/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>51444122

Holy shit it’s over. This would print x100 eth. They’re gonna roll back the chain aren’t they

>>51444122
It's over

based and "burn all staking rewards" pilled

why wouldn't it?

wasnt that supposed to be the first deflationary block?

>>51444122
It’s over

>>51444183
only validators should be able to validate

i think im starting to laugh hysterically

>>51444196
why can't the burn address validate

>>51444234
i don't know

>>51444172
>>51444183
>>51444184
>>51444185
>>51444196
>>51444216
>>51444234
https://twitter.com/TimBeiko/status/1570307466075992064?cxt=HHwWgMDT-cGU7corAAAA
Its a Nothingburger

>>51444122
oyvey

>>51444122
The burn address belongs to Vitalik.

uhhhhhh

>>51444234
because someone deposited a lot of nigger tokens (Ticker: NIGGR) to it

Uhh frens all joking aside this is actually very concerning, also note that the blocks around it are mostly mined by the same 3 addresses

>>51444260
this addresses nothing

>>51444183
because only validators should be able to mine a block. The burn adress isn't controlled by anyone so it shouldn't be able to be validator and thus to mine a block

>>51444122
Genesis

>>51444122
Holy fucking shit.

>>51444628
Imagine someone controlling it kek

Was this planned as the genesis merge block or is this legit the biggest fuck up eth has ever seen

wtf

>>51444122
because some validator didn't set up the fee recipient address

>>51444676
this is not the merge block

>>51444706
could you explain quickly why this would lead the 0x0000... to mine a block please anon ?

>>51444743
The one receiving the reward has mined it, if the one doibg the mining has set 0x0 as its receiving address it will appear so in the transaction as this receiving address is the only receipt of the miner on the blockchain

>>51444706
>>51444743
Could it be a bug with etherscan? It's displaying reward recipient rather than miner? This address cannot be the validator it doesn't make any sense short of a massive bug

https://twitter.com/nanexcool/status/1570319002072743936

>>51444768
That can't be true. You can validate blocks anonymously by providing no recipient address? This sound mad

>>51444768
allright so it is basically a fuck up like when a BTC miner set a wrong adress
so it is basically a nothingburger

>>51444787
Sounds to me like a new attack avenue

>>51444787
Don't you have to share the validating address in order for slashing to be possible?
Although the burn address competing in validation and constantly growing would be amazing. Imagine the burn address controlling the majority of ETH lmao.

>>51444787
the validator's bls address is visible in the beacon block, but etherscan doesn't show that