3 ms·

I think you're missing the point. The fact that one man can bring the whole of Ethereum trading to a halt with an announcement really demonstrates just how much

I think you're missing the point. The fact that one man can bring the whole of Ethereum trading to a halt with an announcement really demonstrates just how much power he has. So it doesn't matter that he doesn't have a physical kill switch if the end result is the same.

weego 10y ago
I mean, they don't have to honor the request to do so.
curiousgal 10y ago
The announcement didn't come out of the blue. Exchanges don't want stolen funds to go through them so it is also in their interest to halt trading.
- joosters 10y ago
  ...but they didn't halt trading until they were asked to, so clearly it wasn't totally in their interests? Exchanges are in a difficult position once the 'head' of ethereum tells them to stop. It's a sign that the blockchain might be forked, so any further trades they make might be undone - they simply have little choice but to stop after being told to do so.
  - mcherm 10y ago
    > but they didn't halt trading until they were asked to, so clearly it wasn't totally in their interests? Not at all. This is a classic "coordination problem". It is advantageous for many participants in the overall system to take an action, but only if the other participants are ALSO taking the action. In such a case, a widely followed and popular leader is one possible coordinating mechanism. And it does not give that popular leader the ability to do ANYTHING, only things that actually ARE popular but require coordination.
    - joosters 10y ago
      a widely followed and popular leader is one possible coordinating mechanism. That's the exact opposite of decentralized. Are we going to have to redefine the word?
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        Nobody has to follow the leader. Want to keep your exchange trading? Go ahead - nobody can stop you. It just so happens that everybody agrees this time.
      - viraptor 10y ago
        I don't agree. Centralised control would mean one person can change anything. Decentralised doesn't mean that nobody can propose a solution - only that others have to agree on it before it goes live. How do you imagine decentralised decisions happening otherwise? Everyone choosing their own solution without ever talking to each other and seeing what is most popular?
      - mcherm 10y ago
        I'm not sure whether we are redefining it... I suppose it depends on what definition you were starting with! My idea of "decentralized" includes things like "continues to function perfectly well if any one person or small group is removed from the process" and "continues to function perfectly well if any one person or small group becomes malicious". In this case, if Vitalik Buterin were not around to announce the problem, someone else could announce it and that would provide a coordinating signal for all of the independent players to act on. If Vitalik Buterin were malicious and decided to announce a rollback of a big spend he had done, then the independent miners and mining pool operators would (I hope) choose to ignore the announcement and refuse to participate. I guess to me, having a centralized group or individual make decisions seems to violate "decentralized", but having one of several possible groups or individuals make announcements which signal the population to take action does not.
  - Angostura 10y ago
    > but they didn't halt trading until they were asked to, so clearly it wasn't totally in their interests? I didn't stop eating excess salt until my doctor asked me to do so - and it was totally in my interest.
    - TillE 10y ago
      A surprising number of people seem to believe in the near-perfect efficiency of markets, that every participant is making optimal decisions based on their own goals. This is, of course, absurdly optimistic.
pron 10y ago
Why, has anyone thought that decentralization means no one has a lot of power? I figured that people who prefer decentralizations prefer feudal power over centralized power.
wolfgke 10y ago
> I think you're missing the point. The fact that one man can bring the whole of Ethereum trading to a halt with an announcement really demonstrates just how much power he has. The reason for this is that ethereum exchanges are not decentralized and the "program" that the owners of the exchanges execute on their brains partly allows "dynamic mental code update" by Vitalik Buterin.
vintermann 10y ago
He wouldn't have that power in just any old circumstance. He could have the power to launch nukes, but if that power would only work if all of the world agrees, I'd still not be afraid of him.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

weego 10y ago

I mean, they don't have to honor the request to do so.

curiousgal 10y ago

The announcement didn't come out of the blue. Exchanges don't want stolen funds to go through them so it is also in their interest to halt trading.

joosters 10y ago
...but they didn't halt trading until they were asked to, so clearly it wasn't totally in their interests? Exchanges are in a difficult position once the 'head' of ethereum tells them to stop. It's a sign that the blockchain might be forked, so any further trades they make might be undone - they simply have little choice but to stop after being told to do so.
- mcherm 10y ago
  > but they didn't halt trading until they were asked to, so clearly it wasn't totally in their interests? Not at all. This is a classic "coordination problem". It is advantageous for many participants in the overall system to take an action, but only if the other participants are ALSO taking the action. In such a case, a widely followed and popular leader is one possible coordinating mechanism. And it does not give that popular leader the ability to do ANYTHING, only things that actually ARE popular but require coordination.
  - joosters 10y ago
    a widely followed and popular leader is one possible coordinating mechanism. That's the exact opposite of decentralized. Are we going to have to redefine the word?
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      Nobody has to follow the leader. Want to keep your exchange trading? Go ahead - nobody can stop you. It just so happens that everybody agrees this time.
    - viraptor 10y ago
      I don't agree. Centralised control would mean one person can change anything. Decentralised doesn't mean that nobody can propose a solution - only that others have to agree on it before it goes live. How do you imagine decentralised decisions happening otherwise? Everyone choosing their own solution without ever talking to each other and seeing what is most popular?
    - mcherm 10y ago
      I'm not sure whether we are redefining it... I suppose it depends on what definition you were starting with! My idea of "decentralized" includes things like "continues to function perfectly well if any one person or small group is removed from the process" and "continues to function perfectly well if any one person or small group becomes malicious". In this case, if Vitalik Buterin were not around to announce the problem, someone else could announce it and that would provide a coordinating signal for all of the independent players to act on. If Vitalik Buterin were malicious and decided to announce a rollback of a big spend he had done, then the independent miners and mining pool operators would (I hope) choose to ignore the announcement and refuse to participate. I guess to me, having a centralized group or individual make decisions seems to violate "decentralized", but having one of several possible groups or individuals make announcements which signal the population to take action does not.
- Angostura 10y ago
  > but they didn't halt trading until they were asked to, so clearly it wasn't totally in their interests? I didn't stop eating excess salt until my doctor asked me to do so - and it was totally in my interest.
  - TillE 10y ago
    A surprising number of people seem to believe in the near-perfect efficiency of markets, that every participant is making optimal decisions based on their own goals. This is, of course, absurdly optimistic.

pron 10y ago

Why, has anyone thought that decentralization means no one has a lot of power? I figured that people who prefer decentralizations prefer feudal power over centralized power.

wolfgke 10y ago

> I think you're missing the point. The fact that one man can bring the whole of Ethereum trading to a halt with an announcement really demonstrates just how much power he has. The reason for this is that ethereum exchanges are not decentralized and the "program" that the owners of the exchanges execute on their brains partly allows "dynamic mental code update" by Vitalik Buterin.

vintermann 10y ago

He wouldn't have that power in just any old circumstance. He could have the power to launch nukes, but if that power would only work if all of the world agrees, I'd still not be afraid of him.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]