Hacker News Reader

Comment by carlosdp | Hacker News Reader

> The Beacon Chain developers are not addressing the Infura problem in any manner whatsoever. They don’t seem to understand the question.

It's not a problem, it's trivially easy to change what RPC an app / wallet uses. It's literally just changing a URL since the interface is all standardized. There are a lot of other much more important risks to solve that aren't mentioned in this article.

The implication core devs don't understand the centralization risk of RPC services is absurd, as is much of this article.

View on HN

Alternative public RPC nodes, for those curious:

https://ethereumnodes.com/

Or you can set up your own, as doing so is permissionless. You don't even need a GPU or Ether. Just a regular computer, broadband and 2 TiB SSD.

The article is filled with misinformation like the statement above.

Not to mention, a new groundwork for light clients was laid out in the first upgrade to the beacon chain. Come merge, clients could effectively poll for e.g. balances directly from the network, instead of going through Infura.

More on Ethereum light clients from Chainsafe, the builders of Lodestar, a Typescript implementation of an Ethereum consensus client: https://blog.chainsafe.io/the-road-ahead-for-ethereum-light-...

TL;DR: "Light clients enable more people to participate as first-class citizens, verifying on-chain data without relying on single and centralized JSON RPC endpoints."

"Could" is another word for "they don't."

The typical user could use something other than Infura - but they don't.

The typical user could use some future system that doesn't exist yet - but they don't.

The typical user could cash out somewhere other than Coinbase - but they don't.

The typical user could use stablecoins other than USDC - but they don't.

This is covered in the article already. Default behaviour matters, a lot. Almost no Ethereum users are going to telnet 30303.

I don't disagree. However, I see no reason why light clients would not become the default option, as they effectively remove the trust placed on an RPC provider.

How much of this is a real problem?

Same argument can be made for key management. A typical user could use non custodial wallet, but they don’t. But that option exists, for when they become unsatisfied with their centralized wallet custodian, or when they want to change custodians, or when they want to use a multi sig that allows for a mix of custodial and non custodial.

Importantly: the option exists. The option to use non custodial EOA and smart contract wallet, DAI or RAI, Alchemy or a custom node RPC, Kraken or another CEX or DEX, the option is present and is chosen by plenty of users.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com