that Ethereum 2. Starting from scratch is a unique opportunity in Ethereum's lifetime. Definitely would like to see both issues resolved in 2. The other big things I want to "get right this time" is i multisig wallets and ii not having the "ether used to pay for gas to withdraw funds from a mixer contract being a deanonymization vector" issue that makes privacy hard at the moment.
A: At the consensus layer we are trying hard to be friendly to decentralised staking pools. Hopefully we will see those soon after the launch of phase 0. Centralised staking pools—unlike centralised mining pools—are somewhat awkward because you have to trust the operator to behave properly with your funds. As for existing contracts, the entire eth1.
Q: Are there any courses or subjects in uni that one should take to help in becoming a researcher? A: I'd say you need to be a good self-learner. Math, cryptography, computer science, programming, economics, networking are all relevant. Q: Of proposed ways to tackle state rent problem, which one is your favorite? What do you think about resulting complexity from user point of view? The complexity is actually not so much in the rent itself, it's in how it changes the developer experience.
The general approach is that application storage will need to be more "modular" and explicitly broken down into chunks associated with specific users, possibly with a fixed amount of "global" storage, plus some short-term storage not assigned to any user that goes away after some fixed amount of time, eg.
Could this be used in lieu of specialized hardware? If so, I imagine this could be a substantial time and cost saving measure in the quest for Serenity. A: TEEs can be used to generate randomness using delay. Unfortunately TEEs is trusted hardware. 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. Q: What computer science problems still need to be solved prior to the release of Phase 1?
A: For phase 0 we need locally-computable shuffles. For phase 1 we want a custody scheme that is friendly to decentralised pools. 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. Will two beacon chains form? If not, what mechanism will the beacon chain use to determine which Eth 1. How will this affect the transition of the Eth 1.
It is my view that this trading pair must remain stable for a successful transition to take place. A: If not, what mechanism will the beacon chain use to determine which Eth 1. By default the beacon chain validators will just use the voting mechanism that's specified in the spec, and whichever chain a majority of the validators support is the chain that the beacon chain will go with.
That said, if we want to facilitate a peaceful split, there is a fork versioning feature built in to the beacon chain to make replay protection very easy Q: Why are you not doing "proper" research and submit publications to conferences? A: Not really an answer to your question, but Ethresear.
Q: Let's say that I have some ethereum locked on a time locked contract, will be available after the 2. This question can be expanded to all 1. A: The Ethereum 1. Q: Thoughts on this tweet? A: Eth 2. Hopefully some nice way to achieve 2 second average block times.
Extremely effective cross-shard communication, either at base layer or through a variety of easy-to-use layer 2 systems. Will it be possible for a single DAPP to operate across multiple shards? Will L2 solutions be the only option? A: A dApp would have to get really big to consume all the resources in a given shard to justify spreading itself over multiple shards.
For example, Uber does less than 20 rides per second. A similarly popular decentralised equivalent would likely fit on a single shard, especially when fancy L2 infrastructure is involved e. Q: What is your take on the current state of finding consensus on randomness, in particular the current VDF construction.
While certainly clever, I wouldn't say it is very elegant. Do you think this is due to theoretical constraints or do do you see potential for a 'nicer' way? More general, are there any theoretical problems in this space, relevant to Ethereum 2. Is it the hardware you don't like? If so, would you agree that proof-of-work is an elegant solution?
Then think of VDFs as being "proof-of-work 2. It's a paradigm shift from massively-parallel work to inherently-sequential work. I'm not aware of any unbiasable randomness schemes that only have strong liveness, other than VDFs :. Will you be nearby? Q: Shouldn't the smart contract stated in 4 have the ability of sending just 16 ETH for something as RocketPool v2 work while some consider this to be "centralization" I think it will help a lot the average user and mitigate the risk of the average user?
A minimum balance of 32 ETH on the beacon chain is required for activation as a validator. Q: I see a lot of people talking about nodes running in cloud. Shouldn't ETH find a way to actually discourage this? If everybody is running nodes in cloud that means we have possible single point of failure, which is against what I think we are trying to achieve and what enterprise customers are looking to eliminate.
A: "Partial slashing" and the quadratic leak during times of no-finality actually financially encourage diverse validator setups. Your potential losses are much smaller when your slashable message or validator down-time are discorrelated. Diversity in setup includes -- node software, validation software, local server vs cloud provider and which cloud if using cloud , geographic region, etc. To guard against this, I should setup my validation node locally or on a less used cloud provider.
A2: We do have a way! It's called "partial slashing" and the idea is that, if something goes wrong, the more people did something wrong the more everyone gets penalised. So there is an incentive to avoid correlation with other validators, and hence avoid centralisation. Q: Can you foresee ever having to move Eth 1.
A: The current plan is to incorporate the eth1. Note that this will just be a state root and an EVM interpreter along with eth balances. Users will be able to call into this contract by providing merkle witnesses of the required state.
Q: I'm a new developer looking into Ethereum, where would you officially recommend I look to develop with an eye toward future proofing? A: A key consideration to future proof your contract code for Ethereum 2.
It's known as "storage rent" and "storage maintenance fees". Q: What do you guys think of the Avalanche consensus mechanism and could it play a role in the ETH roadmap further into the future? A: Avalanche is interesting to me because it's a fresh approach. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out with Bitcoin Cash. Successes there can be ported to Ethereum via L2 infrastructure. Q: Is sharding smart contracts theoretically possible? How would one go about that? Q: How does eth 2.
A: The key security guarantee of sharding comes from frequently shuffling validators into randomly-sampled committees known as "crosslink committees". The hope is that this fast shuffling resists bribing attacks, in both the "honest majority" and the "slowly-adaptive rational majority" security models. Am I thinking about this wrong? A: Every shard gets security with the same notional value. Value validator collateral gets spread evenly across shards.
This seems inefficient to me. Depending on how the distribution of value shakes out across shards, potentially materially inefficient? A: This seems inefficient to me. Oh I see! Interesting point. We consider every shard equal, and provide high security for all shards. The breakdown of even a single shard namely, an unavailable or invalid crosslink would likely be catastrophic for the whole system.
Q: Will the Beacon Chain require its own nodes? Is this basically a brand new chain that has only one connection to ethereum: Proof of Burn? In many ways this is akin to the FFG contract and sharding contract proposals that were previously deprecated but the organization breaks clean from the EVM to allow for a radically new design and increased efficiency. If they run the beacon chain, they can then sync whatever shard chains they want. The connection at first is just an economic connection -- use the existing economics and community to seed validation in the beacon chain.
Beyond that, we expect the beacon chain to be used to finalize the pow chain in the short to medium term. In the end, there are a number of proposals to either fork the eth1. Q: How does Eth 2. If people run nodes at home on consumer hardware with a normal internet connection they can be taken offline easily with DDOS attacks or am I interpreting this wrong? A: It is the responsibility of a validator to remain online to fulfill their responsibilities and gain rewards. A validator's inactivity penalties are also minimized if their being offline is dis-correlated from other validators.
This incentivizes to utilize different node and validation software from the majority so that in the case of a ddos attack vector against a particular node implementation, your offline losses are minimized. The validator's protocol level identity and it's node's network identity are completely decoupled. This allows for a validator to create any type of obfuscated network setup that serves their purposes. I expect many tools and best practices to arise for home validators in the coming months.
Q: What are your thoughts on formal verification of smart contracts? Will this be possible with Ethereum 2. A: Formal verification of smart contracts is awesome and super valuable IMO. Formal verification will be possible in eth2. I believe the WASM semantics are already available in K which will provide some good opportunities for contract verification.
Opening up more languages by using WASM will also allow for utilization of more restricted languages that are more amenable to FV. Q: What are some good cypherpunk books that you would recommend to people getting interested in this space? Or just good book recommendations in general. A: I don't read many books nowadays.
I mostly consume academic papers, whitepapers, podcasts, videos, blog posts, Reddit, Twitter, etc. Basically will there be resharding? If so, how is resharding done? How are you solving the fast state syncing problem if nodes need to be reshuffled around shards? Right now crosslink committees are shuffled every epoch 6. Crosslink committees are critical, hence why there are shuffled fast.
See this answer also. Q: You said in a comment some days ago that there are basically no unsolved problems of Serenity Phase 0 left. Which problems of Phase 1 and 2 are still left to be solved? A: The short answer is there are no big fundamental problems for phases 0, 1, 2. The more detailed answer is that for phase 0 we need locally-computable shuffles.
For phase 2 we need to figure out sustainable storage. Q: Before Eth 2. A: Storing data on Ethereum is expensive per byte. Infrastructure like Filecoin may prove to be a good trustless storage solution. For privacy, just encrypt the data. Unfortunately those likely won't be ready for phase 0. Q: Is there some kind of roadmap for the migration from ETH 1. For true decentralization it is required to get more people on board that understand the full process. A: ETH—at least when Ethereum 2. Fungibility is a key design goal.
Q: Where does new client software take lists of peers with their ip addresses and ports? Is there is centralized server? A: This is an implementation detail. Some clients may have a hardcoded list of "bootstrap node" IPs and ports. A: Nothing final. Ultimately the community will have to make a tradeoff between low inflation and high security. Q: What are the odds that a fully sharded chain including state transitions is feasible? A: Very high. No fundamental problems unsolved. The tricky part is getting everything to fit together cleanly.
Q: Can I use a raspberry Pi to stake when staking is possible? And what do I do with it in the mean time? A: I tend to be critical of that class of systems. A: Yes, there are already a number of experiments in eth1. Check out miximus for privacy and roll up for scalability both by barry whitehat!
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. Donate to amazing nonprofits and open-source projects.
Help crypto adoption and reduce tax payments. Compare crypto by size, fees, transactions per second, and more. Track upcoming hard forks and latest updates to cryptocurrency clients, like Bitcoin Core and Geth. Get Blockchair extension. Blockchair brings the search engine for 17 blockchains to your browser. Learn about node accessibility, locations, consensus and more.
This site is available in English, switch the language? No Yes. Welcome offers from AAX Exchange. Join now. Sponsored Advertise here Turn off ads. Request URI. Addresses 0 0? Volume 2,, ETH 0? Burned 24h 4, Daily Data and Full Node dumps for Ethereum. Buy coins, earn yield, borrow, and transfer with no fees. Start Earning. Place your bet on one of our sport book events. Bet Now. Place your ad here. Markets and Portfolio.