A design will need to be chosen in the first half of 2020, though, to allow implementations to start in a timely fashion.
However, to allow implementations to start in a timely fashion, a design will be need to be finalised in the first half of 2020.
the gap between the final design and initial implementation meeting that design will reduce.
clunky. and because i don't understand the process properly I can't think of a better way of expressing it...
that are up-and-coming but perhaps not at the same level
that are in advanced stages of development?
long-lived testnet
?
Rewards and validator interaction are perhaps the only two areas that still need to be addressed
The only two exceptions are perhaps validator interaction and rewards. Issues remain in the existing rewards system as a result of the reduction of the minimum number of validators from 65,536 to 16,384. And validator interaction requires some improvement to reduce the number of situations that exist today where staked funds become unavailable for validating.
in general, changes made will be mainly due to issues found during large-scale testing rather than rewrites for additional features
in the main, there will be no further rewrites for additional features, with any future changes relating to issues found during large-scale testing.
technical pieces in related areas reaching a suitable level of maturity, for example standards for the BLS encryption scheme
This is a bit vague... What is supported? The design work or the need for no further changes? what do you mean by technical pieces? I have no idea what the BLS encryption scheme is.
A breakdown of the expectations for these phases is below.
superfluous
until transfers are added to Ethereum 2.
until funds exit the validation pool and are transferred to Ethereum 2.
It can be seen that the validator and withdrawal keys have very different functions, and as a result have different security recommendations.
The very different functions of the validator and withdrawal keys result in very different security recommendations.
to do so beyond altruistically supporting the network
in doing so beyond an altruistic desire to support the network.
once the validator has exited
delete
two malicious actions
This sentence looks a little lost by itself - it's ok, but you could merge the following sentence by taking the word action out of it...
I'm also torn as to your use of 'would' in this section but i'm probably nitpicking at this point.
private and public key
sounds odd in the singular: what about "a keypair of one private and one public key"
it will be possible for the thief to transfer
the thief can transfer
would result in the validator no longer able to act, but its entire balance would become eligible for reward.
results in the validator no longer being able to act, but its entire balance becoming eligible for reward
[to what end? what reward?]
it would be possible for the thief to carry out
the thief could carry out
there are as of time of writing no hardware wallets available for Ethereum 2.
there are presently no hardware wallets available for Ethereum 2
purpose
I would say purposes, because it just sounds better
the parameters of the curve used to generate the keys is different in Ethereum 2 to enable some advanced operations
I don't know what this means, but I would rewrite as follows: "However, to enable some advanced operations, in Ethereum 2 the parameters of the curve used to generate the keys is different"
moves focus
sounds odd - what do you mean?
validator
?
Ethereum 1 deposit contract
a? the?
in
of
upplied directly
by the staker?
information to the validator state, to ensure there is no chance of an Ethereum mainnet chain reorganization that would invalidte the deposit.
I still don't quite understand what the mainnet, beacon chain and validator state references are actually referring to...
invalidte
typo
The full proces
should the arrow not be the other way round on 'listen'? Because the validator is listening to the beacon chain?
activateion
typo
public key update
which one? part of the deposit agreement referred to above? but then how does it know the whole thing has gone ahead to the completed stage?
data from the receipt in the beacon chain validator state
You've completely lost me
updates stores
?
Ths
typo
he eagle-eyed reader may have noticed that although there was an explicit authorization in the deposit agreement by the validator, there was no equivalent authorization by the staker
There is no explicit authorisation in the deposit agreement by the staker. Instead, the staker adds their signature to the transaction prior to broadcast, providing the required authorisation.
to be made about the transaction
that need to be made:
-upon
delete
validators shows
can't have both plural
with
within?
validator authorization, which is required to
Validator autorisation is required...
when
whenever?
The third item in the agreement is the withdrawal identification
Withdrawal identification is required to ensure...
The second item in the agreement is the amount staked, which is required to ensure both parties (and both networks) agree on the amount to be staked
The amount staked needs to be included to ensure that both parties... etc
The first item in the agreement is the
unnecessary given your heading - I would just say 'Validator identification is required to ensure the deposit is credited to the correct validator'...
themself
sure it shouldn't be themselves?
taking deposit in detail,
having read down a bit, isn't this an explanation of the deposit agreement rather than the staking deposit? If the deposit agreement is in fact a key element of the staking deposit, you will need to tweak this opening paragraph because you have made them sound separate.
staker
just a small thing but should it be 'stakor'?
provides the funds to stake
thought you said above that the staking deposit provided the funds?
transaction
a transaction in itself or a document reflecting the terms/conditions/key info of a transaction?
they need to be online all of the time or else they will lose a portion of the staked funds.
refer to explanatory article?
work
the work
with which to stake
delete
It is accompanied by a deposit agreement, which is the data about the validator that will be using the stake and how the stake can ultimately be reclaimed
Very abrupt and not much explanation given. Will your reader understand what a validator is, and what a deposit agreement is, where it comes from etc?
funding a validator on the beacon chain
no idea what the beacon chain is
Uptime of validators is more than just a computer being switched on, however.
Validator uptime requires more than simply switching a computer on. There are numerous additional requirements of running a successful validator service, including: ensuring the security of the operating system upon which the validator runs; configuring the Ethereum 1 and beacon chain nodes required for the validator to operate; ensuring that the nodes have sufficient network connectivity to be up to date with the chain state; and providing the ability to withstand denial of service attacks. (or set out as bullet points)
its validator as a service
makes it sound like you will be running just one validator... whereas you have talked about validators plural above. Maybe put " in the process of building its validator service"?
services
I would put a comma after 'services'
loss of actual Ether
this and the diagram only make sense if you have just read your previous article
below
and reference your previous article, maybe?
Uptime
Presume this means time when validators are online - is 'uptime' known jargon?
Staking in Ethereum 2 is a highly technical process, however those who are staking they need more than just technical competence.
This is assuming that most people other than me know exactly what you mean by staking!
a full staking service, covering all aspects of the business of staking
You don't need to say both!
as a service
necessary?
staking
Presume enough people know what that is, yes? Because I don't!
decreases
by how much? [having read the rest of the article, maybe add 'for no clear reason' here and similar for the other examples]
he weight of any given attestation given by the number of Ether the validator attests with
i don't get this bit!
;
hyphen or colon
hey can also be lower if other validators are offline, or disagree about the state of the chain
are there also other factors that can be involved or have you mentioned all of them? not clear in your last sentence...
staking
?
on the overall rewards generated by the validator
delete
form
typo
your validator’s balance as well as its effective balance
replace with 'it'?
On the technical side, changes in the effective balance of a validator causes a relatively expensive computation to take place, so decreasing the frequency at which it can change means Ethereum 2 nodes can run on lower-powered hardware.
on the technical side, decreasing the frequency at which effective balance can change means that Ethereum 2 can run on lower-powered hardware, as a change in effective balance necessitates a relatively expensive computation to take place.
it is required to understand a concept in Ethereum 2 known as effective balance
requires an understanding of 'effective balance'.
remain the same
why?
Figure 1: A fictional validator’s balance over time
just a formatting thing - this looks weird because it's not centred in relation to the axis...
a closer look
closer consideration (or attention depending on which word you prefer!)
Blockchains
Creators of blockchains...
Self-serving selection of transactions to include in blocks is another
is another what?
a transaction
replace with 'it'
to
of including?
normal (non-censored) transactions to guard against cheap or free censorship.
I don't understand this
normal
comma after however
V1V1V_1 through V7V7V_7:
replace colon with a comma
attestations
i presume this is a common phrase that just little Kaz doesn't understand!
f they do so list of tr
comma after so
Financial censorship applies to the mechanisms used within a blockchain to secure its network; commonly transaction fees or staking funds.
do you need this sentence at all?
unaffordably high cost
unaffordably high processing cost? and then delete to be processed.
set of entities
does it have to be more than one entity? If not, it would be more accurate to say 'the ability of an entity or a set of entities...'
situations
comma after situations?
in to
delete 'in'?
As such
In either case, it is important...
minimise its ability
? minimise and mitigate its impact?
an individual
would 'if a transaction is not recorded, an individual may be blocked...' be better?
However, the requirement for trust in the political entities to not carry out censorship is anathema for some use cases.
??
It can be argued that political censorship is less
Political censorship can be said to be less decentralised...
are some combination of political and financial
include a degree of both financial and political censorship,
in the same way as a political system could.
delete
if a blockchain were built whose validators were United Kingdom legal entities and thus subject to English law it may result in high confidence that smart contracts will be adhered to without political interference (due to the ability to externally enforce the validators’ obligations)
if the validators of a new blockchain were subject to English law, users might be confident that smart contracts would be adhered to without political interference, as the obligations of the validators could be enforced in English courts.
it is possible for either party to mitigate against censorship by calculating the costs in advance and factoring it in to the costs of the contract.
don't understand how...
The rationale behind this is that
This is because...
is faulty rejects
is faulty and...
transaction 21
think you need a comma after 'block'...
plus, why does transaction 21 get dropped over transaction 9?
is, in general, considered a bad thing for a blockchain; although there is an argument that blocking transactions from known bad actors can be beneficial for the network, for this to be universally accepted it relies on a common definition of “bad actor”, which is implausible as at a minimum those labeled as bad actors would disagree. As such, it is important to understand how censorship can occur and be mitigated.
Despite this, some cryptocurrencies allow censorship to some degree, arguing that, for example, blocking transactions from known bad actors can be beneficial for the network. [suggest using a footnote to add the counter-argument: there is, of course, an obvious limitation to this argument: it relies on a common definition of 'bad actor', which is implausible as, at a minimum, those labeled as such would disagree]. Then the last sentence in the para as it stands.
[can censorship also occur nefariously, eg by bad actors themselves?]
what else?).
needs completing
Censorship-resistance is very important to being able to trust a blockchain: if there are no guarantees your transaction will be recorded by a blockchain it has the effect of being able to block your ability to transfer funds, interact with a smart contract, etc.
Censorship-resistance is fundamental to ensuring trust in a blockchain: without the guarantee that a transaction will be recorded, an individual may be blocked from transferring funds or interacting with a smart contract etc.