We have talked a lot about Ethereum 2.0, from the difference between PoW and PoS, to the fate of miners after the merger, more or less involved.
Recently, the Ethereum Merger and Upgrade Day was revealed (expected to be September 19), and another problem has also begun to come into people’s attention frequently – the Ethereum fork problem.
The fork this time is obviously different from the past. The fork of Ethereum and ETC was largely caused by the attack of The DAO, and this fork is to a certain extent the choice of the miner group or the user group.
The introduction value of sharding technology
As we all know, the upgrade of Ethereum 2.0 has two core elements: one is to introduce sharding technology to expand network performance; the other is to convert the consensus mechanism from PoW to PoS.
Regarding the sharding technology, the greatest value it introduces lies in the expansion of network performance. Prior to this, the performance problems of Ethereum were basically solved through Layer 2, and the most mainstream and most recognized solution was Rollup. At the same time, Rollup has also gathered a broad consensus in the Ethereum community. From the founder Vitalik Buterin to the ecological application team, everyone’s consensus is almost the same, and even the project side has focused on Rollup before Ethereum 2.0.
Compared with Rollup, the status of sharding technology has been reduced from data execution to data storage, which Vitalik himself recognizes.
In the Ethereum 2.0 core developer conference call in mid-November last year, the core developers believed that: Ethereum 2.0 may temporarily shelve its second phase plan until the feasibility of the data sharding layer Rollup scheme is falsified .
That is to say, Rollup has now been recognized as the most potential expansion tool of Ethereum. Everything is based on the development of Rollup. If the road of Rollup fails, consider using sharding technology for data execution. The sharding function just acts as a data store.
But if the shard is only used as data storage, is it necessary to directly use the shard originally used for performing expansion?
This question is currently inconclusive, but compared to it, there are more difficult problems to be solved urgently.
PoW and PoS battle
The biggest problem of interest division involved in the upgrade of Ethereum 2.0 stems from the change of consensus mechanism. The change from PoW to PoS means that a large number of miners will be laid off in advance.
Some people question this: why use PoS when all technical improvements can be done on the basis of PoW consensus?
In this regard, Vitalik’s point of view is clear: upgrading PoS is to improve security and efficiency.
In blockchain, there is an impossible triangle, namely security, efficiency and decentralization. Usually, these three aspects cannot have both. PoW and PoS make different trade-offs in these three aspects.
PoW guarantees the security and decentralization of the entire system with no permission and computing power threshold, but inevitably there will be deficiencies in efficiency. In fact, it has indeed been plagued by problems such as high latency and low throughput for a long time. .
PoS, on the other hand, has chosen a different path, it is no longer permissionless, instead miners become the actual participants in the ecosystem. This means that if the miner makes a decision that is not good for the whole system, the perpetrator will also pay the price (the token token drops). However, its voting mechanism also reduces the security of the entire system. At the same time, the unification of miners and capital brings the risk of centralization of the system.
Someone once made an analogy.
In a typical PoS consensus system, everyone obtains a ticket through equity pledge, and then the person who gets the ticket sits in the conference room and points the country.
In the PoW consensus system represented by Bitcoin, a group of people are sitting in the dark wilderness. They neither know the identities of others, nor do they know how many people there are in the wilderness, and when others come and go. Communication and consensus can only be achieved by shouting out one’s own point of view and hearing the voices of others.
It has to be said that this analogy is quite the image, and the characteristics of PoW and PoS are undoubtedly obvious. In fact, the advantages and disadvantages of the two cannot be compared, and their adoption can only reflect two different trade-offs.
In Vitalik’s plan for Ethereum 2.0, the Ethereum 1.0 chain and the Beacon chain will be merged at some point. The operation idea is probably: everyone first votes for a block height. After this height, Ethereum 1.0 will not be able to Continue to track the state and start tracking the state of 2.0.
That is to say, in theory, as long as there are miners continuing, the Ethereum 1.0 chain will continue to run unaffected. Following this script, we might see two Ethereums running at the same time.
A fork in this sense is no longer a conventional fork. A conventional fork requires computing power to make a choice, and the protagonist of the choice is largely the miner. If it really follows the above script, this time, it is not only the miner, but the ethereum who needs to make a choice. overall ecology.
The current supporters of Ethereum 1.0 and 2.0 can be said to be very different.
The miner camp’s support for Ethereum 1.0 is self-evident. In their eyes, Ethereum 2.0 has no advantages, and the pain points that Ethereum is facing now can be solved by Layer 2 or Polkadot. Moreover, if they can’t solve it, then Ethereum 2.0 has a high probability. Can’t solve it. In addition, driven by interests, they are not allowed to stand in a clear-cut 1.0 line.
The supporters of Ethereum 2.0 believe that Ethereum 2.0 is an iteration of the current version. To improve the performance of Ethereum itself, it must turn to a PoS-based ecosystem. In their view, although there are many Layer 2 solutions on the market, these solutions are more like plug-ins, and no matter how powerful the plug-in functions are, it cannot represent the power of the underlying infrastructure itself. Therefore, the change of PoS is imperative.
In addition to these two options, there are voices pointing to a return to ETC, which also brings certain benefits to ETC’s recent currency price performance.
Recently, Guo Hongcai, an old-generation Bitcoin player, also expressed his opinion on the Ethereum fork in the community. In his words, he seems to have determined that Ethereum will definitely fork. Guo Hongcai has long been far away from the market’s sight, and this time it seems that he is indeed prepared. And he is by no means an exception. In the eyes of many people, this may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, so others will try to take advantage of this rare opportunity to plan to convene miners to fork the computing power.
I remember that the last fork that attracted the attention of the whole network was the computing power dispute between BCH and BSV, but it belongs to Bitcoin after all, and it is the computing power competition. As mentioned above, if Ethereum does fork, the biggest decisive factor is probably not computing power, but assets. As the world’s largest application chain, ETH’s initiative has already been transferred to the asset side, and they are the decisive key.
In a sense, this is a very radical exploration, and this exploration will involve hundreds of billions of dollars in disputes and the entanglement of interests of many groups. The bifurcation under this background is bound to cause a huge shock in the market and even a change in the overall pattern. As for the result, I am afraid that even V God will not know. Next, we can only watch the changes and witness the history.
New Metamask update urges users to read the fine print
MetaMask, one of the most widely used cryptocurrency wallets in the NFT community, just pushed a small (but critical) update. Now, according to an initial tweet from Web3 security app Wallet Guard, it now puts more emphasis on highlighting transactions that require “everyone set approval” for MetaMask wallets, including screenshots of the new feature.
The update even applies to third-party services that integrate with MetaMask – that means browser extensions like the popular Wallet Guard Chrome extension.
But what makes this seemingly minor update so important? The order to “set approval for all” can be an important part of any smart contract. These are bits of code that help facilitate the various transactions done on the blockchain and, as such, are maintained using various commands.
With the “approve for all settings” command, the smart contract is granted permission to approve and transfer tokens from your wallet at a later date. This includes NFTs. In the case of NFT marketplaces, the order enables the marketplace to transfer NFTs from your wallet to a third party after the sale is complete.
While this order is critical to the functioning of NFT marketplaces, there is an important caveat: it can also allow bad actors to maliciously transfer your wallet contents to their wallets when the marketplace you choose is wrong. While phishing attacks have been the most common theft attack vector in the NFT space, there will always be some Hackerman out there that needs to make you more careful.
With this update, MetaMask is effectively reminding its user base to keep a clear head when conducting NFT or cryptocurrency-related transactions. Without a sophisticated cybersecurity suite, any user’s best bet for staying safe online (especially at Web3) is to do their own due diligence when it comes to their money or assets. Wish you stay safe in the crypto world!
Posted by:CoinYuppie，Reprinted with attribution to:https://coinyuppie.com/is-it-imperative-that-ethereum-merge-and-fork-soon-new-metamask-update-urges-users-to-read-the-fine-print/
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.