What changes will the upgrade of ETH 2.0 bring to the entire ecology
Editor's Note: This article comes fromL Lab（ID：gh_ce624cb9d02c）, reprinted by Odaily with authorization.
Editor's Note: This article comes from
, reprinted by Odaily with authorization.
LLab: Thank you very much for participating in this AMA live broadcast of LLab. First of all, let me introduce ourselves. Our name is LLab, which is a column focusing on the dissemination of in-depth blockchain content. Guided by value delivery, we invite blockchain industry leaders to discuss blockchain technology, economy, ecology, development and other related content with us in depth, establish a truly valuable blockchain community, and provide knowledge for blockchain enthusiasts Expand gathering places.
This issue, which is also our first guest, is the leader of the Ethereum enthusiast community who has been promoting and popularizing Ethereum knowledge in China: A Jian.
Ethereum enthusiasts are also a community media that many of us will learn when we first enter the currency circle. Many people want to know what kind of people are running this community, and why they are willing to spend so much time and energy to spread these contents. Then we will now ask A Jian, the person in charge of our Ethereum enthusiasts, to briefly introduce himself and the community of Ethereum enthusiasts.
A Jian: Thank you LLab for the invitation. Established in 2015, EthFans.org is one of the earliest Chinese Ethereum communities in China. Over the years, Ethereum enthusiasts have been introducing the technology of Ethereum and the cutting-edge topics of Ethereum ecology by translating English literature, and have output more than a thousand articles. I myself joined Ethereum enthusiasts in 2017. Because I majored in economics as an undergraduate, I have been working as an editor and translator for Ethereum enthusiasts.
LLab: Thank you Jian for coming to our LLab. First of all, I want to help you clarify the name of ETH, which is also the most dizzying in the community. We know that ETH has set four stages for its Milestone construction, and the concept name ETH2.0 was proposed last year. Even from a personal point of view, it is easy to be confused by so many stage code names. Can you talk about why? So, what is their relationship?
A Jian: Let’s talk about the origin of these code names first. You may have heard the code names Olympic, Frontier, Homestead, and even Metropolis. In fact, the code name is a bit like a slogan. It just means that the goals to be achieved at different stages are different; for example, Olympic is the first stage when Ethereum goes online. Normal operation; when it comes to the Metropolis stage, the goal is to enhance the functionality of Ethereum (so introduce some new cryptographic elements). These code names themselves have no special meaning, just like 5 years old, 10 years old, and 20 years old, they are actually the same you.
But ETH2.0 is slightly different. Because the design of ETH2.0 is so different from the current Ethereum that it is necessary to change the underlying blockchain to achieve it (originally the Ethereum Foundation tried to use the contract to implement Casper FFG to introduce PoS to Ethereum, but later because of some chose to design a completely new system for this reason). Therefore, the realization of this plan requires redesigning a system from the ground up, perfecting all the details, and an exquisite deployment method. So there is a special title.
It is worth mentioning that the code name of ETH2.0 is Serenity, so we are still in the Metropolis stage (but in fact, the current improvements implemented on the Ethereum PoW chain have exceeded the assumptions when determining the stage goals). Therefore, the only code names to remember are ETH and ETH2.0. Now people rarely use these code names (except ETH2.0 and Serenity)
LLab: The proposal of ETH2.0, in the planning path, can it be understood that the copy becomes the mainline?
A Jian: You can’t say that. Because Ethereum mentioned to do PoS when it was first proposed. It’s just that there was no good way to do it at the time, so PoW was implemented first; the research on scalability also started in 2014. It’s not so much that the copy becomes the main line, it’s better to say that the main line is clear. Because the original goal is there, but the method is not so clear
LLab: Ethereum has been upgraded to 2.0. Compared with the current version of Ethereum, what innovations and creations are there? Has it (ETH2.0) changed since it was proposed?
A Jian: Compared with the current Ethereum, Ethereum 2.0 has two main upgrades: one is the consensus mechanism of proof of rights and interests; the other is the sharding architecture of "beacon chain + multiple shard chains".
The meaning of the proof-of-stake upgrade is that proof-of-work (PoW) is no longer required when a block is generated, but the validator who has staked the deposit uses a digital signature to express the approval of the new block. Create the main chain and finalize the state so that it cannot be changed (so "verifier" is actually the name of the block producer under PoS). In the consensus mechanism of Ethereum 2.0, verifiers who abide by the agreement (perform responsibilities in a timely manner) can be rewarded; verifiers who do not abide by the agreement and whose behavior affects the security of the entire network will be punished. The status is related to the degree of malignancy.
The meaning of the sharding architecture is to separate the operation of consensus rules from the execution of transactions. In the architecture of "beacon chain + multiple shard chains", the consensus process is completely completed on the beacon chain, and it will inevitably be manifested on the beacon chain. But the beacon chain does not execute any transactions. All transactions are executed in the environment of the shard chain, and the role of the beacon chain is to randomly arrange verifiers to obtain the status of different shard chains (that is, the execution results) and upload them to the beacon chain. finalized and finalized. Because the shard chains are still running in parallel, this can greatly improve scalability.
The above is a general introduction. But it is worth pointing out that the deployment of Ethereum 2.0 is not completed at one time, but is deployed in three stages:
Phase 0 is to start the beacon chain (a chain run by the PoS consensus mechanism);
Phase 1 is to deploy 64 shard chains, but at this stage, the shard chains have no execution function and only contain data. This stage is actually to test the consensus ability of the shard architecture;
Phase 2 adds an execution environment (EE) to the shard chain, and each shard can have different execution modes (UTXO, Account-basde, etc.).
It is not until Phase 2 that Ethereum 2.0 is considered complete. Phase 0, which is expected to go live this year, is just the starting point for Ethereum 2.0. As for the subsequent deployment time, because there are still many engineering and research challenges in this roadmap, there is no clear timetable yet.
As for whether the design goal has changed, of course it has. Because the plan is a plan after all, when entering the actual research field and engineering field, more details and problems will be encountered, and the plan will be adjusted at that time. For example, you may also have heard that the deployment goal of sharding at the beginning was to have 1024 shards, but it was later changed to 64 shards. After the value is reduced to 64, inter-shard communication is expected to be completed within one epoch, which greatly improves user experience. Although the plan has changed, the original intention remains the same. The researchers of the Ethereum Foundation have been facing the problem and researching it with great concentration. I think everyone should give them affirmation.
LLab: In ETH1.0, we created the ICO wave, nft encrypted assets, and the recent DeFi wave. It can even be said that it inspired and created the vision of an industry (blockchain public chain), so in ETH2.0, Will it give us more room for imagination?
A Jian: The greater room for imagination that ETH2.0 will bring us comes from its scalability, which is also one of the initial design goals of ETH2.0. Turing's complete execution engine has reached its limit in terms of the nature of the application, but many applications cannot run on Ethereum due to performance reasons. And the liberation of performance constraints will bring more usable space. This should be quite an imaginative thing.
LLab: Will performance improvements allow decentralized exchanges to outperform centralized exchanges? Does Dex have a chance to threaten Cex, or even replace it?
A Jian: A centralized exchange has an incomparable advantage that it can trade assets on a variety of chains, while it is difficult for a decentralized exchange. This should be in line with the development of DeFi, because we now see that many projects are already doing synthetic assets (Synthetix) and cross-chain assets (WBTC, tBTC, etc.). After these assets are imported into decentralized exchanges, they can actually Solve some of the transaction needs. From these aspects, I am quite confident in decentralized exchanges. It may not be completely replaced, but after the performance and asset types are up, the competitive situation will definitely be very different.
LLab: What do you think of the recent DeFi boom?
A Jian: If you want to discuss a project that recently launched a governance token that has caused a lot of speculation, let me first say that I have not studied its token model, so my remarks here cannot be taken as serious opinions , at least not as an opinion on the project. I simply think that most of the current DeFi projects do not need to introduce governance, and it is not sincere enough to promote decentralized governance with Admin Key. Those who are sincere should announce the roadmap of decentralization and make actual representations. In this regard, I haven't seen any project do better than Maker.
LLab: There are already many projects running on the Ethereum public chain. After the successful upgrade of ETH 2.0, do things like DeFi, dApps, special smart contracts, and types of assets such as NFF need to be upgraded simultaneously?
A Jian: This is not necessary. How dApps should work now. After the implementation of Phase 1 (the ideal point may be after the implementation of Phase 2), the state on the Ethereum PoW chain will be migrated to the Ethereum 2.0 system as a whole (that is, the system composed of the beacon chain and the shard chain), becoming 64 One of the slices. That is to say, the state of dApp and users will be completely migrated, and there is no need to do any manual operations by yourself.
LLab: What impact will this Ethereum upgrade have on ordinary currency holders? How should we pay attention to and participate in the upgrade of ETH2.0?
A Jian: It needs to be clarified that the impact of each stage on ordinary currency holders is different.
For example, when Phase 0 is launched, it is well known that Phase 0 does not have a transaction execution function, so users pledge ETH, obtain ddBETH (beacon chain ETH), and even obtain PoS rewards, which cannot be transferred on the beacon chain. It depends on the technical route behind to clarify the time to enable the transfer function. So the risk is relatively large.
So, for ordinary users, if you want to participate in the staking of the beacon chain, it will have no effect on you. The ETH you hold will not be forked into two kinds of ETH, and you don’t need to take the initiative to do anything operation, the Ethereum PoW chain will continue to operate. If you want to get ahead of the game and participate in staking, you need to understand a little more background knowledge so that you can choose between deploying validators yourself or using a third-party service.
As for the impact of the entire ETH2.0 launch on ordinary currency holders, I think it involves a wide range of aspects and there are many uncertainties. Of course, the most fundamental sources of these influences are those two: PoS and sharding architecture. The former will change the look of the entire ecosystem, while the latter will bring scalability and more complexity (and therefore more functionality) to the entire system.
LLab: For ETH holders, will the upgrade of ETH 2.0 generate new tokens?
A Jian: Formally, yes. For example, in Phase 0, as we mentioned above, when a user wants to become a validator, he needs to deposit 32ETH into the margin contract issued by the Ethereum Foundation on the Ethereum PoW chain first, and after depositing, he can use it in the beacon A certain balance is obtained on the chain (let us call the unit of the balance "BETH"). From a formal point of view, this is a new token. It's just that it is not generated like a fork, but is redeemed 1:1 by the user's own choice.
With the advancement of Eth2.0 development progress, especially the approach of the integration of Ethereum 1.0 and 2.0, the nature of ETH and BETH will become closer and closer, and eventually unified into one thing.
LLab: ETH2.0 will produce two kinds of ETH, so can we regard the upgrade of ETH2.0 as a fork? In addition, we found that there are many arguments in the community that "the transition to ETH2.0 will lead to the immediate deprecation of ETH1.0". Although we do not believe it, we still feel that ETH1.0 will coexist with ETH2.0. Confused, what are the direct or indirect effects of this?
A Jian: This kind of "fork" is also a common misunderstanding. What do we mean by fork? A fork is a blockchain. Due to various reasons, the groups that originally participated in the consensus split. Although everyone shares the same history, the next two groups belong to you and I belong to me. The consensus rules of everyone are no longer agreed. The point is that the initial state of the two forked chains is the same. For example, when Bitcoin is forked, your private key can control 10 BTC. After the fork, your BTC has not been moved, and it remains the same; You can use this private key to operate 10 coins on the BCH blockchain (because your state is also preserved on the BCH blockchain), which is called a fork.
But that wasn't the case with the Phase 0 rollout. It is not a split of consensus, nor is it a fork of two chains based on the same state, but a new chain is started, and the assets (equity) on this chain need to be obtained by depositing deposits on Ethereum.
This coexistence stage is actually very easy to understand. The beacon chain itself does not have the function of transaction execution, so all activities related to transaction execution are completed on the PoW blockchain before it is merged, and everything is as usual. Phase 0 can be regarded as an attempt to move towards a new stage, but this attempt does not force us to change our behavior now, nor do we need to worry about the safety of our assets. Some friends may feel a little anxious and want to seize some opportunities; or some friends may feel worried and feel uncertain. But in fact, you don’t have to be so nervous. If you want to seize the opportunity, you can learn more about the background knowledge. After all, Ethereum 2.0 is still quite complicated; and the uncertainty will gradually disappear as the progress progresses. Also, what is certain is that the Ethereum PoW chain will continue to grow, and the Ethereum ecosystem will continue to grow.
LLab: After the launch of ETH 2.0, there will definitely be many ordinary coin holders who want to participate in mining, but some of them may not meet the requirements. It is aimed at retail investors who want to participate in pledge mining and who can become "verifiers" but do not want to Community members who are "lazy" and punished by Slashing will definitely generate agency services for entrusting pledge verification, such as several large trading platforms and mining pools. That is to say, use professional pledge entrustment services to verify nodes, and use entrustment to verify blocks and sign blocks. Might this pose a risk of validator pool centralization? What do you think?
A Jian: The verifier fund pool will definitely appear. There will also be a relatively large validator pool. If the definition of centralization is based on the inequality of market share, then in fact, as long as economic incentives are used as a link to realize the public chain (open distributed system), this situation cannot be avoided. The efficiency of different entities will always be different, so the occupancy rate will always be different, even very different. So I think it is meaningless to just focus on the number of market share. What we need to pay attention to is whether there is a hard entry threshold. Or, as long as the barriers to entry are low enough, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Only competition itself deserves hope.
LLab: After the upgrade, from PoW algorithm mining to PoS pledge verification mining, what impact will this have on miners?
Ah Jian: It’s too early to worry about this issue, haha, because after Phase 0 starts, the PoW chain and the beacon chain run in parallel, so mining will continue. Mining will not stop until Phase 1.5 (after the merger of Ethereum 1.0 and 2.0). It should be a long time before we can't really dig.
LLab: Can you estimate how long it will take for ETH2.0 Phase 0 to start, and how long it will take for Phase 1?
A Jian: It's hard to estimate this aspect. Afri, the developer of the test network, said at a public event that he believes that the launch of Phase 0 should be 90 days after the launch of the stable test network. According to this standard, it can be launched as early as November (a stable multi-client test network is expected to be opened in mid-July, plus if everything goes well). Maybe a month or two later. The duration of Phase 0 is even more difficult to estimate, because when Phase 1 starts has a relatively large relationship with the subsequent technical route selection, and this will not be determined until then. I myself expect that the duration of Phase 0 will not be shorter than 1 year.
LLab: I recently saw Nick Tomaino’s article mentioning that if Ethereum introduces the improvement proposal EIP 1559, a large amount of transaction fees will be burned instead of being paid directly to miners. And if more transaction fees are burned than newly issued ETH, the net inflation rate can be negative. For ETH investors, this is of course hugely good news. But we know that the currency flow of no healthy economy in history has been deflationary. This fact makes people worry. Will the pursuit of negative inflation lead to more unpredictable consequences?
A Jian: The idea that EIP-1559 may bring monetary deflation should have been first proposed by David Hoffman. Theoretically speaking, this is not impossible (of course, Hoffman himself seems to have revised this point of view later, thinking that the appreciation caused by the burning of transaction fees will encourage everyone to staking and thus increase the inflation rate of the entire network ). Are deflationary economies healthy? From the end of the 1990s to 2001, China's currency was deflationary, but the Chinese economy was improving at that time. This is just one example. As for the impact of monetary inflation and deflation on the long-term development of the economy, it is not so easy to say clearly in one sentence.
It looks like I support EIP-1599? No, quite the opposite. What I hope here is that you don't look at the problem from the perspective of currency, but first understand what EIP-1599 is. EIP-1599 means that users pay part of the transaction according to the algorithm (the parameter is the previous period of time. The Gas Price determined by block utilization rate) will be destroyed; then part of the tips will be paid to the miners, so that the miners are willing to pack the transaction. Anyone with a discerning eye can see it at a glance, which is tantamount to taxing traders. Moreover, the income of miners has not increased, and the income has not increased. How can the supply of Gas be willing to increase? How can the actual transaction fee be reduced when the gas supply is reduced? The significance of block space is to provide a natural transfer method for this kind of property. The meaning of non-transferable property will be greatly reduced. Similarly, when you transfer, you will be taxed, and your willingness to hold this property will be weakened. So I have always been against EIP-1599. From the very beginning when it came out, I wrote articles against it.
User Denis: Is there any difference between the sharding of Eth2.0 and the slots of polkadot in improving the scalability of the respective chains?
A Jian: I have not had a deep understanding of the design of Polkadot. But intuitively, I think they solve the same problem. Or the purpose is the same.
User Rayz: Can you only stake 32 ETH on Phrase0 to obtain verification qualification?
A Jian: Since the opening of Phase 0, it can be pledged at any time
User Hu Zhen: Today happens to be Turing’s birthday, and I suddenly thought of the famous P≠NP proposition in computer science, as well as interesting topics such as NPC and NP-Hard. We all know that many blockchain infrastructures such as Ethereum support graphs. A complete smart contract and a virtual machine engine, but in a strict sense it is quasi-Turing complete, otherwise a complete Turing machine will inevitably face many difficult difficulties such as downtime. According to the roadmap of ETH2.0, eWASM will be introduced in phase2 As the virtual machine is the state execution engine of ETH2.0, what improvements and optimizations has it made compared to the existing EVM virtual machine? For example, in terms of performance, execution efficiency, cross-language interoperability, and reduced precompilation?
A Jian: As far as I know, the improvement of eWASM is mainly due to the wider use of the virtual machine itself and the larger community, so there will be more tools. But you said how superior EVM itself is, I don’t understand. On the contrary, I saw Vitalik say in a group that eWASM is not suitable for distributed systems in some places. I don't know the details
User Pan Chao (Chao): What problem does EIP-1599 try to solve?
A Jian: The handling fee is too high and the volatility is high. The original purpose was to solve this problem. I hope that users don't have to worry about the Gas Price anymore, and they will be hit like that as soon as they send it
User Pan Chao (Chao): The gas price is divided into two parts, one part is fixed price, and the other part is priced by the tip market. Should it go up or will it go up, the tip can't go to the sky?
Ajian: Yes, that's right.
User Boyi: What is the difference between the consensus algorithm of Ethereum 2.0 and the consensus algorithm of Polkadot, Cosmos, and EOS? In comparison, what are the advantages of the consensus algorithm of Ethereum 2.0?
A Jian: The PoS mechanism of Ethereum 2.0 is chain-based, which is different from Cosmos’ Byzantine. The Byzantine PoS consensus follows the specificity of the Byzantine fault-tolerant algorithm itself. A consensus is reached on a message in multiple rounds of interaction. The amount of communication will increase as the square of n with the number of participants, so it cannot accommodate too large a validator. The biggest feature of the PoS mechanism of Ethereum 2.0 is that it can accommodate hundreds of times and thousands of times the number of verifiers
User Boyi: Personally, I think everyone should care about the lower-level things, and don't have to worry about the details. The EOS and Polkadot consensus is based on a representative system with limited verification of participation. The Cosmos consensus mechanism has not been studied. The biggest feature of the Ethereum 2.0 consensus mechanism is that ordinary people can participate and become miners, which is the greatest possibility to ensure the credibility of the public chain. When the assets on the chain become larger and larger, credibility and tips become unimportant.
User RyanCiz: Teacher A Jian mentioned that after reducing to 64 slices, the communication between slices is expected to be completed within one epoch, which greatly improves the user experience. How long is an epoch? It is a transaction commit, but do I still need to wait for block confirmation?
A Jian: An epoch takes 6.4 minutes. At that time, it is no longer waiting for block confirmation, but waiting for Finalize. Regarding the time of Finalize, I personally feel that according to the Casper FFG algorithm, as long as the epoch is rationalized (sorry, I forgot the English word), I can rest assured. So on average it's a wait of 6.4 minutes. But some people think it should be 2*6.4, which is 12 minutes, because rationalization does not mean being finalized...
User Xiaoyue: Has the total amount of Ethereum changed after the ETH upgrade? Will more digging lead to inflation?
A Jian: At present, everyone's expectation is that the issuance rate under PoS can be lower than that under PoW. That is, rewards for verifiers can be less than those for miners. Therefore, after Ethereum is fully upgraded, the issuance rate may decrease. After all, the block reward under PoW is also an increase in the amount of currency. From the current point of view, it is unlikely that the monetary policy of ETH will determine a hard upper limit.
User Rayz: Is there any requirement for the equipment of the verification node?
A Jian: The verification nodes basically use Raspberry Pi, and laptops can run them. The requirements are not high, but the verifier client must be used in conjunction with the beacon chain node, and the hardware requirements of the latter will be higher. However, you can also use other people’s beacon chain nodes, as long as you can find such a person or such a service (the verifier client is equivalent to a miner, and the beacon chain node is actually a full node, which is equivalent to a mining pool. Of course, the actual The burden is not that high.)
User Guo Xinchen: Is it possible for verification nodes to have mining pools?
A Jian: It depends on what you mean by "mining pool". There is no delegation mechanism in Ethereum 2.0, you cannot delegate your block production rights to others; at the same time, the effective balance (the parameter used to calculate your voting weight) has an upper limit, which is 32 ETH, so you deposit 64 ETH in your The weight is the same as other people who deposited 32 ETH. But you said, will there be centralized service providers to provide centralized custody and staking services? Surely there will be?
User LEO: This verification mechanism mainly changes the data structure of the transaction, right?
Ajian: yes
User LEO: Can light nodes also participate in the consensus? Applicability under the Byzantine consensus, consortium chain, etc., making a fixed block, and then light nodes are easy to verify, can it greatly reduce the application cost of the blockchain?
A Jian: I think this is also completely usable. Because it is mainly a matter of the transaction execution layer and has nothing to do with the consensus layer. It's more like the burden of proof shifted state. The original situation is that when you send a transaction to the full node, you don’t need to self-certify how much money is in your account, and the full node finds it by itself; now you send the transaction, you have to self-certify your status, and then the full node ignores you . Now the consensus node does not need to find the state about you in all the original data.
User LEO: Now the consensus node does not need to look for your status in all the original data
A Jian: yes
Hu Zhen: This should be similar to the introduction of cryptography theories such as zero-knowledge proof, using the asymmetry between proof and verification calculations, performing heavy-calculation proof calculations off-chain, and then uploading the proof results to the chain for efficient verification on-chain
A Jian: statelessness is not that complicated. Of course, it is also possible to use zero-knowledge proof to do it. For example, I remember celo means this
User LEO: Then I understand that under the pbft-like consensus, the node can be a light wallet, and the full amount of data storage can be decoupled
Ajian: yes
User aollx: Ethereum 2.0 is the technology that can verify transactions and states without storing all data?
A Jian: This question is about "statelessness". The current Ethereum full node needs to save the state of the whole network (the state refers to the balance of each account obtained after the transaction processing in the block, the storage content of the contract, etc.), because the transaction itself does not have the state it wants to access, and the node must save it by itself. However, the idea of "statelessness" is to allow the transaction to be accompanied by a proof of the validity of the state it accesses (for example, a Merkle proof), and the verifying party no longer needs to save all state data. Anyway, the materials used for verification are attached to the transaction.
The current main idea of statelessness in Eth1.x is to use Merkle Proof. After all, the state of the main network is expressed by Merkle tree; but at the same time, there is another idea is aSVC, which is proposed by researchers of ETH2. The basic idea is to disassemble it more finely: users have the tools to change their own account status, but this tool will continue to change with the transaction processing; The processing of a single transaction changes the commitment to state, requiring all users to adjust their tools.
This way, all members only need to know about state commitment changes, and some key data (for updating their own tools) about the transactions that caused those changes. It is also stateless. aSVC is said to have very little overhead, but I think no one has tested the actual overhead. The computational burden of the full node will be much smaller, but at the same time, the required bandwidth will increase (because additional data needs to be transmitted). This is the case in the Merkle Proof mode. aSVC is researched to reduce bandwidth requirements to a greater extent
User Guo Xinchen: Is the Ethereum domain name ENS too early? feeling hard to push
A Jian: ENS will have a future sooner or later, I believe so. Although it is difficult for everyone to get rich by speculating on domain names
User yan**: On the whole, are there any unresolved problems that are difficult and uncertain in the development path of ETH 2.0?
A Jian: There are indeed some difficult questions, but I think everyone should be more patient. Some things we do not understand, are not experts in, or we cannot see clearly until it is clear. For these problems, I think patience and humility are virtues
User yan**: Yes, sometimes difficulties are part of being right, and it’s lazy thinking
