5 ms·

Miners don’t dictate protocol rules. Miners do one job - hash blocks. And they get rewarded for it. Miners are only one participant in the ecosystem, there are

Miners don’t dictate protocol rules. Miners do one job - hash blocks. And they get rewarded for it. Miners are only one participant in the ecosystem, there are also users, merchants and developers. Governance of any cryptocurrency is extremely touchy subject and one thing you don’t want to do is setting a precedent for making a controversial change. If you justify such change by “majority of miners want it” - you’re basically handing over the protocol to their hands. Nothing will prevent miners to adopt changes that eventually centralize currency control, increase rewards(inflation), etc.

malikNF 6y ago
>> Miners don’t dictate protocol rules. Miners do one job - hash blocks. And they get rewarded for it. What? Not really. Miners do indeed dictate the protocol rules, its is the miners agreeing to following a certain version of the consensus algorithm that makes a blockchain do what it does. So they are partly responsible for more than just mining blocks. Like I said initially it is hard to say who the actual decision makers of the chain are because it is not defined properly by eth. >>Miners are only one participant in the ecosystem, there are also users, merchants and developers. Like I mentioned in my previous comment, my whole disagreement with the OP of this comment chain is, their analogy calling miners bodyguards only, my argument is that its hard to tell, because anyone can play any role in this network, on eth the incentives are set up in such a way that each actor can be multiple actors, and there isn't any clear distinction as to who gets to decide what on the network. >>If you justify such change by “majority of miners want it” - you’re basically handing over the protocol to their hands. Nothing will prevent miners to adopt changes that eventually centralize currency control, increase rewards(inflation), etc. I am not trying to justify it as majority miners want it, my criticism of the eth chain is they have done this sort of nonese in the past (remember the DAO hack where vitalik and co decided to serve their own interests and rolled back a blockchain? ) It clearly shows eth hasn't grown or come up with a solution as to how to govern their blockchain in a decentralized manner. At the moment, a small select group of people, rather than the majority of its stakeholders get to decide what happens to the blockchain, and that to me doesn't look like decentralization. Whats to stop a powerful government forcing vitalik and co to implement or remove what they want in the future?
- darawk 6y ago
  > What? Not really. Miners do indeed dictate the protocol rules, its is the miners agreeing to following a certain version of the consensus algorithm that makes a blockchain do what it does. So they are partly responsible for more than just mining blocks. Like I said initially it is hard to say who the actual decision makers of the chain are because it is not defined properly by eth. Who dictates the rules is who controls the logic of the chain where the value resides. The miners can create their own fork, and Vitalik can create his own fork. I think we know where the value will go. > Who dictates the rules is who controls the logic of the chain where the value resides. The miners can create their own fork, and Vitalik can create his own fork. I think we know where the value will go. Vitalik only has this power because he appears to be choosing freely and the public agrees with him. If it appeared he was being forced to do something, or he did something that people didn't like, the value wouldn't follow him. It is in this economic sense, and only this economic sense, that crypto is democratic. The only votes that matter are the dollars people trade to buy Ethereum.
- xorcist 6y ago
  > its is the miners agreeing to following a certain version of the consensus algorithm that makes a blockchain do what it does You have cause and effect mixed up. The miners that follow the same consensus rules that the merchants and exchanges do, get paid. The others do not. A majority of miners following incompatible consensus would look like a huge drop off in mining capacity from the end users perspective. Similar things have happened multiple times.
  - akimball 6y ago
    There aren’t “merchants” in eth, really, there are dapps. Exchanges don’t care about protocols beyond send and receive. Still, I agree with your larger point: The value goes where the dapps go, and many will go to eth2. (But some will move to more stable and sustainable platforms.)
    - jkhdigital 6y ago
      > But some will move to more stable and sustainable platforms. This is why I refuse to hold ETH... when the financial big boys finally start moving to blockchain rails, they are going to look at ETH and think “WTF is this?” and pass it up for more principled designs like Cardano.
Vespasian 6y ago
> Governance of any cryptocurrency is extremely touchy subject and one thing you don’t want to do is setting a precedent for making a controversial change This got me thinking. How likely is it that, if and when crypto grows into a significant financial sector, the actual government will take over the governance. It seems likely that the public (or their representatives) will grow increasingly uneasy with such an important matter being handled by random internet people and foundations. Especially if these institutions are not willing to include themselves into other policy making processes. I believe that sooner rather than later effective control will be wrestled away from people like Vitalik, through laws and regulations.
- shawnz 6y ago
  If a big government seized control of a coin's development, it would surely lose most of its value and users would likely just create a fork which is not under that government's control.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    Miners would try to fork it. Users would be overjoyed, and the user base would grow dramatically. People aren't using bitcoin day-to-day because it lacks a government backing.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      I will reply to this despite the fact that it's an obvious troll and has nothing to do with the topic at hand (this thread isn't even about Bitcoin). People are actually using Bitcoin strictly because it lacks a government backing. For those users who want an asset that is government-backed, there are already lots of options and there is little need for cryptocurrency to try and compete in that space.
    - mratsim 6y ago
      Venezuela has a government-backed cryptocurrency, the Petro, which failed spectacularly: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_(cryptocurrency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_(cryptocurrency). In fact colleagues at Status went to Venezuela to check how payments worked there: - https://www.figma.com/community/file/780788775246577039?preview=fullscreen https://www.figma.com/community/file/780788775246577039?prev...

malikNF 6y ago

>> Miners don’t dictate protocol rules. Miners do one job - hash blocks. And they get rewarded for it. What? Not really. Miners do indeed dictate the protocol rules, its is the miners agreeing to following a certain version of the consensus algorithm that makes a blockchain do what it does. So they are partly responsible for more than just mining blocks. Like I said initially it is hard to say who the actual decision makers of the chain are because it is not defined properly by eth. >>Miners are only one participant in the ecosystem, there are also users, merchants and developers. Like I mentioned in my previous comment, my whole disagreement with the OP of this comment chain is, their analogy calling miners bodyguards only, my argument is that its hard to tell, because anyone can play any role in this network, on eth the incentives are set up in such a way that each actor can be multiple actors, and there isn't any clear distinction as to who gets to decide what on the network. >>If you justify such change by “majority of miners want it” - you’re basically handing over the protocol to their hands. Nothing will prevent miners to adopt changes that eventually centralize currency control, increase rewards(inflation), etc. I am not trying to justify it as majority miners want it, my criticism of the eth chain is they have done this sort of nonese in the past (remember the DAO hack where vitalik and co decided to serve their own interests and rolled back a blockchain? ) It clearly shows eth hasn't grown or come up with a solution as to how to govern their blockchain in a decentralized manner. At the moment, a small select group of people, rather than the majority of its stakeholders get to decide what happens to the blockchain, and that to me doesn't look like decentralization. Whats to stop a powerful government forcing vitalik and co to implement or remove what they want in the future?

darawk 6y ago
> What? Not really. Miners do indeed dictate the protocol rules, its is the miners agreeing to following a certain version of the consensus algorithm that makes a blockchain do what it does. So they are partly responsible for more than just mining blocks. Like I said initially it is hard to say who the actual decision makers of the chain are because it is not defined properly by eth. Who dictates the rules is who controls the logic of the chain where the value resides. The miners can create their own fork, and Vitalik can create his own fork. I think we know where the value will go. > Who dictates the rules is who controls the logic of the chain where the value resides. The miners can create their own fork, and Vitalik can create his own fork. I think we know where the value will go. Vitalik only has this power because he appears to be choosing freely and the public agrees with him. If it appeared he was being forced to do something, or he did something that people didn't like, the value wouldn't follow him. It is in this economic sense, and only this economic sense, that crypto is democratic. The only votes that matter are the dollars people trade to buy Ethereum.
xorcist 6y ago
> its is the miners agreeing to following a certain version of the consensus algorithm that makes a blockchain do what it does You have cause and effect mixed up. The miners that follow the same consensus rules that the merchants and exchanges do, get paid. The others do not. A majority of miners following incompatible consensus would look like a huge drop off in mining capacity from the end users perspective. Similar things have happened multiple times.
- akimball 6y ago
  There aren’t “merchants” in eth, really, there are dapps. Exchanges don’t care about protocols beyond send and receive. Still, I agree with your larger point: The value goes where the dapps go, and many will go to eth2. (But some will move to more stable and sustainable platforms.)
  - jkhdigital 6y ago
    > But some will move to more stable and sustainable platforms. This is why I refuse to hold ETH... when the financial big boys finally start moving to blockchain rails, they are going to look at ETH and think “WTF is this?” and pass it up for more principled designs like Cardano.

Vespasian 6y ago

> Governance of any cryptocurrency is extremely touchy subject and one thing you don’t want to do is setting a precedent for making a controversial change This got me thinking. How likely is it that, if and when crypto grows into a significant financial sector, the actual government will take over the governance. It seems likely that the public (or their representatives) will grow increasingly uneasy with such an important matter being handled by random internet people and foundations. Especially if these institutions are not willing to include themselves into other policy making processes. I believe that sooner rather than later effective control will be wrestled away from people like Vitalik, through laws and regulations.

shawnz 6y ago
If a big government seized control of a coin's development, it would surely lose most of its value and users would likely just create a fork which is not under that government's control.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  Miners would try to fork it. Users would be overjoyed, and the user base would grow dramatically. People aren't using bitcoin day-to-day because it lacks a government backing.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    I will reply to this despite the fact that it's an obvious troll and has nothing to do with the topic at hand (this thread isn't even about Bitcoin). People are actually using Bitcoin strictly because it lacks a government backing. For those users who want an asset that is government-backed, there are already lots of options and there is little need for cryptocurrency to try and compete in that space.
  - mratsim 6y ago
    Venezuela has a government-backed cryptocurrency, the Petro, which failed spectacularly: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_(cryptocurrency) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_(cryptocurrency). In fact colleagues at Status went to Venezuela to check how payments worked there: - https://www.figma.com/community/file/780788775246577039?preview=fullscreen https://www.figma.com/community/file/780788775246577039?prev...