With the final preparations for the initial phase of the Ethereum 2.0 start-up process being carried out in an orderly manner, its storage contracts and test networks will soon be launched. Many people are wondering if there will be two different prices of Ethereum.
Image source: pixabay
- Monthly Report | Blockchain policy released in November, supervision and support
- Bitcoin can really save the world, organizations that accept cryptocurrency donations achieve 100% growth
- Popular science | Zou Chuanwei: Global stablecoins and central bank digital currencies
- Libra or a stable currency that anchors a single currency, not a basket of currencies
- Deep Analysis | How to Obtain Alpha in Crypto Market Investment
- Hong Kong stocks Accor Holdings plunged 98%, and the stock market's "sickle" is sometimes sharper than the currency market
Everyone knows that Ethereum will launch a Proof of Proof (PoS) beacon chain, which is a brand new blockchain that can be described as a simulated blockchain between the test network and the main network. .
Once the beacon chain is activated, anyone can send Eth to the chain via a storage contract, and the storage contract will destroy the Eth in the original chain and generate the same number of eths on the beacon chain.
So there won't be two Eths, because this is not a fork, but just a migration of Eth. However, the Eth at the beginning of the beacon chain will not move completely, they are only pledged on the chain, which means that the beacon chain will effectively lock these eths.
At the recently completed Ethereum Developers Conference Devcon V, some participants discussed how the exchange provides liquidity for eth2.0, so to some extent, the exchange will have to decide to just treat it as Do it like the original eth, or re-name it as a new eth2 or Beth listing.
This is because the original PoW chain will run simultaneously with the new PoS chain for at least three years or more. The original Eth can go to the PoS chain, but can no longer switch back to the original PoW chain.
Danny Ryan, coordinator of Ethereum 2.0, thinks this is more of a policy decision than a technical failure.
He said that if eth is allowed to switch back to the original PoW chain, it will slow down the development of eth 2.0, but technically, you will "require 1.0 client to become a lightweight client of 2.0, and eventually convert 1.0 to 2.0. At the same time, the letter will be The status root of the chain is shown as 1.0, and additional consensus rules are added in 1.0 and 2.0 to handle the re-coin on 1.0 through the destruction certificate on 2.0."
In this case, the holder will do the same thing, just like transferring Eth to the beacon chain, but in the opposite direction. Make Eth indistinguishable on PoW chains or PoS chains.
It's unclear whether developers plan to increase this transfer function, and there seems to be a lot of variation in the middle. Justin Drake, the planner of the Ethereum 2.0 program, and Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, believe that Ethereum 2.0 may be implemented by the end of 2020, but ConsenSys Joseph Lubin said that the stage 1 and 2 will be effectively merged and may be launched by the end of 2020.
Therefore, the details are still unclear, but the exchange will face several options.
How is the exchange listed on eth 2.0?
To the best of our knowledge, the exchange can list the eth on the chain after the beacon chain is launched, at which point eth or will be able to transfer between the validators.
It is unclear whether these eths can be passed to the person who generated the beacon chain address, or whether there is a non-validator address from the beginning of the beacon chain.
This is because Beacon is just a coordinator that coordinates which shards Eth should verify, but initially there are no shards in which to transfer and execute operations. It is just an analog blockchain.
It is not clear why the eth on Beacon will go on sale during this time. Obviously, some people who pledge Eth may not want to pledge anymore, just as some people don't want to get Eth through the troublesome things of storing contracts, so they take over these Eth, of course they can wait.
Otherwise you would think that eth1 and eth2 must be listed at the same time, because they are obviously different tokens, because one can be used to participate in deficial finance (defi) and enjoy all the benefits, while the other can only be used for pledge.
If you wait for the full shard to go public, it can be said that this is still two different tokens, because one is on the PoS chain and the other is on the PoW chain.
How different these two tokens are, depending largely on how the wallets are implemented and what their addresses are.
If you have two different address formats, you will think there will be a different blockchain/network, then trying to send Eth on a PoS chain to a PoW address may be no different than sending it to a bitcoin address.
This means that there may be no choice but to list both because the two chains can only be connected by the "centralized" point of the storage contract at both ends.
Otherwise they are the two tokens of different worlds, and there is no connection between them from the perspective of usability until the developer merges the fragments of eth 1.0 and eth2.0.
Therefore, there may not be a listing politics in practice, because objectively, before the merger, they must be listed first, although this may become quite confusing.
Mainly because which is the real eth? In fact, both of them are, although at least for a while, they may not be exactly the same eth.
Fantasy market problem
From a consensus perspective, it may not be easy for the two Eths to be listed together, because the supply of eth1.0 will decline as it is destroyed, and the supply of eth2.0 will increase at the same rate. .
People don't own eth1 and eth2 at the same time, so from the point of view that there are two market prices at the same time, this is not a small problem.
Therefore, when the supply of Eth1 declines, you think its price will rise, but only if the demand has to remain the same or increase. For Eth2, demand may fall as supply increases, so the latter's market is not so good.
Eth1 may become dominant for some time, because assuming they have different addresses, eth 2 basically has to start from scratch, and you might think they should have different addresses.
Therefore, this is both a migration and a BTC/BCH-like fork, but there is no clone account here, as each eth transaction/service needs to be upgraded.
They are different networks. Even if eth1 is fragmented into eth2, eth's infrastructure itself may be "sharded", perhaps because of this, Buterin initially thought that such a merger would not happen until many years later.
Impact on the ecosystem
It doesn't matter if you have eth1, but it doesn't rule out that eth2 may have any plans to attract market demand, because if eth2 is more expensive, you will choose eth2 directly.
Conversely, if eth1 is more expensive, because technically it is just a smart contract store returned from eth2, then you will choose eth1.
That is to say, on a personal level, this may not matter. This kind of back and forth can be done by robots, but it is not clear whether this will lose too much value, because unlike chain forks, there is only one kind of person. Tokens, but there are likely to be two different prices.
It is not very clear which one can be called Eth exactly. As far as we know, Justin Drake has long distinguished eth from beth, unless we remember it wrong, it is someone else. The focus of the Ethereum community has called the future tokens beth.
The Ethereum Foundation has a trademark for ethereum, but it is unclear whether there is a trademark for eth. So it is very likely that there will be such a situation, the original eth should be a trademark, and finally changed to beth became a trademark.
This creates considerable confusion and cannot even be avoided, because it is obvious that this is a fairly large ecosystem, and some unfriendly transactions may cause the greatest damage to eth.
Or, what if the two eths have their own use cases during the transition period of a few years and then synthesize an eth in some way? Even if the entire network has to be transferred, there is no clear answer to why they are moving.
Obviously because of capacity, but it seems that the capacity of BCH is not that useful. Eth has a smart contract Dapp, which is more decentralized and adopted, but that is eth1.
For example, will MakerDAO go to eth2? When do you turn, how do you switch them? Is it cut directly from eth1 and then packaged on eth2, or copied and pasted onto eth2? If it is the latter, how long does it take for Eth 2.0 to start?
If you copy it into the entire ecosystem, you have to wonder if it will grow from this horoscope.