Ethereum Classic hashrate doubled this month ahead of ETH merge | Hacker News Reader

Ethereum Classic hashrate doubled this month ahead of ETH merge

2miners.com

Ethereum Classic (ETC) is the version of Ethereum running before the DAO attack. Unlike Ethereum, which rolled back the attacker's gains, ETC preserved them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic

There are no indications that ETC will move to proof-of-stake as planned (for many years now) by Ethereum.

There has been speculation that Ethereum miners would not abide by the upcoming hard fork to proof-of-stake (PoS) and will continue mining on the pre-fork chain.

The increase in ETC hash rate suggest that one outlet for ETH mining hardware could be ETC.

It's likely that both outcomes will happen together post-merge: ETC attracts some ETH miners while ETH PoW chugs on.

Either way, the mining rigs and their power consumption may not be going anywhere anytime soon.

The relative exchange rates of ETC and ETH have not moved much since July:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ETC-ETH/chart/

Miners could still stake their ETH for rewards. But they still have the compute power to do PoW, so, depending on the price of power and ETC, it can make sense to both stake ETH and mine ETC.

False. Ethereum did not roll back the attacker's gains, instead, there was a transaction made in the fork that moved the ETH out of TheDAO into a new contract where the ETH was returned to its owners. (An "irregular state change", or a "roll-forward" rather than back).

At no point was the ETH in the attacker's hands. Most of the ETH was trapped in a stalemate between the attackers (white-hats and black-hats), the remainder was time-locked under the Dao's control until the fork.

Also, the complete history of TheDAO is still on the mainchain and is being replayed and re-validated each time you do a fresh sync.

That distinction is overly pedantic. That's like saying, "No, the store didn't refund my payment. Instead, they made a second transaction that returned an equal amount of money to me."

It's like doing a `git revert` vs. `git reset --hard HEAD~1`. The distinction is relevant enough to people, and it's fair to point out how this might be different from what many people consider a 'rollback'.

git revert can be merged with a fast-forward. `git reset --hard HEAD~1` would require others to reset their clones also (and is more like what happens when blocks become orphaned in Bitcoin)

To whom would that distinction be justifiably relevant in the debate over the DAO response?

Well you are on hacker news after all.

A detailed and factually correct replay should not be scorned for being too detailed :/

I agree -- instead of opening with the scornful "False.", he should have opened with "Here are some interesting details about how that transaction is represented in the underlying data structures"

don't know what "irregular state change", or a "roll-forward" is, sounds like jargon to me.

only thing I know is that code is law, until it isn't.

&no amount of verbal gymnastics can change the simple facts.

Well even then only a small amount of hashpower can migrate to ETC, cause at that point it won't be profitable enough to mine ETC (because of it's lower marketcap/price/demand).

Either way yeah, it isn't stopping miners capitalising on free/extremely cheap energy. Any revenue is profit for them.

The end of Ethereum mining is coming soon, so for the hashrate to raise instead of drop suggests a bullish sentiment towards for ETH?

Ethereum Classic is a competing EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) chain which will remain Proof of Work. This just indicates people with mining hardware are switching over to another chain where they can still capitalize on their Hardware investment.

Ethereum Classic has been a pretty dead chain to date, with no (or very few ) decentralized applications, no cross-chain tokens, and very little development. It was created after a big Ethereum hack was reverted (back when Ethereum was in a similar state), out of a mix of idealogical and opportunistic principles.

It wasn't really "created" after the hack, it's simply the original chain continuing on regardless.

Yeah, this is fair, it was a continuation of the ETH chain, just a lineage that the vast majority of people consider non-canonical.

I meant it in the sense that ETH Classic (the "brand" if you will) was created at that point

> This just indicates people with mining hardware are switching over to another chain where they can still capitalize on their Hardware investment.

Is it really a better deal than selling the graphics cards?

Depends on how much your electricity costs are, why you mine (investment, hobby, etc.), and the level of risk you believe is reasonable from owning ETC (among other factors).

I suppose if you're making more than your electricity spend, it's financially worthwhile to mine (you can always sell the card later too if the price calculus changes to not favour you later)

Though it remains to be seen if the Eth Classic price will hold up with a lot of new, constant, sell pressure from miners. If the influx of miners greatly outnumbers other users, the price will likely go into a dive, until miners no longer can mine ETH classic profitably.

Then, it's likely many (the ones who don't care to speculate on future price appreciation) will either try to find a different chain to mine for, sell their cards, or store them for a point where the tide price/hashrate shifts to make mining worthwhile again

Sell it to whom?

I for one would not touch a secondhand card from random ebay seller. Those cards were running non-stop and probably have limited lifetime in them anyway.

I appreciate this thorough answer as I effectively do not understand the myriad cryptocurrencies.

Ethereum Classic is also the moment when the founders proved that "code-is-law" iff it is not personally costly to the right people.

Bullish towards ETC, not necessarily (and likely bearish towards) ETH

I understand why it would be bullish for ETC but why would the merge be bearish for ETH? If it reduces gas fees as promised, it should make the cryptocurrency a lot more useful in general which could increase its price.

It's not really intended to reduce gas fees (although, the block time decreasing by ~8% to ~9% post-merge could incidentally reduce fees a similar percentage)

What is being done on the ETC chain?

Still....nothing, right?

More than on EOS lol

Now the million dollar question: Does price follow hashrate, or hashrate follow price?

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethereum-pow/

This IOU market seems to be suggesting there will be a new PoW chain that has higher market value than ETC. That implies the miners are expected to split their current hashing power between ETC and this new one. However I have not found the necessary organizational effort to create this new PoW chain, so with hours to go, it’s a bit of a mystery to me, as to why this IOU market is trading as high of a price as it is.

Your comment made me expect it to be a lot higher than it was. I remember the BCH fork trading at 10-20% of BTC for months and peaking as high as 50%. 2% seems like a more appropriate ratio.

That’s definitely true. However technically it would have a larger total market cap than ETC at current prices.

Yep, this is why I moved my ETH off exchanges for the merge, so I could recover the PoW ETH (ETHW) in case the exchange won't support that branch.

However, there's also the problem that if I broadcast an exchange on ETHW, someone can replay it on the PoS chain (ETHS), meaning, if I wanted to sell both branches on an exchange, I'd have to find one that let me send both to the same address. Unless I'm horribly misunderstanding something.

If you want to touch the POW chain, you should move all of the money out of the identical wallet on the POS chain first to avoid a replay attack.

If the POS wallet address is empty (post split) there is no chance of replay because the address is already empty.

Of course, just as possible is a replay of the POS transaction on the POW chain, so the POS wallet chosen for the initial emptying should be 100% controlled by you as well (ie- not an exchange wallet).

>Of course, just as possible is a replay of the POS transaction on the POW chain, so the POS wallet chosen for the initial emptying should be 100% controlled by you as well (ie- not an exchange wallet).

Huh? That's the exact scenario I described, and it doesn't avoid the problem: say I empty the PoS wallet onto an exchange post-split. Then a joker can replay it on PoW, emptying my PoW wallet. The ETH on PoW goes to the corresponding PoW address, which I may or may not be able to benefit from.

I don't know what problem you solved here from the original comment.

Here's the full breakdown:

    1. You have 100 ETH in original ETH chain in wallet A.
    2. Merge occurs, and a forked POW chain appears
    3. You now have 100 ETH in wallet A, and 100 ETH-POW in wallet A.
    4. Generate a new wallet B (note that because the protocol for ETH and ETH-POW is identical, wallet B is valid for both ETH and ETH-POW).
    5. Transfer 100 ETH from wallet A to wallet B (on POS chain).
    6. Observe both wallets on both chains:
      Scenario A: There is no replay in ETH-POW:
        - You have 100 ETH in Wallet B
        - You have 100 ETH-POW in Wallet A
      Scenario B: Your ETH transaction is replayed on ETH-POW
        - You have 100 ETH in Wallet B
        - You have 100 ETH-POW in Wallet B

In scenario A, you are free to do whatever you want with the 100 ETH-POW in wallet A -- either move it to an exchange that supports the ETH-POW chain, or continue using the ETH-POW chain. There is no risk of replay because wallet A on the POS chain is already empty.

In scenario B, you still have both 100 ETH and 100 ETH-POW in wallet B which you control. Write off the 100 ETH-POW because the risk of interacting with it is likely much greater than any value the coins in that chain have.

In both scenarios, your 100 ETH is safe and controlled by you.

You’re still dodging the original question: how do I get both ETH types onto an exchange?

Your answer tells me how to move both chains’ wallets to another wallet, and that I shouldn’t bother with the PoW chain, or just pray it doesn’t get replayed. I already knew that option coming in, and said as much!

To be clear, that’s fine as a position to take, but why represent it as an answer to my question, when it’s not? It’s just making a non-responsive answer clearer.

And for a bonus, you made it harder to read with monotype!

is that good or bad

The fear was, big players would jump ship before the Merge. Well, they didn't, so there seems to be trust in PoS.

This is showing that they are jumping, since this is talking about the competing ETH Classic chain, not the primary chain that is going to PoS.

Well, they will: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-14/world-s-b...

If you watch CoinBase a bunch of folk there have Eth tied into Eth2 (which gets interest) - but many are mad it's locked and not tradable, only buyable until the merge/cutover to PoS based Eth.

Basically Eth re-implemented Interest, called it Gas and are now just calling it Interest again?

Edit: oof, just pointing to what CB is doing.

Crypto finance is no different than regular finance. Same products, same mechanisms within those products, etc just without any regulation. And now people are starting to understand why regulations exist.

False. Crypto finance cant be shut down, your wallet frozen or transaction charged back. Regulations exist to strip you from your rights. China regulated bitcoin mining, well now its banned there.

> Regulations exist to strip you from your rights.

I know it’s easy to think that. But the vast majority of financial regulations exist to protect the little guy from the big guy in any given transaction or financial relationship. I’ll let you discern which one you tend to be as the consumer.

OK, but I don't want the protection. Where's my option to opt out and risk it?

I'm fine with signing a document saying "without KYC and AML, and banking and other regulations evil bastard terrorists may rob me blind." Whatever, lets got on with it, I want my wildcat banking, and yes I understand why other people think I shouldn't.

I’m not sure, probably nowhere. Not enough people dumb enough to want that to make it happen. Not really relevant though.

Just keep all your funds in online crypto exchanges and bounce transactions through mixers. You'll have the zero protections you desire.

Why do you want that?

The protections aren't just for you. They're also for the impact your actions have on everyone else. You may not care about money laundering, but most Americans do, so it's regulated.

If I asked the average American if they were ok with government scrutiny of their bank account I seriously doubt they would agree with you. As some purely theoretical argument about stopping al capone from washing money he's paying to hitmen or something I'd sure they'd agree, but when it comes to the nitty gritty like not being able to open a bank account without an address or a report being written up because they pulled $11k out to buy a used car I think it's doubtful. I'd really like to see your survey showing Americans support AML laws as written.

In fact, Chevron Deference has resulted in many policies being implemented without the majority of even _representatives_ agreeing on a policy, let alone the majority of the public.

> but most Americans do, so it's regulated.

I'm not a cryptocurrency supporter, but I'd like to see any surveys about this because I highly doubt the average American cares or even thinks about money laundering.

I want to be able to fire my guns indiscriminately in the air.

And yet somehow we've survived despite the fact you can legally obtain a gun in most states without an ID, address, or any background check whatsoever and no real monitoring of what you do with it. And buying 10k bullets doesn't even trigger a report.

I can get a gun with just cash in hand without violating the law, but not a freaking bank account. If I can be trusted with a fucking AK/AR without checks and my state will let me conceal a revolver in my waistband without any proof of anything or documents whatsoever, I ought to be trusted to be able to open a damn account with my passport but no address, on the basis of which multiple banks have refused me because apparently not being able to furnish an address didn't let them satisfy their KYC rules. At least one of those banks would have allowed me (by both policy and law) to conceal a gun in the damn bank but not open an account (LMAO)!!!

> Crypto finance cant be shut down

But the comment also states

> China regulated bitcoin mining, well now its banned there.

I think that's an example of shutting down crypto finance. I think I'm not understanding your argument.

Yes, for many there are no advantages, but I think this goes too far.

For example, playing people interest to keep a ledger seems kind of new?

I'm not a finance person, but I think that was roughly how traditional banks paid themselves.

Paying people interest created out of thin air is kind of new. Usually there is a borrower on the other side.

You might compare with a stock dividend or with paying employees with company stock. A company can create more stock and pay it out without using any cash.

When converting to cash, it's still the case that for every seller there needs to be a buyer.

That's the problem plaguing cryptocurrencies today. These exchanges are literally banks in disguise, all the risks and no guarantees. Cryptocurrencies were supposed to put an end that sort of centralized institution, not reinvent the entire financial system poorly...

Almost all cryptolending is overcollateralized which is unheard of in traditional banking. I mean banks take your house as a collateral, they don't take one house and a quarter of a house as collateral for borrowing a single house.

Yea my point is more along the lines of crypto would call this like “staking” instead of “collateral” and act like they’ve invented a new financial concept.

Never use Coinbase for anything.

I tried to transfer my regular ETH out today - and they locked transfers on my account "to protect me from scams". After id verification they said that it maybe will be unlocked in the week.

Looks like they are blocking ETH transfers so they can keep (and flip) ETH-PW for themselves.

I had a fun issue with coinbase where they locked my account due to KYC issues. Which is funny, because I've been a customer for a decade. They locked my account and asked me to provide sources of funds. They didn't specify which funds, so I guess they wanted all funds ever? I inquired and two months later I got a cut and pasted response that just repeated the initial request. Coinbase customer support couldn't help, and there was no escalation mechanism. So I just submitted a random collection of funds explanations. 4 months later my account was unlocked.

Super cool. I already used Kraken for everything but now I'll use Kraken while really disliking Coinbase.

I had a situation like that with Robinhood and ended up just writing a long email detailing my job history and previous trading experiences. It was enough to satisfy them and my account was unlocked the same day.

"Coinbase is making it possible for ETH2 holders to wrap their ETH2 into cbETH, which is a liquid representation of ETH2 that can be traded or transferred."

How do Binance and Coinbase coordinate their cbETH and BETH?

They don't? They're separate tokens.

Binance tokenized ETH 2.0 stakes as BETH, allowing users to earn the interest but still trade them back to ETH if they want.

Trading data at this time:

  1 BETH = 0,9564 ETH

Reply on news.ycombinator.com