Does Ethereum’s amorphous timeline on shifting to proof of stake have any impact on the feasibility of integrating the IC w/ the ETH network?
It shouldn’t. There are a couple of layers of integration(if you go back and read Dom’s initial post you’ll see them). Eth transactions are just transactions. As soon as the IC can create a stable address and sign as that address you have the first layer of integration. That can be augmented by making ETH chain data reliably available on the IC, but you don’t actually need it if you have another way of trusting the state that you think you have. If you can interact with near real-time state then you have many more types of applications that you can build, but there will be plenty of applications once you can just produce addresses and sign.
Think of a multi-sig wallet that runs on the IC that issues a send transaction on the ETH chain. It really doesn’t need any info from the ETH chain. Sure, knowing the balance, would keep you from issuing a transaction that spends more than you have, but even if you issue a transaction for more than you balance it will just fail. You can use this same logic to build things like a DEX where you provide a Merkle proof of your deposit into the on IC-ETH addressed canister and then the canister can assume it has control of that Token until it sends it to another address. The on IC dex can operate without gas fees and just needs gas to send withdrawals back to other ETH addresses.
None of those applications require you to know anything about how the ETH consensus mechanism actually works…or event to know the real-time scope of the state of the ETH chain. You don’t need those things…but it would be cooler if you did have them!
Wow, that’s a great explanation; thank you!
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.