126 total views
Is the Ethereum 2.0 upgrade without any harm? There are a few different opinions here.
Original title: “”Ethereum 2.0″ is just a fake orgasm”
Written by: Gu Shi, founder of EOS Force
Ethereum 2.0 is a false climax, and its requirements and solutions have basic logical errors. Not only will it fail completely, but it will also have a worse impact on the entire crypto community.
Data expansion is a pseudo demand
The obsession of “scaling” has brought Ethereum in 2014, BCH in 2017, EOS in 2018, Polkadot and Cosmos in 2019, DeFi in 2020, and “Ethereum 2.0” in 2021 to the crypto world.
“Ethereum 2.0” is a typical “data expansion”. The assumption is “data congestion”, but here is not congestion in the true sense, but vehicles that pay high tolls are given priority. In fact, as a value network, Bitcoin and Ethereum have never really been congested, but the value scale of their processing has been increasing.
The representative of value expansion is “Ethereum 1.0” and “DeFi”. By allowing more assets to be issued and processing more types of transactions, the purpose of value expansion has been achieved. It also led the crypto community twice in 2017 and 2020 respectively. Trough.
“Ethereum 2.0” designed for a false “data congestion assumption” is just a castle in the sky.
Decentralization is the only advantage
The “Impossible Triangle” changed “decentralization” from a mandatory option to an optional option. This false statement has misled many teams.
The purpose of decentralization is not to fight against regulation, but to fight against human nature. We need a 7*24-hour unattended trust machine, which is not transferred by the will of any group.
The various technical indicators of the PoS consensus look good, but it is currently impossible to achieve true decentralization. Its block production tool is tokens, and tokens will definitely appear with the Pareto effect. The Twenty-eight Law is not terrible, and the Twenty-eight Law of production tools is not really terrible. At the same time, the identity of the operator of the entire network is exposed in the centralized world, and the probability of survival in the event of a large-scale attack is zero.
PoW miners are profit-seeking. They don’t care about the life or death of the system and the price of the currency. They make money when they have money, and leave when they don’t have money. This is the true loyal maintainer of the system. They only agree with one rule to act. Token holders are different. They have various judgment indicators and standards and cannot have a unified will.
The exploration of PoS should be entrusted to other innovative communities instead of taking risks with a value ecosystem that carries nearly 100 billion US dollars.
Core technical problems encountered bottlenecks
The core technical problem of Ethereum 2.0 is sharding technology, and the recent updated roadmap of the Ethereum Foundation has made it very clear:
- For the time being, the importance of Phase 2 is no longer emphasized. Phase 1 is dedicated to achieving shard data for rollup use;
- The beacon chain will have execution functions, that is, after the merger of Eth1-Eth2, the beacon chain block will directly contain transactions;
- The three major tasks after Phase 0 implementation: light client support, data fragmentation, and merging will be advanced in parallel, and any module will be launched as soon as it is ready.
I guess most people cannot fully understand these three sentences, so I will simply translate them for everyone:
- We can’t make the available version of Ethereum 2.0 because we can’t make it with “quadratic sharding”. We think we should first understand the simplest part of the sharding technology and use it for the community’s Layer 2 solution.
- The Ethereum 2.0 version currently online cannot be expanded
- The “Ethereum 2.0” you saw on December 1, 2020 is a version that can’t do anything except “staking”. We are advancing every work. When will we make it and you will use it.
In other words: It will take three years for Ethereum 2.0 to be truly available because of the “controllable nuclear fusion technology” called fragmentation.
“Quadratic sharding” is Ethereum’s description of its own sharding technology. Such a technical solution can be designed logically, but it encountered very difficult problems in the actual engineering, resulting in the delay in achieving real sharding. Therefore, even if the 2.0 mainnet is now online, its performance is not essentially different from 1.0.
“Layer 2” achieved remarkable results
From ZK Rollup to Optimistc Rollup, we have seen a large number of mature Layer 2 network solutions today. The well-known DeFi projects such as Synthetix and Uniswap have already begun to be deployed on Layer 2 networks. It is foreseeable that Layer 2 can at least expand Ethereum by 10 times.
The only criticism is the composability between different Rollups. There are already development teams solving these problems. In other words, in terms of “composability”, both “Ethereum 2.0” and “Layer 2” are currently being met. When it comes to the problem, fortunately, the problem of composability between “Layer 2” is relatively easy to solve. It is only a problem of development time, and it will not require long-term technical breakthroughs like “Ethereum 2.0”.
Ethereum is a financial system, not software
People of insight in the Ethereum community and the entire crypto community have questioned 2.0, but the high sentiment in the market quickly overshadowed these voices. As the voice of the underlying protocols began to concentrate, the views and practices of the Ethereum Foundation were hardly questioned.
When we look at the value network with software thinking, we are concerned with a series of unrealistic technical indicators. When we look at the value network with the thinking of economic systems, we look at problems in a different way. The upgrade of the underlying protocol means the transformation of various definitions and concepts, but the role of the developer cannot really solve the problem.
To reiterate the point of this article: ETH2.0 is a false climax, and its requirements and solutions have basic logical errors. Not only will it fail completely, but it will also have a worse impact on the entire crypto community.