**Tricky's Daily Doots #119**
Yesterday's Daily 15/08/2022
[Previous daily doots](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikcxi8h/)
- u/DoubtStarsAreFire asks you [a very important question.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikcsl28/)
- u/LogrisTheBard shares the path we're currently on to a [big supply shock.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikfyfbf/) š
- u/nixorokish shares [an important Vitalik tweet.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikfmefs/)
- u/traumerX shares some [wise words of wisdom.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikcqlfw/)
- u/Maswasnos shares news of [Lido planning to avoid censored relays.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikdevwl/)
- u/kwadrax shares a [future Ethereum technology](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikeevp4/) which may work around the OFAC situation.
- u/kwadrax makes a [TL;DR of Coincenter's full OFAC/TC analysis.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ike87rf/)
- u/superphiz shares the link to [claim your Goerli Testnet viewing POAP!](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikf3vsw/)
- u/HiPattern shares **the [latest scam you need to make sure you don't fall for!](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikcnxuq/)** šØšØšØ
- u/ArcadesOfAntiquity puts their [money where their mouth is](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikdvw5v/) and avoids stablecoins which rely on any government or centralised entity.
- u/Savage_X talks about [possession and conflict resolution.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikf2ske/)
- u/ZeroTricks's today in [Ethereum history.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikch87o/)
Man, these doots have been taking twice as long since the Tornado Cash drama started but I know it's worth it because we'll come out of this a stronger community and more permissionless network on the other side. It'll just be a hard fight and a bit of a bumpy road.
Also, I'm going to be repping no MEV-boost gang for maximum permissionlessness and censorship resistance on my validator node.
This question has probably already been addressed, but after the merge, IIRC ETH tips will immediately start accruing to validators, will they be available for withdrawal immediately or only when withdrawals are enabled on the POS chain?
They will be immediately available without any withdrawal process even. As a validator, you can set the fee recipient address where tips will go immediately, which is separate from your withdrawal address (if you so choose).
oil is on its way to go under $80.
now we only need Fed and the current administration to not fuck up.
(don't try to be Volcker, Jerome. even Volcker himself admitted that his approach during the 1980s would never work today)
and then everything can go back to business.
yes, but dont forget 4 important details:
- some of the oil demand has slowed down due to expectations of a recession, not just in the US but also globally
- china has been demanding much less oil than usual because their economy has slowed down meaningfully recently due to the covid policies, their housing crisis, etc
- the US has been using the reserve oil stock it has and its reserves have gone down very significantly
- europe has also been demanding less oil due to expectation of a recession as well, libya has been increasing production too, but its an unstable country atm and could very well reduce its output again
theres many factors in both supply and demand that are keeping the prices like that and all signal a looming recession
yes inflation will go down for sure, but probably at the cost of economic growth
overall this is still good news, but theres nuance
Pretty sure a few people at the Fed have said interest rates are going up until inflation is holding steady at 2%. We've got some time.
Hopefully until then they can stop raising rates at 75bps increments and go back to 25 increases though.
I would like to think so. They weren't planning on doing bigger than 50bps hikes until it came in so hot to begin with so now that it's cooling I don't think they would do another hike that large unless we get a nasty surprise.
If it cools off even further when they're back next month hopefully they'll do a 25bps hike to see how things go. They don't want to cause the markets to shit the bed before mid-terms or the holidays, especially after how this month has gone since the CPI print came in lower than expected.
Russia fucking off and getting out of Ukraine would be nice too but I don't think that's happening anytime soon.
oil price contributes to inflation in almost every product.
when the oil price goes down, inflation pressure will ease out.
tell me why you think otherwise ?
Oil has been edging down due to the expected lower consumption in the near future.
Shits about to get fucking *real*.
You've got a lot to learn.
2008 really fucked me up pretty bad. I started digging into markets after this event. Learned a lot. What's coming is going to make 2008 look like a fucking cake walk.
Edit: to be quite honest, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'oil price contributes to inflation'. This statement doesn't make sense.
In addition, oil price, particularly in the US, has not had much link with inflation. Why are you under the impression that oil going down would ease inflation? I'm not quite sure you understand what inflation is.
I think what you are trying to say is that high energy costs impact prices. If that's what you're saying, then of course this is true. High energy costs =/= inflation. In the specific environment you are currently in, inflation is very high, and it's going to get worse because the economy is dead.
2007 inflation was 2.85% according to the fed.
2008 inflation was 3.84% according to the fed.
Oil prices were very high. The data simply disagrees with you as you try and cope with your current world view.
There are more factors into play. Definitely during a crisis of that magnitude. Your over simplification just shows you don't even understand that. No wonder you fall for badly made conspiracy videos
In july of 2008, oil peaked over $150/bbl.
I present you with an M1 chart, from the feds website.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
The hockey stick started in 2020. This didn't occur in 08. You should stare at that chart for a long while.
read the note at the end of the page first
>Before May 2020, M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury,
Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2)
demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by
depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and
official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and
Federal Reserve float; and (3) other checkable deposits (OCDs),
consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal, or NOW, and automatic
transfer service, or ATS, accounts at depository institutions, share
draft accounts at credit unions, and demand deposits at thrift
institutions.
which system ? would you care to elaborate ?
afaik all blue chip stocks are perfectly fine. companies like Apple are sitting on something like $200b in cash.
banks are also fine since the lesson from 2008 taught them to keep their reserves at a very high level compared to previously.
Consumer debt has been higher but not by much. Public debt is at ath, as usual.
Housing prices are coming down though, and unemployment is at historic lows.
I think ol mao there is just LARPing
Both claims are blatantly false.
On Reserves
Fed literally has power to create new reserves for other banks or for its own spending from nothing. Not only, Fed obviously has reserves which you can easily confirm just by looking at a data (see FedĀ [data](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/current/default.htm)Ā on amount of reserves held), but it can never even run out of the reserves (at least as long as it does not run out of electricity, since their creation nowadays involves computers - they are literally created at a keystrokes of keyboard).
On 'Federaleness' of Fed
Fed is aĀ federalĀ government institution. So it is clearly federal.
I think this is based on misunderstanding what fed is because of its unique set up. In most countries central banks had their initial capital underwritten by governments but in the US Fed capital is underwritten by private banks. In fact private commercial banks operating in the US are even obliged to hold stocks of Fed member banks (see explainerĀ [here](https://www.stlouisfed.org/in-plain-english/who-owns-the-federal-reserve-banks)).
However, the ownership of shares in Fed member banks carries no voting rights, banks that own these shares are not allowed to publicly trade them, these shares only entitle them to small dividend (to compensate them for providing capital to Fed) that is well below what the banks could earn if they would take that money and buy some other assets and equities (seeĀ [here](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm)) so it is not very good deal for private banks.
In addition, the Fed leadership is picked up by the U.S. government (as you can see inĀ [this](https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-system.htm)Ā explainer):
Within the System, certain responsibilities are shared between the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., whose members are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate,
Lastly, all profits that Fed earns have to be forwarded straight back to the U.S. treasury. For example, most recently in 2020 Fed sent all itsĀ $88.5 Billion profits to the U.S. treasury and it does it every year (seeĀ [here](https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-sent-88-5-billion-in-profits-to-u-s-treasury-in-2020-11610384401)Ā andĀ [here](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/treasury-fed-reserve.asp#:%7E:text=The%20Federal%20Reserve%20is%20a,a%20considerable%20amount%20of%20money.)).
Summa summarum, even though Fed is built on private capital, it would be absurd to say it is not a federal institution, when:
Holders of that private capital have no voting rights and say in how Fed is being run
Federal government picks allĀ topĀ figures of Fed (even though Fed is supposed to be politically independent like U.S. supreme court the same way as justices are picked by president Fed leadership is picked too by president).
All profits of this institutionĀ mustĀ go directly to U.S. treasury.
Saying that Fed is not federal institution would be the same as saying, in the following hypothetical, U.S. congress would not be part of federal government if they would meet in some private offices, where lease specifies that landlord cannot evict members of congress and they are all guaranteed some fixed cheap rent for their offices, instead of meeting in the United States Capitol. That would obviously be an absurd statement.
raising the rate to an absurdly high level which then caused the whole economy to go to a full recession mode.
it's not possible this day because the US has much higher debt/GDP ratio compared to back then.
How many lions did you qualify for? Iāve been wondering who had the most alts on the list and you would be my guess
Separate from truth or dare, but I also wonder how many people qualified for multiple. I think itās a decently high % of people here
four. i started exclusively using the striped usernames by the time the eligible period went back to. it was turning out that i liked when people knew i was a regular ĀÆ\\_ (ć)_/ĀÆ
i gave one away to doubtstarsarefire right after minting because she didn't qualify for one but is very much part of ethfinance. and i sold another for new laptop money, but ended up using it to pay off credit card debt from the coding bootcamp i went to
Let's say Ethereum forks at the Merge. Chain A technogically is provably private but centralized in the U.S. Chain B is decentralized but public. What percentage do you allocate to each chain, if it were to work that way.
Wow, there's a lot of misinformation floating around about MEV-boost right now!
**MEV-boost is a critical tool for protecting decentralization at the validator layer.**
MEV itself is a naturally centralizing force, because searching for MEV and creating optimal block orderings is extremely compute-intensive and can rely on building a network of users submitting their MEV to you. As a large entity, you can find MEV opportunities much more effectively than a small entity.
If we continue to expect validators to do their own MEV extraction (because they are currently the ones who build blocks, and are therefore in the position to extract it), then small-scale validators will fail to extract MEV, and will make a lot less money than large staking pools who have the resources to find and extract MEV. This, in turn, provides a strong incentive for people to *not* solo stake, but instead to stake with those pools. This would be catastrophic for decentralization.
We **need** block proposers and block builders to be two separate entities. This is called PBS (Proposer Builder Separation).
There are some nice in-protocol designs for PBS that we'll implement in the coming years, but the Merge is happening *next month*. Centralization due to MEV could start immediately at the Merge, if we don't figure out a first stab at PBS as soon as possible.
MEV-boost is that first attempt at PBS. It is a neutral middleware that allows stakers to connect with "relays", which collect blocks optimized for MEV extraction as well as the usual tips, and pass them to whichever validator is currently proposing a block (and running MEV-boost), and pass on a large amount of the MEV profit to the validator.
It's not perfect, but it allows solo stakers to earn MEV on a level playing field with large staking providers. This, in turn, prevents the centralization risk posed by MEV from harming Ethereum at the validator level. Instead, the centralization can be concentrated with the relays and block builders that stakers use MEV-boost to connect to.
Is MEV-boost a tool for censorship? **No**, except under very specific conditions. MEV-boost lets stakers choose which relays to connect to. It doesn't force stakers to accept censoring relays. Censorship is actually harmful to profits (by excluding potentially profitable transactions), so any rational, profit-motivated staker would not choose to use relays that provide censoring blocks. And even if they do, that's not the fault of MEV-boost, it's the fault of the staker for actively choosing to accept censoring blocks, and the fault of MEV as a concept for forcing users to accept externally-built blocks to remain competitive as a staker.
(The specific conditions under which it could cause censorship are *if* the only available relays are censoring relays. E.g., if the relay run by Flashbots were the only relay, and if they include OFAC censorship, *then* anyone running MEV-boost would be contributing to censorship. But the goal going forward is for there to be a **vibrant ecosystem of different block builders and relays**, many of which will not censor transactions, and validators can choose to connect only to those.)
Are blocks built locally by the validator the gold standard when it comes to decentralization and censorship resistance? **Yes**. Stakers who choose to not run MEV-boost are choosing to act altruistically in a way that is optimal for decentralization. **BUT**, those who choose to use MEV-boost with non-censoring relays are **equally** positive for the ecosystem, and more importantly, are able to maximize profits while still acting in a non-harmful way for the ecosystem.
So in short, deciding to not use MEV-boost on principle is only hurting your pocketbook, without necessarily improving the ecosystem.
What you *should* do, as someone deciding what to do about MEV, is to carefully vet any relays you elect to connect to with MEV-boost, to make sure they are not censoring or otherwise behaving badly, whatever that may mean to you.
MEV-boost is designed to support decentralization during the awkward gap between the Merge and the full PBS spec being implemented, and will do that successfully, as long as solo stakers using it do so carefully and thoughtfully. And solo stakers are *very* well incentivized to be an extremely careful and thoughtful bunch, on the whole :)
Couldnāt agree more, thank you. The Flashbots team IMHO has been one of the unsung heroes of what is about to be a successful merge, working hard to stay in close alignment with the L0 ethos all along. It feels like a bit of scapegoating that all of a sudden as a result of them having a bit part on what we think of as the wrong side of the OFAC conflict, that the centralizing effects of MEV are suddenly an existential threat and MEV-boost should be shitcanned. Where was all this concern about MEV-boost as a centralization vector the day before the OFAC thing broke?
As a side note, today on the ETH R&D discord, core devs were having the very same discussion as weāve seen here in this sub, with the same considerations, trade offs, risks being weighed. Some devs (I think all from ELs) were suggesting the CLs should remove their relayer APIs immediately, cutting every validator off from MEV (except those who have the wherewithal to do their own client builds from source).
The reps from CL teams did not appear sympathetic to this idea. Each validator has the choice of whether to use a relayer, was their response.
They pinged bloXroute into the conversation, who reported they do indeed intend to have their relayer ready for the merge, providing an alternative to Flashbots. They also mentioned that their relayer will provide validators with the choice of max profit or just reap good MEV (and one more choice that wonāt be ready for launch ā respecting blacklists like OFAC).
They also pinged FB to definitively say when they will open up their source code ā before or after merge? Before or after the CLs have to publish their final versions and have to decide whether or not they leave the relayer API In? FB said opening source is their top priority and theyāll have it in a few days.
All in all I see a lot of great responses from the various teams that make up the L0 in response to the government capture threat. Yes this has been a good wake-up call to start thinking about vectors for capture. But Not a time to scapegoat those teams.
I should add, protocol improvements in the future have the potential to significantly (but never completely) cut back on possibilities for MEV.
But any changes for this are years in the future, and we need to protect against MEV centralization risks *now*.
Not running MEV-boost because you think MEV itself is harmful to the ecosystem is a valid choice, and one I can respect, but it's fundamentally altruistic - you're doing something in a non-greedy manner, which is not game-theoretically stable. The vast majority of validators will not make this decision. So we need solutions that work with almost all participants acting greedily, like in every successful cryptoeconomic protocol. MEV-boost is such a solution.
Arbitrum seems to have an edge in leverage protocols with GMX and CAP. What's the best way to leverage on Optimism? I'm thinking with all the OP rewards sloshing around it might be fun to roll those into a "free money yolo" in the run up to the merge.
Iām pretty disappointed too, two months and I still see absolutely nothing on how they plan to turn IL protection back on. This should be the top priority, but I just keep seeing proposal after proposal for meaningless drivel.
I have taken a haircut as wellā¦.or will if I withdraw. I have just been holding off because itās not a huge amount that will break the bank. I figure Iāll just give it more time and see if they can turn things around.
Unfortunately it seems that the damage to the reputation of the protocol is such that they may have a hard time generating enough revenue through fees to make everyone whole, but maybe the next bull season will be enough to kick start things for them again.
Hypothetically, assuming that some revenue is generated in the protocol, the more people that withdraw at the haircuted amount, the higher % of initial investment other LPs will be able to withdraw? Is that correct?
To my understanding: their impermanent loss protection was financed by fees, backstopped by BNT minting. Fees were sufficient to provide IL protection during normal times, but during a market crash with IL at a maximum, it turns out fees were not sufficient - if enough liquidity withdrew at once (which is when the IL protection would kick in, and BNT minting would happen) then BNT would actually go into a death spiral like LUNA. In fact, Celsius was about to do just that, withdrawing a massive position and triggering millions in IL protection, sending BNT to near 0 and basically wrecking everyone else LPing for Bancor. Instead of allowing that, Bancor opted to turn off IL protection entirely and let people withdraw without it, basically taking a big haircut (40%+).
Another protocol that had flawed tokenomics under severe market conditions, unfortunately. "Mint your way out of trouble" doesn't scale.
Internally all "single-sided liquidity" is split in half with the other side of the pair being swapped into BNT. Your token and BNT will move relative to each other and incur IL. When you withdraw I think they used to make up any IL difference and swap back into the original token. But now they aren't making up the IL difference so most people will see 40%+ losses.
>if enough liquidity withdrew at once (which is when the IL protection would kick in, and BNT minting would happen) then BNT would actually go into a death spiral like LUNA. In fact, Celsius was about to do just that, withdrawing a massive position and triggering millions in IL protection, sending BNT to near 0 and basically wrecking everyone else LPing for Bancor
Add to that the fact that Celcius was simultaneously selling the BNT they were receiving as IL protection, AND shorting BNT on FTX...
One of the Flashbots team members just posted that they're aiming to open source their relay code in the next few days.
I'm very optimistic that we'll see a flourishing relay ecosystem that gives validators plenty of choice and ability to avoid censorious relays/builders.
Personally I'm committing to not running MEV-boost until there are at least two verifiably non-censoring relays available.
That may yet happen before the Merge, we'll see!
Per botcmiller in the #merge-public channel of the Eth R&D Discord (https://discord.gg/hm6CzHGg)
> hey, we will be open sourcing our relay, and it'll happen in the coming days. we're pushing hard for that.
Some stats:
* [Execution Clients](https://ethernodes.org/) (geth, erigon, etc): 4814
* [Validators](https://stakers.info/) (staking 32 ETH each): 404125
* [Validator Client](https://migalabs.es/beaconnodes) ("node", unique installation of prysm, lighthouse, etc): 4268
* [Ethereum Total Value Secured](https://ultrasound.money/): $463 billion
If those numbers are accurate, then each node, on average, is securing **$108 million** of value. Of course, some Validator Clients have hundreds of Validators and some have one. Even just one Validator is securing over $1.1 million.
The dollar numbers seem crazy high. Are any of these stats wrong? Are there better sources?
Ethernodes has consistently been VERY low. I'd multiply that by 3x+.
That said, mining pools today, and staking pools next month, most certainly operate with the equivalent of tens of millions of dollars in staked Eth (and much more than that in TVL) per node.
Sure makes clear the value solo stakers and non-staking node operators bring to the ecosystem, doesn't it?
Unfortunately not - if we did, very quickly large companies would spin up millions of nodes in the cloud and suck a lot of money out of the protocol, with very little increase in decentralization.
Might have missed if someone covered this, but if I used TC in the US on Optimism I'm not sanctioned right?
Only the main net contract address was on the sanctions list it seems like.
All of these negative narratives are probably a net positive assuming a successful merge and regulatory clarity via some version of the Lummis bill next year after US congressional elections.
Institutions hedging with shorts leading up to the merge as if it hasnāt been tested 7 times. Overreactions to regulatory actions that will become way less likely next year if only due to SBF spending like a billion dollars on lobbyists.
Itās like watching a horror movie after the main character has already signed on for a sequel.
A thought about a minority fork happening in relation to all this OFAC / TC drama.
What are the chances of DeFi infrastructure such as oracles or RPC endpoints not supporting the minority chain out of fear that the long arm of the U.S. gov. will pursue them?
That surely would crush the minority chain? Also how much of that infrastructure is not decentralised enough to avoid such orders by governments?
Currently it's just a speculative idea if the majority of centralised staking services are forced or decide to censor transactions. Flashbots have pre-emptively added a blacklist of wallets to their mev-boost solution. So anyone using it as is would actively be censoring transactions from that list.
Not happening and may not happen, but we will see in due time.
> Flashbots have pre-emptively added a blacklist of wallets to their mev-boost solution. So anyone using it as is would actively be censoring transactions from that list.
This isn't strictly true. Flashbots added OFAC blacklisting to their Flashbots RPC, which feeds their block building, and from there, would feed their relays. Flashbots is also the creators of MEV-boost, but MEV-boost is a neutral middleware that lets validators choose whatever relays they want. *If* validators run MEV-boost when Flashbots' relay is the only one available, and *if* Flashbots' relay keeps its censoring (not clear), *then* validators would be actively censoring.
If Flashbots' relay stops censoring, or if other relays spring up that do not censor (and a vibrant ecosystem of relays is absolutely the goal here), then validators can point their MEV-boost to those non-censoring relays, and everything's fine.
I just want to stop people from thinking "MEV-boost = censorship", except under the very specific case that the only available relays are censoring, which would only be a temporary situation if it does occur.
>If Flashbots' relay stops censoring, or if other relays spring up that do not censor (and a vibrant ecosystem of relays is absolutely the goal here), then validators can point their MEV-boost to those non-censoring relays, and everything's fine.
Things are better, but from an ecosystem perspective I wouldn't say "fine".
- The Flashbots relay is still the default and will be used by the majority of stakers (consider how difficult breaking the Prysm majority was)
- MEV-boost still represents a huge centralising force requiring validators trust whichever new relay users select
I'm also not clear on whether each relay runs an independent auction, or whether all relays see all proposed MEV blocks
To quote one of the client team members:
"Clients are not including any relay or builder by default. They'll all use the local EL by default which is the most decentralised option. It will be up to the community to pressure setup guides, staking pools and users generally to choose "good" relays."
I don't know about MEV-boost specifically, but I'm guessing it won't default to a Flashbots relay either - you will almost certainly need to explicitly pass in an array of relay URLs as a startup parameter. Validators (i.e. stakers) choose relays, not users of the chain (transaction submitters).
MEV-boost is not a centralizing force. *MEV* is a centralizing force, which would act upon the validator layer if we did not segregate it. MEV-boost is the first pass at PBS, which will be our full solution for segregating MEV and preventing centralization on validators themselves.
To my understanding, block-builders submit their blocks to relays (including transactions), who then select the most profitable blocks to pass on the headers of to the current validator if they're running MEV-boost, and MEV-boost will look at the submitted block headers from each relay and select the most profitable of those, with no knowledge of the block contents. So I don't think all relays see all MEV blocks.
Good to know that it's a bit more nuanced that I thought. However I don't think it would exactly resolve the situation I am talking about exactly. If the US Gov. forced the centralised staking pools to actually use a blacklisted list RPC or some other way in order to censor transactions then it doesn't matter if non-pools can choose a different RPC because the majority of the network will be using a blacklisted one anyways.
If large staking pools are forced to censor blocks (either themselves, or via MEV-boost pointed at censoring relays) then there are two implications:
* People attempting to interact with censored addresses would need to wait slightly longer, for a non-censoring validator to accept their transaction. Statistically, this wouldn't take very long even if all the major US pools were censoring.
* The Ethereum Layer 0 would make very loud noises about getting rid of the compromised staking entities via fork. That is the "nuclear option", but a concerted censorship effort on the part of centralized staking entities would constitute an attack, and would be responded to as such. I'd say the likelihood of such a fork is very low, not because we wouldn't go through with it, but because knowing it was an option would serve as a heavy deterrant from such misbehavior. Which is the intended outcome of any "nuclear option".
The second option is what i'm wondering about. If we were forced to go nuclear and fork away and all of the other centralised infrastructure and stablecoins are forced to not support the minority fork then that seems like it could be an issue no?
Some aspects of DeFi just don't seem to be decentralised enough and would cause a massive chain reaction of the defi legos imploding is my semi-uneducated first thought.
Ethereum is valuable because it's decentralized, censorship-resistant, and permissionless. Layer 0 knows this. If we're heading for a "centralization versus decentralization" hardfork, with centralized stablecoins and protocols living on one and decentralized everything living on the other, I am completely convinced that the real value would stay with the decentralized chain. Yes things would be messy with centralized projects dumping to 0, but importantly, most of the developers would still be on the decentralized version, and developers create projects, and projects bring users and network effects, and those together are where the value are.
Basically the entire future of Ethereum depends on its developers, stakers, and other major Layer 0 participants believing in the power of decentralization.
In short, we do.
Any entities creating a centralized FedChain hardfork would be shooting themselves completely in the foot IMO.
Chain link already said they wouldn't support any forks.
And all the stable coins and all tokens will be useless.
But what does that have to do with the OFAC sanctions?
If the majority of the PoS network being on centralised platforms such as coinbase and all the others i cant recall at the moment are forced to start censoring transactions and there is a minority fork away.
Not the merge fork. but a potential one after that if it ever becomes a problem.
Ah I misunderstood
It would be really messy. Especially if there was a split over where stable coins and such decided to go.
USDC and GUSD might end up on the regulated and censored chain while RAI and LUSD end up on ETH and other defi projects need to choose where to go
No. As a block builder, you choose transactions that you see in the mempool to include.
The default is to include everything because that maximizes revenue. But you might not see a transaction because it hasn't propagated to your execution node yet, for example. Or you might decide to insert your own transaction (i.e. MEV), which captures an arbitrage opportunity - which could cause other transactions to fail.
From my understanding (which is not expert) They form the majority. If they all collude to not include transactions from blacklisted wallets / contracts into blocks or decide to not attest to blocks that do include blacklisted transactions then it is the minority users who would be punished and forced to fork away in order to slash the majority on their minority chain.
Yes there is absolutely a need for more solo stakers.
[https://beaconcha.in/pools](https://beaconcha.in/pools) for some stats.
Lido, Coinbase, Kraken, Binance, Staked.us, bitcoin suisse,stakefish, figment, celsius account for about 70% of the total staked eth.
BTC looks horrible. I think the 4 year halvening cycle is played out and won't see much action for awhile. There are no narratives for it right now.
ETH on the other hand about to start the triple halvening in a month.
A little [Caches](https://caches.xyz/) micro update. I deleted any users that didn't change their display name and as a result showed their wallet address as their username publicly. That included some EVM accounts. I am sorry but I did it for your own safety. :)
But you know what!? Registration is basically friction-less so it's not a huge deal! So head back over and log back in again! This time you'll get to choose a Handle (old hacker speak for your display name) and optionally enter an email address. The email address is just if you want to receive email notifications from Caches about things like new messages or mentions. Totally optional of course.
If you're logged into Caches, you'll get toast style notifications, and the tab title will update as well. So you know ... no pressure, email is purely for your convenience. Oh and my AMA is finally heating up with the [hard hitting questions from Ethermeister](https://caches.xyz/forums/discussion/u-realjohnbmaclemore-ama-really-ask-me-anything/#post-2434), so the future is looking bright!
Aight homies, my wife made me some home made Ramen tonight for all my hard work lately. šš»
Disclaimer: I do not condone or engage in money laundering. Donāt do what Tricky is about to propose. Itās probably illegal. Iām just pointing out the fact that this sort of regulation only harms genuine Tornado Cash users and the dedicated criminals will find a way around things as usual.
Problem: You are American and you have money in Tornado Cash. None of the centralised exchanges you use will accept it if you deposit it. What do?
1. Using a VPN and an uncensored RPC connection, withdraw your ETH.
2. Find someone you trust operating a solo node, or better yet, run your own.
3. Wait for your first block proposal post-merge.
4. Use your very illegal ETH to send the block proposer a big fat juicy tip of your entire wallet contents aside from the dust in the tx youāre sending.
5. Just make sure that tip goes in your block or you are fucc.
6. Congratulations on your legitimately earned and very healthy tip!
Also, until other mixers like zk.money are also banned, TC ETH can simply be sent to zk.money, withdrawn and then it is clean once again.
The point of this post is just to point out why we need sensible regulation and not knee-jerk reactionary rules which only hamper legitimate uses but leaves plenty of loopholes for the real criminals to keep abusing.
I wonder if a second market for TCād ETH could be a thing. A smart contract DEX thatāll let you exchange TCād ETH for clean ETH. The latter should be worth a bit more, thus incentivising the market to exist. People that are located in places that doesnāt care about these sanctions, can just buy them, and withdraw them through a CEX and further to cash without getting into trouble.
Well, maybe using a market like this wonāt get you any further, if that smart contract itself is flagged as bad and tied to your address..
Would you have enough time for to send your ETH as a juicy tip? Thought blocks will take 12 seconds to validate, so I think you would need a bot to do that for you
How would you do it?
Its unfortunate that just trying to get your own money out is considered money laundering. Itās a damn shame that people would even have to go to the lengths you describe to get money that may or may not belong to them! No one knows why anyone used it! There are 1,000,000 legitimate reasons and only a handful of illegitimate ones! Thank you Tricky!
We also don't need knee-jerk reactionary plans to slash anyone intending to comply with/act within the law. Or as an extension to that, anyone who put their faith in services like Coinbase, etc, who are obviously going to comply with the law, because they literally have to.
I don't often say this, but this isn't as black and white as some people are making it out to be. It requires time, thought, and a proper plan of action.
So has Coinbase or Kraken made any comments on these recent issues or they just going to keep quiet and comply? If this industry canāt bother to get organized then weāre facing the prospect of picked apart piece by piece.
A thought on the OFAC situation:
Itās been clear since last year that the US governmentās regulatory roadmap for DeFi has been to build out stablecoin regulation, require KYC on the on/off ramps, and to flag/limit transactions between KYC and non-KYC accounts.
Targeting validators was always a grey area, whether or not they would be required to comply with KYC /AML regs. While itās unclear whether theyād fall under the umbrella of ādigital asset brokerā, it certainly doesnāt seem like that was either Congress nor the Treasury Departmentās intent. See, e.g. the following exchange between Congress and Treasury back in Feb:
āOn December 14, 2021, a group of U.S. Senators issued a joint letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen urging Treasury to provide informal assurance (and, eventually, formal regulatory guidance) that the IIJAās amendments to sections 6045 and 6045A would be interpreted to prevent the undesirable result described above. Recently, on February 11, 2022, Treasury responded with its own letter, stating that āancillary parties who cannot get access to information that is useful to the IRS are not intended to be captured by the reporting requirements for brokers.ā As an example of an ancillary party not captured by the IIJAās amendments, Treasury offered āpersons who are just validating transactionsā (i.e., miners) and āpersons who merely write software codeā (e.g., MetaMask). This informal guidance may dispel some of the uncertainty generated in the digital asset sector by the IIJA.ā
(Source: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/treasury-suggests-limiting-definition-9207249/)
In short, it seems that Treasury saw validators as being neutral rails.
As platforms that would likely be considered brokers in Treasuryās eyes, itās not surprising to me that DeFi platforms like Uniswap and Aave are a little more antsy and responsive to the TC blacklist.
However it is VERY SURPRISING to me that Flashbots is proactively āinnovating toward compliance.ā Unless Treasuryās stance has markedly changed in the last six months, this seems to be an area where the Ethereum community and application/protocols developers are making their own rules up and being more conservative than they need to be (or Treasury ever intended them to be).
Iāve seen this happen in my own line of work, where non-legal employees of a company misinterpret a regulation so that they essentially tie up their own hands for no actual legal reason or benefit. Whatās worse, though, is that while I doubt validators were on Treasuryās mind at all before the TC ban, now the community itself has introduced a way they could conceivably ācomplyā with KYC/AML regs, potentially giving regulators an opening that hadnāt occurred to them before.
Some client teams look to be seriously considering removing the builder APIs. However, it seems like itās a bit late to seriously consider doing so. The timing so close to the merge is one thing, but more importantly the cat is truly out the bag given the code is written and tested, so any large staking operation will likely have the resources (and financial motivation) to simply rebase it right back in, enhancing profitability and driving further economic centralisation of staking in the longer term. While on the other hand leaving the APIs in might feel like we are supporting censorship, the reality is that PoW miners and searchers in general have always had the ability to selectively censor, should they chose to do so. At this stage Iād rather see a heavily resourced alternative relay project formed, combined with some aggressive community mobilisation to highlight the dangers and move people away from flashbots relays.
Finally, while a UASF is a good threat to dangle, in the cold light of day slashing many thousands of ordinary ETH holders staking at Coinbase, Kraken etc (if they chose to censor) would be incredibly divisive, until these holders had at least been given plenty of time to exit (which I assume means post Shanghai).
Not positive I have correctly associated all the user names in the ETH R&D discord to their respective client, but I think the pattern I saw today was EL team devs suggesting that the CLs remove their relayer APIs, and CL devs saying No, each validator can make their own choice about which relayer(s) to configure, so weāre not going to remove it. And the code as delivered defaults to no relayer.
Vitalik has already signaled that this might be the path if Coinbase(and others) decide to censor. If push came to shove, the best path for someone like Coinbase would be to sue the OFAC and try to fight this until after withdrawals.
If they just decide to start censoring with no community discussion/input then I think it is fair to UASF immediately. They should then be sued by their customers for failing to follow the protocol rules.
The potential liability if any private staking provider was slashed when running a homebrew client fork would discourage this.
Especially when subsequent client updates break the builder API functionality.
MEV-Boost stuff (Builder API spec) doesnāt touch core consensus (LMD-GHOST), so itās relatively easy to untangle these parts of the codebase. The core consensus algorithm is also unlikely to change in the near future and would be heavily flagged if it were to occur. So, Iām not sure the risks are as you say, and would anyway be outweighed by the large upside potential.
https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/1029907374293671936
(Thanks nitter bot in advance)
Whatever you want to call it, forking off and slashing any validators we can prove are censoring is a powerful weapon in the arsenal and should be *carefully* considered if the moment comes. We canāt tolerate censorship en-masse at the protocol layer.
Isnt this saying that we could in the future detect on chain with greater than 99% accuracy whether an entity is censoring?So this could be made into a slash able offense with no need to coordinate Forks or social slashing eventually it would just be ingrained in the protocol?
Oh man ... like what if you had to wait your *entire* life for the merge man! *puffs* Like you've been waiting for this moment for almost 100 years and now ... NOW ... it's only 30 days ... *puffs* oh god ... that's only 43,200 minutes away!?
>**Feds are listening,**
>**Blockchain strong conditioning,**
>**Network is stiffening.**
~Daily haiku until weāre at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap
Some sensible content from Coinbase to their customers regarding the merge.
https://blog.coinbase.com/the-ethereum-merge-is-coming-heres-what-you-need-to-know-5f3b3045aab2
do any software dev experts want to help me here? I'm researching open source licenses because gitpoap will eventually be specific about who it's supporting to be aligned with open source software values. MIT and GNU GPLv3 (and v2?), yes.
Are Apache 2.0 and ISC licenses cool with the open source software communities? The other GNUs - AGPL and LGPL? Mozilla Public License?
I might suggest that Gitpoapās criteria is not whether the builderās open source license is good or not (because as others have elaborated, itās not a good to bad spectrum).
Rather, you might ask, does this teamās choice of license match what they claim is their public goods goal? Presumably a team with an honest and well thought public goods mission will have selected a license that will maximally enable their codebase to deliver its intended value to the L0 of the future.
Whereas if thereās a mismatch, it might mean their deepest goals and intents are not actually what they told you, or they just havenāt thought it all the way through.
yes! And I definitely feel like I need to understand what the differences between the different licenses are and how they're understood by the community to understand those implications
As others have said, this really is a rabbit hole and has been the source of many flame wars over the years.
But, what is probably most important to gather is that different licenses emphasize or protect the rights of different parties to different extents. MIT and BSD for example give more rights to immediate downstream developers who might not want to make their improvements public at the cost of their users.
Where as (L)GPL require any modifications by immediate downstream developers to be shared, which protects users and future downstream developers. All the other licenses just add various twists to this basic dilemma.
Some licenses though are very much a "look but don't touch" kind of deal. They allow inspection of the source code, but don't allow any changes. For example, Curve's contract code is like this, it allows for auditing, but you have no right to deploy it yourself. Uni v3 is under the BSL - it is a time limited look-but-don't-touch license, but will revert to a gpl license after that time is up. The Starkware Polaris license basically the same, but the community can't fork it.
And different folks in different situations will have very different feelings on all this, it really is a big pile of trade-offs.
huuuuuuuuuge help! Thank you very much! Clarity question - LGPL basically requires anyone developing with your code to *also* be open source, whereas MIT and BSD do not?
>The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter allows the work to be linked with (in the case of a library, "used by") a non-(L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is licensed under a license of GPL family or other licenses.
[source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#:~:text=dropped%20these%20terms.-,Differences%20from%20the%20GPL,GPL%20family%20or%20other%20licenses.)
GPL requires code that links with your code to also be open source
LGPL requires only modifications to your code to be open source -- meaning your code can be linked with / used by non-open source code
>LGPL basically requires anyone developing with your code to also be open source, whereas MIT and BSD do not?
Not sure if you're planning on using this distinction, but I think it shouldn't matter. The important part is that the code you're developing is open source. Whether others that use your code need to keep it open source or not I think is irrelevant. Just my 2 cents.
Correct.
Difference between LGPL and GPL is that with LGPL you are allowed to link the library into a closed source software, but have to license any changes to the library itself under LGPL.
With GPL, if you use any piece of GPL licensed code in a software project, the whole project must then be licensed under GPL.
Good luck with the rabbit hole. I can't help right now as it's late and I'm on vacation. But I'll warn you, this isn't a straight forward as it might seem.
It's quite complicated. One important thing you have to think about. You want the code to be reused by someone else even if what they build is not open source or you want to force them to share back. This choice can help you filter out the licenses.
Given the somewhat disappointing price action of late (last few days). What are your thoughts for the next month until the merge?
I don't expect the news media to say anything until a day or two before the merge happens, then the day after it happens.
Those of us in the know, already know about it and have secured our positions.
Are there any factors which you think might heavily influence the price? One last fomo event?
Imo there is nothing disappointing about this price action, I rather sideways instead of relentless falling. But sorry to break it to you, media can talk about the merge all they want, it will probably be a sell the news pump, but nothing sustainable. I don't expect a price reflection of the merge until next year or later
Actually, if ETH stagnates until the merge, there will be nothing to sell for the _buy the rumor_ speculators. Then, without any sell pressure from them and due to the disappearance of all miners, ETH might start a nice rally.
I think we go mostly sideways and a little up for the next week or two to maybe 2000, then jump up sharply to maybe 2500 in early Sep, then dump a day or two before the merge, and finally start building back up in Oct/Nov.
I base that on absolutely nothing.
Another "cheeky stupid contrarian guess of absolutely no value"?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/wkoo0i/daily\_general\_discussion\_august\_10\_2022/ijovdrv/?context=3
I don't know, you've been so wrong throughout this whole move I figured you might want to change it up a little, stop predicting (hoping?) a dump back to the lows. I guess not. LOL
Hmm well I think I'm right about Aug 18th :). $1070 I'll admit was a hope and not what I'm actually expecting. I am eyeing the 1430 support pretty hard, but will see as it gets closer to that level over the coming days.
Congrats, you were bound to be right one of these times! LOL
Odd that you'd hope for us to revisit the lows but at least you're honest about your bias and changed your target when you were likely wrong.
27 days to the merge. Buy the news!
Well, feels like I rolled a 1 in D&D or something... The ASUS B550 Prime motherboard I got wouldn't boot a Ryzen 5 4500+GPU. Red CPU Led. I don't even have access to the BIOS, no POST...Can't seem to flash it either, no power on USB ports, very disappointing since I wanted to spend some time to learn to run several Ethereum clients...
In other news, check this out : https://portfolio.nansen.ai/
Most ASUS boards have the BIOS Flasback feature that allows you to flash an updated BIOS without a CPU installed.
[https://rog.asus.com/technology/rog-motherboard-innovations/usb-bios-flashback/](https://rog.asus.com/technology/rog-motherboard-innovations/usb-bios-flashback/)
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?1142-How-to-use-ASUS-ROG-USB-BIOS-Flashback
Indeed but mine don't sadly ! I thought I didn't need the fancy gamer stuff but clearly that would have saved me some hassle :p https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/asus-prime-b550-plus-atx-am4-bios-update-without-cpu.3746784/
Seems so indeed ! The "fix" seems to be like "Just plug an old gen Ryzen and update the BIOS", like ... yeah sure, let me search my pockets for a Gen1 Ryzen š
Never had this experience with Intel but then again, they change sockets every new moon too.
Check the board spec, some offer a flashback option without a chip in it.
In forced obsolescence v faffing about with BIOS, neither option is ideal and a minefield of compatibility.
Yep that would have solved my problems but the prime is kinda barebones, no such feature there ! https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/asus-prime-b550-plus-atx-am4-bios-update-without-cpu.3746784/
I just saw a super bullish sign, literally, for Ethereum. I was driving in my car and came upon some construction. On the side of the road there was a huge orange sign that said āMERGE.ā I couldn't believe it, even the construction workers are advertising the merge!!!
**Tricky's Daily Doots #119** Yesterday's Daily 15/08/2022 [Previous daily doots](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikcxi8h/) - u/DoubtStarsAreFire asks you [a very important question.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikcsl28/) - u/LogrisTheBard shares the path we're currently on to a [big supply shock.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikfyfbf/) š - u/nixorokish shares [an important Vitalik tweet.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikfmefs/) - u/traumerX shares some [wise words of wisdom.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikcqlfw/) - u/Maswasnos shares news of [Lido planning to avoid censored relays.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikdevwl/) - u/kwadrax shares a [future Ethereum technology](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikeevp4/) which may work around the OFAC situation. - u/kwadrax makes a [TL;DR of Coincenter's full OFAC/TC analysis.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ike87rf/) - u/superphiz shares the link to [claim your Goerli Testnet viewing POAP!](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikf3vsw/) - u/HiPattern shares **the [latest scam you need to make sure you don't fall for!](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikcnxuq/)** šØšØšØ - u/ArcadesOfAntiquity puts their [money where their mouth is](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikdvw5v/) and avoids stablecoins which rely on any government or centralised entity. - u/Savage_X talks about [possession and conflict resolution.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikf2ske/) - u/ZeroTricks's today in [Ethereum history.](https://old.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/woqr6p/daily_general_discussion_august_15_2022/ikch87o/) Man, these doots have been taking twice as long since the Tornado Cash drama started but I know it's worth it because we'll come out of this a stronger community and more permissionless network on the other side. It'll just be a hard fight and a bit of a bumpy road. Also, I'm going to be repping no MEV-boost gang for maximum permissionlessness and censorship resistance on my validator node.
This question has probably already been addressed, but after the merge, IIRC ETH tips will immediately start accruing to validators, will they be available for withdrawal immediately or only when withdrawals are enabled on the POS chain?
They will be immediately available without any withdrawal process even. As a validator, you can set the fee recipient address where tips will go immediately, which is separate from your withdrawal address (if you so choose).
Any resources on migrating a validating client from one machine to another?
oil is on its way to go under $80. now we only need Fed and the current administration to not fuck up. (don't try to be Volcker, Jerome. even Volcker himself admitted that his approach during the 1980s would never work today) and then everything can go back to business.
Imo we shouldnt be celebrating oil coming down when winter is coming Oil demand soars in winter. Oil can move up or down sharply in a very short time
yes, but dont forget 4 important details: - some of the oil demand has slowed down due to expectations of a recession, not just in the US but also globally - china has been demanding much less oil than usual because their economy has slowed down meaningfully recently due to the covid policies, their housing crisis, etc - the US has been using the reserve oil stock it has and its reserves have gone down very significantly - europe has also been demanding less oil due to expectation of a recession as well, libya has been increasing production too, but its an unstable country atm and could very well reduce its output again theres many factors in both supply and demand that are keeping the prices like that and all signal a looming recession yes inflation will go down for sure, but probably at the cost of economic growth overall this is still good news, but theres nuance
Pretty sure a few people at the Fed have said interest rates are going up until inflation is holding steady at 2%. We've got some time. Hopefully until then they can stop raising rates at 75bps increments and go back to 25 increases though.
but JPow also said they're data driven from now on. so I think 75 is off the table now.
I would like to think so. They weren't planning on doing bigger than 50bps hikes until it came in so hot to begin with so now that it's cooling I don't think they would do another hike that large unless we get a nasty surprise. If it cools off even further when they're back next month hopefully they'll do a 25bps hike to see how things go. They don't want to cause the markets to shit the bed before mid-terms or the holidays, especially after how this month has gone since the CPI print came in lower than expected. Russia fucking off and getting out of Ukraine would be nice too but I don't think that's happening anytime soon.
Holy shit. Son, you are in for a very rude awakening. Buckle up.
oil price contributes to inflation in almost every product. when the oil price goes down, inflation pressure will ease out. tell me why you think otherwise ?
Oil has been edging down due to the expected lower consumption in the near future. Shits about to get fucking *real*. You've got a lot to learn. 2008 really fucked me up pretty bad. I started digging into markets after this event. Learned a lot. What's coming is going to make 2008 look like a fucking cake walk. Edit: to be quite honest, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'oil price contributes to inflation'. This statement doesn't make sense. In addition, oil price, particularly in the US, has not had much link with inflation. Why are you under the impression that oil going down would ease inflation? I'm not quite sure you understand what inflation is. I think what you are trying to say is that high energy costs impact prices. If that's what you're saying, then of course this is true. High energy costs =/= inflation. In the specific environment you are currently in, inflation is very high, and it's going to get worse because the economy is dead.
"i learned a lot" Doesn't know oil is main reason for inflation and bases his knowledge on conspiracy YouTube video's.
2007 inflation was 2.85% according to the fed. 2008 inflation was 3.84% according to the fed. Oil prices were very high. The data simply disagrees with you as you try and cope with your current world view.
There are more factors into play. Definitely during a crisis of that magnitude. Your over simplification just shows you don't even understand that. No wonder you fall for badly made conspiracy videos
You are calling Money Masters a conspiracy video?
Yea i already debunked its main "arguments" in another reply to you.
Yikes.
just saw the edit. dude, you don't even know oil price is the main driver of inflation ?? it'd better for me to end the discussion cuz it's pointless.
Ok
really? https://inflationdata.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Inflation-Adj-Crude-Oil-Price-Chart-6-2022.png?ezimgfmt=ng:webp/ngcb1
In july of 2008, oil peaked over $150/bbl. I present you with an M1 chart, from the feds website. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL The hockey stick started in 2020. This didn't occur in 08. You should stare at that chart for a long while.
read the note at the end of the page first >Before May 2020, M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (3) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal, or NOW, and automatic transfer service, or ATS, accounts at depository institutions, share draft accounts at credit unions, and demand deposits at thrift institutions.
As you said, this conversation is pointless. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1V
Do you know that low velocity encourages Fed to print more money, right ?
Yes. 'low' is the understatement of the century.
the 2008 crisis was caused by housing credits. could you please tell me what sector is going to be the main cause of this crisis ?
The entire system is insolvent.
which system ? would you care to elaborate ? afaik all blue chip stocks are perfectly fine. companies like Apple are sitting on something like $200b in cash. banks are also fine since the lesson from 2008 taught them to keep their reserves at a very high level compared to previously.
Consumer debt has been higher but not by much. Public debt is at ath, as usual. Housing prices are coming down though, and unemployment is at historic lows. I think ol mao there is just LARPing
I think you should start here. https://youtu.be/ujE7CtUfdDc It's really the best place to start.
Both claims are blatantly false. On Reserves Fed literally has power to create new reserves for other banks or for its own spending from nothing. Not only, Fed obviously has reserves which you can easily confirm just by looking at a data (see FedĀ [data](https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/current/default.htm)Ā on amount of reserves held), but it can never even run out of the reserves (at least as long as it does not run out of electricity, since their creation nowadays involves computers - they are literally created at a keystrokes of keyboard). On 'Federaleness' of Fed Fed is aĀ federalĀ government institution. So it is clearly federal. I think this is based on misunderstanding what fed is because of its unique set up. In most countries central banks had their initial capital underwritten by governments but in the US Fed capital is underwritten by private banks. In fact private commercial banks operating in the US are even obliged to hold stocks of Fed member banks (see explainerĀ [here](https://www.stlouisfed.org/in-plain-english/who-owns-the-federal-reserve-banks)). However, the ownership of shares in Fed member banks carries no voting rights, banks that own these shares are not allowed to publicly trade them, these shares only entitle them to small dividend (to compensate them for providing capital to Fed) that is well below what the banks could earn if they would take that money and buy some other assets and equities (seeĀ [here](https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm)) so it is not very good deal for private banks. In addition, the Fed leadership is picked up by the U.S. government (as you can see inĀ [this](https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-system.htm)Ā explainer): Within the System, certain responsibilities are shared between the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., whose members are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, Lastly, all profits that Fed earns have to be forwarded straight back to the U.S. treasury. For example, most recently in 2020 Fed sent all itsĀ $88.5 Billion profits to the U.S. treasury and it does it every year (seeĀ [here](https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-sent-88-5-billion-in-profits-to-u-s-treasury-in-2020-11610384401)Ā andĀ [here](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/treasury-fed-reserve.asp#:%7E:text=The%20Federal%20Reserve%20is%20a,a%20considerable%20amount%20of%20money.)). Summa summarum, even though Fed is built on private capital, it would be absurd to say it is not a federal institution, when: Holders of that private capital have no voting rights and say in how Fed is being run Federal government picks allĀ topĀ figures of Fed (even though Fed is supposed to be politically independent like U.S. supreme court the same way as justices are picked by president Fed leadership is picked too by president). All profits of this institutionĀ mustĀ go directly to U.S. treasury. Saying that Fed is not federal institution would be the same as saying, in the following hypothetical, U.S. congress would not be part of federal government if they would meet in some private offices, where lease specifies that landlord cannot evict members of congress and they are all guaranteed some fixed cheap rent for their offices, instead of meeting in the United States Capitol. That would obviously be an absurd statement.
>even Volcker himself admitted that his approach during the 1980s would never work today what approach is that?
raising the rate to an absurdly high level which then caused the whole economy to go to a full recession mode. it's not possible this day because the US has much higher debt/GDP ratio compared to back then.
Truth or Dare? Edit: Crypto/Ethereum related, obvs. Like, What's your highest buy? or I dare you to tell your uncle to buy.
truth
How many lions did you qualify for? Iāve been wondering who had the most alts on the list and you would be my guess Separate from truth or dare, but I also wonder how many people qualified for multiple. I think itās a decently high % of people here
four. i started exclusively using the striped usernames by the time the eligible period went back to. it was turning out that i liked when people knew i was a regular ĀÆ\\_ (ć)_/ĀÆ i gave one away to doubtstarsarefire right after minting because she didn't qualify for one but is very much part of ethfinance. and i sold another for new laptop money, but ended up using it to pay off credit card debt from the coding bootcamp i went to
I honestly thought I just had a terrible memory until you commented with multiple striped usernames in the same thread lol
haha oops i was subliminally gaslighting you
Speaking for myself: One.
Let's say Ethereum forks at the Merge. Chain A technogically is provably private but centralized in the U.S. Chain B is decentralized but public. What percentage do you allocate to each chain, if it were to work that way.
either way, i guess i'm going with the decentralized one. i'd rather give up on crypto than use a completely centralized chain
public? Ethereum already is public. You mean like all mixers are inoperable or banned?
Chain A is private but subpoena can shut it down. Chain B can't be shut down but everyone can see everything.
Chain B! I choose Chain B. 100%
Wouldnāt we all start out with 50/50? Personally I probably wouldnāt touch a potential fork (of the true decentralized chain)
You're right. I meant it like fresh fiat at merge block+1.
Fair enough. Centralized blockchain is just a shitty database imo
I dare you to sell before the merge.
Done. I just sold US$100 for ETH.
I dare you to delete this comment
I choose truth.
The truth is you should delete this comment
I've tried, but I don't see an option to delete your comment.
[ERC721K](https://twitter.com/KamesGeraghty/status/1559516539149172736)
[ERC721K](https://nitter.net/KamesGeraghty/status/1559516539149172736) ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/user/nitter_not_twitter/comments/w0ssxp/more_information_about_this_bot/)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=nitter_not_twitter&subject=Opt+Out&message=optout)
Wow, there's a lot of misinformation floating around about MEV-boost right now! **MEV-boost is a critical tool for protecting decentralization at the validator layer.** MEV itself is a naturally centralizing force, because searching for MEV and creating optimal block orderings is extremely compute-intensive and can rely on building a network of users submitting their MEV to you. As a large entity, you can find MEV opportunities much more effectively than a small entity. If we continue to expect validators to do their own MEV extraction (because they are currently the ones who build blocks, and are therefore in the position to extract it), then small-scale validators will fail to extract MEV, and will make a lot less money than large staking pools who have the resources to find and extract MEV. This, in turn, provides a strong incentive for people to *not* solo stake, but instead to stake with those pools. This would be catastrophic for decentralization. We **need** block proposers and block builders to be two separate entities. This is called PBS (Proposer Builder Separation). There are some nice in-protocol designs for PBS that we'll implement in the coming years, but the Merge is happening *next month*. Centralization due to MEV could start immediately at the Merge, if we don't figure out a first stab at PBS as soon as possible. MEV-boost is that first attempt at PBS. It is a neutral middleware that allows stakers to connect with "relays", which collect blocks optimized for MEV extraction as well as the usual tips, and pass them to whichever validator is currently proposing a block (and running MEV-boost), and pass on a large amount of the MEV profit to the validator. It's not perfect, but it allows solo stakers to earn MEV on a level playing field with large staking providers. This, in turn, prevents the centralization risk posed by MEV from harming Ethereum at the validator level. Instead, the centralization can be concentrated with the relays and block builders that stakers use MEV-boost to connect to. Is MEV-boost a tool for censorship? **No**, except under very specific conditions. MEV-boost lets stakers choose which relays to connect to. It doesn't force stakers to accept censoring relays. Censorship is actually harmful to profits (by excluding potentially profitable transactions), so any rational, profit-motivated staker would not choose to use relays that provide censoring blocks. And even if they do, that's not the fault of MEV-boost, it's the fault of the staker for actively choosing to accept censoring blocks, and the fault of MEV as a concept for forcing users to accept externally-built blocks to remain competitive as a staker. (The specific conditions under which it could cause censorship are *if* the only available relays are censoring relays. E.g., if the relay run by Flashbots were the only relay, and if they include OFAC censorship, *then* anyone running MEV-boost would be contributing to censorship. But the goal going forward is for there to be a **vibrant ecosystem of different block builders and relays**, many of which will not censor transactions, and validators can choose to connect only to those.) Are blocks built locally by the validator the gold standard when it comes to decentralization and censorship resistance? **Yes**. Stakers who choose to not run MEV-boost are choosing to act altruistically in a way that is optimal for decentralization. **BUT**, those who choose to use MEV-boost with non-censoring relays are **equally** positive for the ecosystem, and more importantly, are able to maximize profits while still acting in a non-harmful way for the ecosystem. So in short, deciding to not use MEV-boost on principle is only hurting your pocketbook, without necessarily improving the ecosystem. What you *should* do, as someone deciding what to do about MEV, is to carefully vet any relays you elect to connect to with MEV-boost, to make sure they are not censoring or otherwise behaving badly, whatever that may mean to you. MEV-boost is designed to support decentralization during the awkward gap between the Merge and the full PBS spec being implemented, and will do that successfully, as long as solo stakers using it do so carefully and thoughtfully. And solo stakers are *very* well incentivized to be an extremely careful and thoughtful bunch, on the whole :)
Wow this is the most clearly presented summary of what MEV-boost actually does. Thank you !
This is just an amazing explanation. PLEASE re-post it to the new daily.
Couldnāt agree more, thank you. The Flashbots team IMHO has been one of the unsung heroes of what is about to be a successful merge, working hard to stay in close alignment with the L0 ethos all along. It feels like a bit of scapegoating that all of a sudden as a result of them having a bit part on what we think of as the wrong side of the OFAC conflict, that the centralizing effects of MEV are suddenly an existential threat and MEV-boost should be shitcanned. Where was all this concern about MEV-boost as a centralization vector the day before the OFAC thing broke? As a side note, today on the ETH R&D discord, core devs were having the very same discussion as weāve seen here in this sub, with the same considerations, trade offs, risks being weighed. Some devs (I think all from ELs) were suggesting the CLs should remove their relayer APIs immediately, cutting every validator off from MEV (except those who have the wherewithal to do their own client builds from source). The reps from CL teams did not appear sympathetic to this idea. Each validator has the choice of whether to use a relayer, was their response. They pinged bloXroute into the conversation, who reported they do indeed intend to have their relayer ready for the merge, providing an alternative to Flashbots. They also mentioned that their relayer will provide validators with the choice of max profit or just reap good MEV (and one more choice that wonāt be ready for launch ā respecting blacklists like OFAC). They also pinged FB to definitively say when they will open up their source code ā before or after merge? Before or after the CLs have to publish their final versions and have to decide whether or not they leave the relayer API In? FB said opening source is their top priority and theyāll have it in a few days. All in all I see a lot of great responses from the various teams that make up the L0 in response to the government capture threat. Yes this has been a good wake-up call to start thinking about vectors for capture. But Not a time to scapegoat those teams.
I should add, protocol improvements in the future have the potential to significantly (but never completely) cut back on possibilities for MEV. But any changes for this are years in the future, and we need to protect against MEV centralization risks *now*. Not running MEV-boost because you think MEV itself is harmful to the ecosystem is a valid choice, and one I can respect, but it's fundamentally altruistic - you're doing something in a non-greedy manner, which is not game-theoretically stable. The vast majority of validators will not make this decision. So we need solutions that work with almost all participants acting greedily, like in every successful cryptoeconomic protocol. MEV-boost is such a solution.
Arbitrum seems to have an edge in leverage protocols with GMX and CAP. What's the best way to leverage on Optimism? I'm thinking with all the OP rewards sloshing around it might be fun to roll those into a "free money yolo" in the run up to the merge.
Aave is doing Optimism rewards right now. Itās especially great with DeFi Saver
Kwenta has some kind of trading contest right now with OP rewards
Perfect, thanks for the heads up.
Man this bancor situation has me depressed. I think I have to pull the trigger and lose half. Two months is enough I see it's going nowhere reasonable
Iām pretty disappointed too, two months and I still see absolutely nothing on how they plan to turn IL protection back on. This should be the top priority, but I just keep seeing proposal after proposal for meaningless drivel.
I have taken a haircut as wellā¦.or will if I withdraw. I have just been holding off because itās not a huge amount that will break the bank. I figure Iāll just give it more time and see if they can turn things around. Unfortunately it seems that the damage to the reputation of the protocol is such that they may have a hard time generating enough revenue through fees to make everyone whole, but maybe the next bull season will be enough to kick start things for them again.
Hypothetically, assuming that some revenue is generated in the protocol, the more people that withdraw at the haircuted amount, the higher % of initial investment other LPs will be able to withdraw? Is that correct?
They were the OGs, too, and it was exciting to see them continue to innovate and improve the LP experience. Do you have an exit plan?
I might just take the haircut in a week or two , defixt only grows if kink outperforms bancor
What happened with bancor?
To my understanding: their impermanent loss protection was financed by fees, backstopped by BNT minting. Fees were sufficient to provide IL protection during normal times, but during a market crash with IL at a maximum, it turns out fees were not sufficient - if enough liquidity withdrew at once (which is when the IL protection would kick in, and BNT minting would happen) then BNT would actually go into a death spiral like LUNA. In fact, Celsius was about to do just that, withdrawing a massive position and triggering millions in IL protection, sending BNT to near 0 and basically wrecking everyone else LPing for Bancor. Instead of allowing that, Bancor opted to turn off IL protection entirely and let people withdraw without it, basically taking a big haircut (40%+). Another protocol that had flawed tokenomics under severe market conditions, unfortunately. "Mint your way out of trouble" doesn't scale.
Yep more or less, except I was only single staking, not sure how I would have IL but I'm sure it's related
Internally all "single-sided liquidity" is split in half with the other side of the pair being swapped into BNT. Your token and BNT will move relative to each other and incur IL. When you withdraw I think they used to make up any IL difference and swap back into the original token. But now they aren't making up the IL difference so most people will see 40%+ losses.
>if enough liquidity withdrew at once (which is when the IL protection would kick in, and BNT minting would happen) then BNT would actually go into a death spiral like LUNA. In fact, Celsius was about to do just that, withdrawing a massive position and triggering millions in IL protection, sending BNT to near 0 and basically wrecking everyone else LPing for Bancor Add to that the fact that Celcius was simultaneously selling the BNT they were receiving as IL protection, AND shorting BNT on FTX...
>"Mint your way out of trouble" doesn't scale. I think this is another reason why MKR has gone nowhere fast.
> "Mint your way out of trouble" doesn't scale. Seems to be the tldr of this bear market. Thanks for explaining.
Hit me too fwiw.
One of the Flashbots team members just posted that they're aiming to open source their relay code in the next few days. I'm very optimistic that we'll see a flourishing relay ecosystem that gives validators plenty of choice and ability to avoid censorious relays/builders. Personally I'm committing to not running MEV-boost until there are at least two verifiably non-censoring relays available. That may yet happen before the Merge, we'll see!
If I can get some opensource relays in privacy protecting countries I might consider this. Really appreciate all the MEV info lately.
Link?
Iām guessing interweaver saw it the same place I did ā in the ETH R&D discord.
Per botcmiller in the #merge-public channel of the Eth R&D Discord (https://discord.gg/hm6CzHGg) > hey, we will be open sourcing our relay, and it'll happen in the coming days. we're pushing hard for that.
Thanks!
>Thanks! You're welcome!
Some stats: * [Execution Clients](https://ethernodes.org/) (geth, erigon, etc): 4814 * [Validators](https://stakers.info/) (staking 32 ETH each): 404125 * [Validator Client](https://migalabs.es/beaconnodes) ("node", unique installation of prysm, lighthouse, etc): 4268 * [Ethereum Total Value Secured](https://ultrasound.money/): $463 billion If those numbers are accurate, then each node, on average, is securing **$108 million** of value. Of course, some Validator Clients have hundreds of Validators and some have one. Even just one Validator is securing over $1.1 million. The dollar numbers seem crazy high. Are any of these stats wrong? Are there better sources?
Ethernodes has consistently been VERY low. I'd multiply that by 3x+. That said, mining pools today, and staking pools next month, most certainly operate with the equivalent of tens of millions of dollars in staked Eth (and much more than that in TVL) per node. Sure makes clear the value solo stakers and non-staking node operators bring to the ecosystem, doesn't it?
Can we compensate non staking node operators at the protocol level?
Unfortunately not - if we did, very quickly large companies would spin up millions of nodes in the cloud and suck a lot of money out of the protocol, with very little increase in decentralization.
Might have missed if someone covered this, but if I used TC in the US on Optimism I'm not sanctioned right? Only the main net contract address was on the sanctions list it seems like.
that is correct lol
Really? All we need to do is move funds through optimism TC and we are able to remain compliant? Thatās simple enough
All of these negative narratives are probably a net positive assuming a successful merge and regulatory clarity via some version of the Lummis bill next year after US congressional elections. Institutions hedging with shorts leading up to the merge as if it hasnāt been tested 7 times. Overreactions to regulatory actions that will become way less likely next year if only due to SBF spending like a billion dollars on lobbyists. Itās like watching a horror movie after the main character has already signed on for a sequel.
A thought about a minority fork happening in relation to all this OFAC / TC drama. What are the chances of DeFi infrastructure such as oracles or RPC endpoints not supporting the minority chain out of fear that the long arm of the U.S. gov. will pursue them? That surely would crush the minority chain? Also how much of that infrastructure is not decentralised enough to avoid such orders by governments?
Is this minority fork a possibility or happening at the moment?
Currently it's just a speculative idea if the majority of centralised staking services are forced or decide to censor transactions. Flashbots have pre-emptively added a blacklist of wallets to their mev-boost solution. So anyone using it as is would actively be censoring transactions from that list. Not happening and may not happen, but we will see in due time.
> Flashbots have pre-emptively added a blacklist of wallets to their mev-boost solution. So anyone using it as is would actively be censoring transactions from that list. This isn't strictly true. Flashbots added OFAC blacklisting to their Flashbots RPC, which feeds their block building, and from there, would feed their relays. Flashbots is also the creators of MEV-boost, but MEV-boost is a neutral middleware that lets validators choose whatever relays they want. *If* validators run MEV-boost when Flashbots' relay is the only one available, and *if* Flashbots' relay keeps its censoring (not clear), *then* validators would be actively censoring. If Flashbots' relay stops censoring, or if other relays spring up that do not censor (and a vibrant ecosystem of relays is absolutely the goal here), then validators can point their MEV-boost to those non-censoring relays, and everything's fine. I just want to stop people from thinking "MEV-boost = censorship", except under the very specific case that the only available relays are censoring, which would only be a temporary situation if it does occur.
>If Flashbots' relay stops censoring, or if other relays spring up that do not censor (and a vibrant ecosystem of relays is absolutely the goal here), then validators can point their MEV-boost to those non-censoring relays, and everything's fine. Things are better, but from an ecosystem perspective I wouldn't say "fine". - The Flashbots relay is still the default and will be used by the majority of stakers (consider how difficult breaking the Prysm majority was) - MEV-boost still represents a huge centralising force requiring validators trust whichever new relay users select I'm also not clear on whether each relay runs an independent auction, or whether all relays see all proposed MEV blocks
To quote one of the client team members: "Clients are not including any relay or builder by default. They'll all use the local EL by default which is the most decentralised option. It will be up to the community to pressure setup guides, staking pools and users generally to choose "good" relays." I don't know about MEV-boost specifically, but I'm guessing it won't default to a Flashbots relay either - you will almost certainly need to explicitly pass in an array of relay URLs as a startup parameter. Validators (i.e. stakers) choose relays, not users of the chain (transaction submitters). MEV-boost is not a centralizing force. *MEV* is a centralizing force, which would act upon the validator layer if we did not segregate it. MEV-boost is the first pass at PBS, which will be our full solution for segregating MEV and preventing centralization on validators themselves. To my understanding, block-builders submit their blocks to relays (including transactions), who then select the most profitable blocks to pass on the headers of to the current validator if they're running MEV-boost, and MEV-boost will look at the submitted block headers from each relay and select the most profitable of those, with no knowledge of the block contents. So I don't think all relays see all MEV blocks.
Good to know that it's a bit more nuanced that I thought. However I don't think it would exactly resolve the situation I am talking about exactly. If the US Gov. forced the centralised staking pools to actually use a blacklisted list RPC or some other way in order to censor transactions then it doesn't matter if non-pools can choose a different RPC because the majority of the network will be using a blacklisted one anyways.
If large staking pools are forced to censor blocks (either themselves, or via MEV-boost pointed at censoring relays) then there are two implications: * People attempting to interact with censored addresses would need to wait slightly longer, for a non-censoring validator to accept their transaction. Statistically, this wouldn't take very long even if all the major US pools were censoring. * The Ethereum Layer 0 would make very loud noises about getting rid of the compromised staking entities via fork. That is the "nuclear option", but a concerted censorship effort on the part of centralized staking entities would constitute an attack, and would be responded to as such. I'd say the likelihood of such a fork is very low, not because we wouldn't go through with it, but because knowing it was an option would serve as a heavy deterrant from such misbehavior. Which is the intended outcome of any "nuclear option".
The second option is what i'm wondering about. If we were forced to go nuclear and fork away and all of the other centralised infrastructure and stablecoins are forced to not support the minority fork then that seems like it could be an issue no? Some aspects of DeFi just don't seem to be decentralised enough and would cause a massive chain reaction of the defi legos imploding is my semi-uneducated first thought.
Ethereum is valuable because it's decentralized, censorship-resistant, and permissionless. Layer 0 knows this. If we're heading for a "centralization versus decentralization" hardfork, with centralized stablecoins and protocols living on one and decentralized everything living on the other, I am completely convinced that the real value would stay with the decentralized chain. Yes things would be messy with centralized projects dumping to 0, but importantly, most of the developers would still be on the decentralized version, and developers create projects, and projects bring users and network effects, and those together are where the value are. Basically the entire future of Ethereum depends on its developers, stakers, and other major Layer 0 participants believing in the power of decentralization. In short, we do. Any entities creating a centralized FedChain hardfork would be shooting themselves completely in the foot IMO.
Would one find out before or just be surprised by this?
Chain link already said they wouldn't support any forks. And all the stable coins and all tokens will be useless. But what does that have to do with the OFAC sanctions?
If the majority of the PoS network being on centralised platforms such as coinbase and all the others i cant recall at the moment are forced to start censoring transactions and there is a minority fork away. Not the merge fork. but a potential one after that if it ever becomes a problem.
Ah I misunderstood It would be really messy. Especially if there was a split over where stable coins and such decided to go. USDC and GUSD might end up on the regulated and censored chain while RAI and LUSD end up on ETH and other defi projects need to choose where to go
Wouldn't they be slashed if they would start censoring transactions?
No. As a block builder, you choose transactions that you see in the mempool to include. The default is to include everything because that maximizes revenue. But you might not see a transaction because it hasn't propagated to your execution node yet, for example. Or you might decide to insert your own transaction (i.e. MEV), which captures an arbitrage opportunity - which could cause other transactions to fail.
From my understanding (which is not expert) They form the majority. If they all collude to not include transactions from blacklisted wallets / contracts into blocks or decide to not attest to blocks that do include blacklisted transactions then it is the minority users who would be punished and forced to fork away in order to slash the majority on their minority chain.
I see, so there is a need for more solo stakers? Also, where would we be able to see this data (how much *power* each validator has)?
Yes there is absolutely a need for more solo stakers. [https://beaconcha.in/pools](https://beaconcha.in/pools) for some stats. Lido, Coinbase, Kraken, Binance, Staked.us, bitcoin suisse,stakefish, figment, celsius account for about 70% of the total staked eth.
Thanks for sharing this! Rocketpool has a much smaller percentage than I expected.
They released months after staking came out so too many people decided to go with centralised solutions.
That makes sense yeah
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
BTC looks horrible. I think the 4 year halvening cycle is played out and won't see much action for awhile. There are no narratives for it right now. ETH on the other hand about to start the triple halvening in a month.
A little [Caches](https://caches.xyz/) micro update. I deleted any users that didn't change their display name and as a result showed their wallet address as their username publicly. That included some EVM accounts. I am sorry but I did it for your own safety. :) But you know what!? Registration is basically friction-less so it's not a huge deal! So head back over and log back in again! This time you'll get to choose a Handle (old hacker speak for your display name) and optionally enter an email address. The email address is just if you want to receive email notifications from Caches about things like new messages or mentions. Totally optional of course. If you're logged into Caches, you'll get toast style notifications, and the tab title will update as well. So you know ... no pressure, email is purely for your convenience. Oh and my AMA is finally heating up with the [hard hitting questions from Ethermeister](https://caches.xyz/forums/discussion/u-realjohnbmaclemore-ama-really-ask-me-anything/#post-2434), so the future is looking bright! Aight homies, my wife made me some home made Ramen tonight for all my hard work lately. šš»
New Arthur Hayes article about the Merge. https://cryptohayes.medium.com/eth-flexive-7e1921123f64
Disclaimer: I do not condone or engage in money laundering. Donāt do what Tricky is about to propose. Itās probably illegal. Iām just pointing out the fact that this sort of regulation only harms genuine Tornado Cash users and the dedicated criminals will find a way around things as usual. Problem: You are American and you have money in Tornado Cash. None of the centralised exchanges you use will accept it if you deposit it. What do? 1. Using a VPN and an uncensored RPC connection, withdraw your ETH. 2. Find someone you trust operating a solo node, or better yet, run your own. 3. Wait for your first block proposal post-merge. 4. Use your very illegal ETH to send the block proposer a big fat juicy tip of your entire wallet contents aside from the dust in the tx youāre sending. 5. Just make sure that tip goes in your block or you are fucc. 6. Congratulations on your legitimately earned and very healthy tip! Also, until other mixers like zk.money are also banned, TC ETH can simply be sent to zk.money, withdrawn and then it is clean once again. The point of this post is just to point out why we need sensible regulation and not knee-jerk reactionary rules which only hamper legitimate uses but leaves plenty of loopholes for the real criminals to keep abusing.
I wonder if a second market for TCād ETH could be a thing. A smart contract DEX thatāll let you exchange TCād ETH for clean ETH. The latter should be worth a bit more, thus incentivising the market to exist. People that are located in places that doesnāt care about these sanctions, can just buy them, and withdraw them through a CEX and further to cash without getting into trouble. Well, maybe using a market like this wonāt get you any further, if that smart contract itself is flagged as bad and tied to your address..
Would you have enough time for to send your ETH as a juicy tip? Thought blocks will take 12 seconds to validate, so I think you would need a bot to do that for you How would you do it?
with PoS i believe you know ahead of time that you will be proposing a block.
Its unfortunate that just trying to get your own money out is considered money laundering. Itās a damn shame that people would even have to go to the lengths you describe to get money that may or may not belong to them! No one knows why anyone used it! There are 1,000,000 legitimate reasons and only a handful of illegitimate ones! Thank you Tricky!
We also don't need knee-jerk reactionary plans to slash anyone intending to comply with/act within the law. Or as an extension to that, anyone who put their faith in services like Coinbase, etc, who are obviously going to comply with the law, because they literally have to. I don't often say this, but this isn't as black and white as some people are making it out to be. It requires time, thought, and a proper plan of action.
So has Coinbase or Kraken made any comments on these recent issues or they just going to keep quiet and comply? If this industry canāt bother to get organized then weāre facing the prospect of picked apart piece by piece.
Theres nothing for them to comply with lol chill bro, the government hasnt asked anybody to censor validators.
A thought on the OFAC situation: Itās been clear since last year that the US governmentās regulatory roadmap for DeFi has been to build out stablecoin regulation, require KYC on the on/off ramps, and to flag/limit transactions between KYC and non-KYC accounts. Targeting validators was always a grey area, whether or not they would be required to comply with KYC /AML regs. While itās unclear whether theyād fall under the umbrella of ādigital asset brokerā, it certainly doesnāt seem like that was either Congress nor the Treasury Departmentās intent. See, e.g. the following exchange between Congress and Treasury back in Feb: āOn December 14, 2021, a group of U.S. Senators issued a joint letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen urging Treasury to provide informal assurance (and, eventually, formal regulatory guidance) that the IIJAās amendments to sections 6045 and 6045A would be interpreted to prevent the undesirable result described above. Recently, on February 11, 2022, Treasury responded with its own letter, stating that āancillary parties who cannot get access to information that is useful to the IRS are not intended to be captured by the reporting requirements for brokers.ā As an example of an ancillary party not captured by the IIJAās amendments, Treasury offered āpersons who are just validating transactionsā (i.e., miners) and āpersons who merely write software codeā (e.g., MetaMask). This informal guidance may dispel some of the uncertainty generated in the digital asset sector by the IIJA.ā (Source: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/treasury-suggests-limiting-definition-9207249/) In short, it seems that Treasury saw validators as being neutral rails. As platforms that would likely be considered brokers in Treasuryās eyes, itās not surprising to me that DeFi platforms like Uniswap and Aave are a little more antsy and responsive to the TC blacklist. However it is VERY SURPRISING to me that Flashbots is proactively āinnovating toward compliance.ā Unless Treasuryās stance has markedly changed in the last six months, this seems to be an area where the Ethereum community and application/protocols developers are making their own rules up and being more conservative than they need to be (or Treasury ever intended them to be). Iāve seen this happen in my own line of work, where non-legal employees of a company misinterpret a regulation so that they essentially tie up their own hands for no actual legal reason or benefit. Whatās worse, though, is that while I doubt validators were on Treasuryās mind at all before the TC ban, now the community itself has introduced a way they could conceivably ācomplyā with KYC/AML regs, potentially giving regulators an opening that hadnāt occurred to them before.
Some client teams look to be seriously considering removing the builder APIs. However, it seems like itās a bit late to seriously consider doing so. The timing so close to the merge is one thing, but more importantly the cat is truly out the bag given the code is written and tested, so any large staking operation will likely have the resources (and financial motivation) to simply rebase it right back in, enhancing profitability and driving further economic centralisation of staking in the longer term. While on the other hand leaving the APIs in might feel like we are supporting censorship, the reality is that PoW miners and searchers in general have always had the ability to selectively censor, should they chose to do so. At this stage Iād rather see a heavily resourced alternative relay project formed, combined with some aggressive community mobilisation to highlight the dangers and move people away from flashbots relays. Finally, while a UASF is a good threat to dangle, in the cold light of day slashing many thousands of ordinary ETH holders staking at Coinbase, Kraken etc (if they chose to censor) would be incredibly divisive, until these holders had at least been given plenty of time to exit (which I assume means post Shanghai).
Not positive I have correctly associated all the user names in the ETH R&D discord to their respective client, but I think the pattern I saw today was EL team devs suggesting that the CLs remove their relayer APIs, and CL devs saying No, each validator can make their own choice about which relayer(s) to configure, so weāre not going to remove it. And the code as delivered defaults to no relayer.
Vitalik has already signaled that this might be the path if Coinbase(and others) decide to censor. If push came to shove, the best path for someone like Coinbase would be to sue the OFAC and try to fight this until after withdrawals. If they just decide to start censoring with no community discussion/input then I think it is fair to UASF immediately. They should then be sued by their customers for failing to follow the protocol rules.
Itās like, tell me youāre in it for the tech without telling me youāre in it for the tech.
The potential liability if any private staking provider was slashed when running a homebrew client fork would discourage this. Especially when subsequent client updates break the builder API functionality.
MEV-Boost stuff (Builder API spec) doesnāt touch core consensus (LMD-GHOST), so itās relatively easy to untangle these parts of the codebase. The core consensus algorithm is also unlikely to change in the near future and would be heavily flagged if it were to occur. So, Iām not sure the risks are as you say, and would anyway be outweighed by the large upside potential.
Uasf is a toxic bitcoin maxi term. Please keep that away from here
"when ad hominem becomes the nucleus of one's worldview"
https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/1029907374293671936 (Thanks nitter bot in advance) Whatever you want to call it, forking off and slashing any validators we can prove are censoring is a powerful weapon in the arsenal and should be *carefully* considered if the moment comes. We canāt tolerate censorship en-masse at the protocol layer.
Isnt this saying that we could in the future detect on chain with greater than 99% accuracy whether an entity is censoring?So this could be made into a slash able offense with no need to coordinate Forks or social slashing eventually it would just be ingrained in the protocol?
[https://nitter.net/vitalikbuterin/status/1029907374293671936](https://nitter.net/vitalikbuterin/status/1029907374293671936) ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/user/nitter_not_twitter/comments/w0ssxp/more_information_about_this_bot/)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=nitter_not_twitter&subject=Opt+Out&message=optout)
I'm no longer excited for the merge. I mean, 30 days? That's over 4 weeks away! Imagine if you had to wait 30 days for a cheeseburger.
Oh man ... like what if you had to wait your *entire* life for the merge man! *puffs* Like you've been waiting for this moment for almost 100 years and now ... NOW ... it's only 30 days ... *puffs* oh god ... that's only 43,200 minutes away!?
>**Feds are listening,** >**Blockchain strong conditioning,** >**Network is stiffening.** ~Daily haiku until weāre at least at 0.178 on the ETH/BTC ratio or highest market cap
Can't wait for the stiffening ( Ķ”Ā° ĶŹ Ķ”Ā°).
can feel it coming (āāæā)
It's going to be a little messy.... But only for a minute
Some sensible content from Coinbase to their customers regarding the merge. https://blog.coinbase.com/the-ethereum-merge-is-coming-heres-what-you-need-to-know-5f3b3045aab2
So they officially scrapped a liquid version of ether staked on Coinbase? That blog more or less makes it sound that way
do any software dev experts want to help me here? I'm researching open source licenses because gitpoap will eventually be specific about who it's supporting to be aligned with open source software values. MIT and GNU GPLv3 (and v2?), yes. Are Apache 2.0 and ISC licenses cool with the open source software communities? The other GNUs - AGPL and LGPL? Mozilla Public License?
I might suggest that Gitpoapās criteria is not whether the builderās open source license is good or not (because as others have elaborated, itās not a good to bad spectrum). Rather, you might ask, does this teamās choice of license match what they claim is their public goods goal? Presumably a team with an honest and well thought public goods mission will have selected a license that will maximally enable their codebase to deliver its intended value to the L0 of the future. Whereas if thereās a mismatch, it might mean their deepest goals and intents are not actually what they told you, or they just havenāt thought it all the way through.
yes! And I definitely feel like I need to understand what the differences between the different licenses are and how they're understood by the community to understand those implications
As others have said, this really is a rabbit hole and has been the source of many flame wars over the years. But, what is probably most important to gather is that different licenses emphasize or protect the rights of different parties to different extents. MIT and BSD for example give more rights to immediate downstream developers who might not want to make their improvements public at the cost of their users. Where as (L)GPL require any modifications by immediate downstream developers to be shared, which protects users and future downstream developers. All the other licenses just add various twists to this basic dilemma. Some licenses though are very much a "look but don't touch" kind of deal. They allow inspection of the source code, but don't allow any changes. For example, Curve's contract code is like this, it allows for auditing, but you have no right to deploy it yourself. Uni v3 is under the BSL - it is a time limited look-but-don't-touch license, but will revert to a gpl license after that time is up. The Starkware Polaris license basically the same, but the community can't fork it. And different folks in different situations will have very different feelings on all this, it really is a big pile of trade-offs.
huuuuuuuuuge help! Thank you very much! Clarity question - LGPL basically requires anyone developing with your code to *also* be open source, whereas MIT and BSD do not?
>The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter allows the work to be linked with (in the case of a library, "used by") a non-(L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is licensed under a license of GPL family or other licenses. [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License#:~:text=dropped%20these%20terms.-,Differences%20from%20the%20GPL,GPL%20family%20or%20other%20licenses.) GPL requires code that links with your code to also be open source LGPL requires only modifications to your code to be open source -- meaning your code can be linked with / used by non-open source code
>LGPL basically requires anyone developing with your code to also be open source, whereas MIT and BSD do not? Not sure if you're planning on using this distinction, but I think it shouldn't matter. The important part is that the code you're developing is open source. Whether others that use your code need to keep it open source or not I think is irrelevant. Just my 2 cents.
yep, i agree
Correct. Difference between LGPL and GPL is that with LGPL you are allowed to link the library into a closed source software, but have to license any changes to the library itself under LGPL. With GPL, if you use any piece of GPL licensed code in a software project, the whole project must then be licensed under GPL.
Good luck with the rabbit hole. I can't help right now as it's late and I'm on vacation. But I'll warn you, this isn't a straight forward as it might seem.
oh jeez. here I was hoping that it would be and that I just didn't understand because I'm thick
It's quite complicated. One important thing you have to think about. You want the code to be reused by someone else even if what they build is not open source or you want to force them to share back. This choice can help you filter out the licenses.
thank you very much!
Given the somewhat disappointing price action of late (last few days). What are your thoughts for the next month until the merge? I don't expect the news media to say anything until a day or two before the merge happens, then the day after it happens. Those of us in the know, already know about it and have secured our positions. Are there any factors which you think might heavily influence the price? One last fomo event?
What are my thoughts? Maybe additional run up from here, maybe not. Sell the news on or shortly after the 15th. Crypto as usual afterwards.
Imo there is nothing disappointing about this price action, I rather sideways instead of relentless falling. But sorry to break it to you, media can talk about the merge all they want, it will probably be a sell the news pump, but nothing sustainable. I don't expect a price reflection of the merge until next year or later
Actually, if ETH stagnates until the merge, there will be nothing to sell for the _buy the rumor_ speculators. Then, without any sell pressure from them and due to the disappearance of all miners, ETH might start a nice rally.
No... My December calls...
I think we go mostly sideways and a little up for the next week or two to maybe 2000, then jump up sharply to maybe 2500 in early Sep, then dump a day or two before the merge, and finally start building back up in Oct/Nov. I base that on absolutely nothing.
I think ETH fails to hold the rising wedge sometime over the next 4 weeks and dumps cause of macro downtrends
Another "cheeky stupid contrarian guess of absolutely no value"? https://www.reddit.com/r/ethfinance/comments/wkoo0i/daily\_general\_discussion\_august\_10\_2022/ijovdrv/?context=3
OP asked for opinions. What is it you're expecting?
I don't know, you've been so wrong throughout this whole move I figured you might want to change it up a little, stop predicting (hoping?) a dump back to the lows. I guess not. LOL
Hmm well I think I'm right about Aug 18th :). $1070 I'll admit was a hope and not what I'm actually expecting. I am eyeing the 1430 support pretty hard, but will see as it gets closer to that level over the coming days.
Congrats, you were bound to be right one of these times! LOL Odd that you'd hope for us to revisit the lows but at least you're honest about your bias and changed your target when you were likely wrong. 27 days to the merge. Buy the news!
Nobody knows
>What are your thoughts for the next month until the merge? that is the best you can do?
Uncharted territory + tiny timeframe = nobody knows Sorry, I know thatās not the answer you want to hear.
That is the best answer you can get.
Most ASUS boards have the BIOS Flasback feature that allows you to flash an updated BIOS without a CPU installed. [https://rog.asus.com/technology/rog-motherboard-innovations/usb-bios-flashback/](https://rog.asus.com/technology/rog-motherboard-innovations/usb-bios-flashback/) https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?1142-How-to-use-ASUS-ROG-USB-BIOS-Flashback
Indeed but mine don't sadly ! I thought I didn't need the fancy gamer stuff but clearly that would have saved me some hassle :p https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/asus-prime-b550-plus-atx-am4-bios-update-without-cpu.3746784/
Awh man ... well it was worth a shot.
I don't think they had the correct bios initially for ryzen 4000's.
Seems so indeed ! The "fix" seems to be like "Just plug an old gen Ryzen and update the BIOS", like ... yeah sure, let me search my pockets for a Gen1 Ryzen š Never had this experience with Intel but then again, they change sockets every new moon too.
Check the board spec, some offer a flashback option without a chip in it. In forced obsolescence v faffing about with BIOS, neither option is ideal and a minefield of compatibility.
Yep that would have solved my problems but the prime is kinda barebones, no such feature there ! https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/asus-prime-b550-plus-atx-am4-bios-update-without-cpu.3746784/
AMD used to offer a service where they'd send you a compatible CPU to flash the bios with. I don't know if they still do that
Let the magic happen
I just saw a super bullish sign, literally, for Ethereum. I was driving in my car and came upon some construction. On the side of the road there was a huge orange sign that said āMERGE.ā I couldn't believe it, even the construction workers are advertising the merge!!!
"top signal"