<sly> Done as issues. I'm happy to work on an actual PR after feedback if people think it is worth it.
The issues are relatively minor (i.e. nothing is broken), except for the current Dev branch changes to Store for block headers, but that is probably a work in progress (I didnt' see a PR or branch, but someone may be working on it privately).
<sly> Done as issues. I'm happy to work on an actual PR after feedback if people think it is worth it.
The issues are relatively minor (i.e. nothing is broken), except for the current Dev branch changes to Store for block headers, but that is probably a work in progress (I didn't see a PR or branch, but someone may be working on it privately).
<cole at staked.us> If you’re interested in staking ETH, please free to send me a PM or submit your info below.
agenda: ethereum/eth2.0-pm#132
stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orVYfqP_YuQ
zoom: https://ethereumfoundation.zoom.us/j/450256912
And telegram
back from telegram
When contrasting sharding with multi-blockchain (multi-token) solutions, I heard a lot of people say that the multi-blockchain solution is not secure because smaller blockchains would be vulnerable to 51% attacks from nodes which run the larger blockchains. But I think this is only true for Proof of Work blockchains.
It doesn't appear to be a problem for Proof of Stake because a hacker would have to buy more than 50% of all 'sidechain' tokens in order to bring down that sidechain; by the time the hacker acquires that many tokens, they would lose the incentive to bring it down... The hacker would also be the biggest shareholder of that token so their incentive would be for it to go up and not to hack it.
Given that Ethereum is moving to PoS, wouldn't it make sense to go with a multi-blockchain solution (each ERC-20 token gets its own chain) instead of sharding chains based on other arbitrary attributes?
