5 ms·
Decentralized blockchains are entirely opt-in. If you are a participant in a blockchain that isn't serving your needs, you can opt out of that blockchain and in
by Taek 6y ago
Decentralized blockchains are entirely opt-in. If you are a participant in a blockchain that isn't serving your needs, you can opt out of that blockchain and into a new blockchain.
A hard fork is essentially a large coordinated migration from one blockchain to a new blockchain, generally with a shared history.
Vitalik does not have the sole power to go against the stakeholders of the network and make massive changes to Ethereum. The power that Vitalik has is one of leadership. If he attempts to coordinate a mass migration from one blockchain (old Eth) to another (new Eth), Vitalik actually needs to convince everyone that this is a good idea. He can't force it to happen if people disagree that it's the right thing to do. If Vitalik launches a hardfork and 80% of the network upgrades, that definitionally means that Vitalik had the support of 80% of the network, otherwise they wouldn't have followed the upgrade.
Blockchains are about consent. If you don't like what's happening on a blockchain, make a change. A single person making a change in isolation isn't interesting, but a large group of people making a change together IS interesting, and can be successful even if that group is just a minority. You end up with two different networks, each capable of thriving on their own.
Miners depend on the users of a blockchain for revenue. If a blockchain has no users, there will be no fees, and no revenue. The reverse is not true. If the users determine that they are better off selecting a different set of miners to build and preserve consensus, they can fork the network in a way that changes who is able to mine effectively, but does not otherwise impact daily use of the blockchain.
- vletal 6y agoMy grandpa lived in a building with unnecessarily expensive local coal heating. They never plugged into a heat pipe from a nearby powerplant, because the neighbor, who operated the local boiler always vetoed the decision. Why? Because he was being payed for operating it. This is pretty similar situation. Incentives of the miners are not aligned with those of the users.
- delaaxe 6y agoDoes something like delegated/nominated proof of stake solve this?
- mratsim 6y agoDelegated proof-of-stake is worse than Proof-of-Stake or Proof-of-Work from a decentralization perspective as the "delegators" can bribe their way to stay in power. Some resources (they link to DPoS alternatives and discuss them): - https://vitalik.ca/general/2016/12/29/pos_design.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2016/12/29/pos_design.html - https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/12/17/voting.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2017/12/17/voting.html - https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html - https://vitalik.ca/general/2019/04/03/collusion.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2019/04/03/collusion.html
- shawnz 6y agoThe incentives of the miners are aligned with the users: The miners mine and then they get paid. If the incumbent miners stop mining in protest of their future profits declining, then new miners will just come in to take the profits they are refusing to collect today. There is no incentive for them to conspire and every incentive for them to not conspire.
- lupire 6y agoEveryone acts per their interest. Right and wrong is subjective.