Partnered With:

Over 600 reviewers were fined by Slash on the first day. How's Ethereum 2.0 going?

Read this article in 6 Minutes

While most people are making money, it's also a little scary to see that Ethereum 2.0 was fined by over 600 reviewers on its first day.

Original author: Turstnode

Source: PANews

So far, Ethereum 2.0 has worked very well, with a participation rate of about 97%, far higher than any test network. On the other hand, The Ethereum 2.0 network also does a good job of restraining verifiers from misbehaving, in particular by preventing them from doing anything that goes beyond what the code requires.

In fact, as of December 2, the second day of the new rights to Ethereum 2.0 blockchain, more than 600 reviewers had been cut by Slash penalties. The Slash penalty is that Ethereum 2.0 will receive a fine from the 32 ETH pledged in the node. Any amount of the Slash penalty will not be substitutable, and if the node drops below 16 ETH pledged due to the Slash penalty, the node will automatically exit from Ethereum 2.0.

上线第一天 600 多验证人遭 Slash 罚款，以太坊 2.0 还好吗？

Ethereum 2.0 validator "losing money"?

The biggest Slash penalty so far is 0.23 ETH, or 0.7% of mortgages. However, this was only one person (and the first to receive a Slash penalty) and in fact most of the fines were 0.0136 ETH or less.

On the other hand, far more people "make money" on Ethereum than "lose money". The biggest "profit" among the 32 ETH mortgage verifiers now is 0.0806 ETH, but most of the profits are basically 0.02 ETH or less.

The real problem is that so many people have been fined with Slash after just one day of Ethereum 2.0, suggesting that some may not be aware of the competitive nature of scrip collateral. As of December 2, there had been 21 bifurcated blocks on ethereum 2.0 blockchain, including one that had been bifurcated since the fifth epoch.

上线第一天 600 多验证人遭 Slash 罚款，以太坊 2.0 还好吗？

Ethereum 2.0 verifiers need to provide "evidence" but mistaken "evidence" can seriously undermine the network and it is impossible to differentiate between deliberate misconduct and accidental mistaken vouching. For example, according to Ethereum 2.0 researcher Justin Drake, if the company detects a block equivocation, the verifier will be fined with Slash. That is, if the verifier gives a "different hypothesis", he or she will be fined. So, can the verifier circumvent this problem? Justin Drake said the problem was probably due to the fact that the verifier was running a lot of "fancy" verification redundancy and was trying to get around the Slash penalty protection.

Justin Drake explained: "The biggest Slash fine so far is 0.23 ETH and it's because of the leniency of the Slash fine and the fact that Taifang 2.0 is probably just hoping to isolate the misconduct."

In fact, the etheric lane community seems to have found some solutions, such as providing liquidity of mortgage assets decentralization agreement StaFi Protocol has launched the etheric solution 2.0 collateral flow, namely rETH tokens, they allow the user to StaFi deployed in the pledge contract involved in the etheric on the etheric fang fang 2.0 pledge, not only the pledge amount is not bound by 32 ETH (the user can pledge the number of the minimum is 0.01 ETH, there is no upper limit), and the operation is very simple, There is no need to run a node client, cost of operation and maintenance, and no risk of Slash penalties.

While most people are making money, it's also a little scary to see that Ethereum 2.0 was fined by over 600 reviewers on its first day. Of course, 600 is still a small number compared to the 21,000 verifiers currently running on The Ethereum 2.0 network.