5 ms·

looks like you missed "controls a large percentage of total ETH"

by fredfoobar 5y ago

hanniabu 5y ago
Except he doesn't
- grubles 5y ago
  Vitalik, just one person, owns billions in ETH. That is the top 0.1%.
  - SwagtimusPrime 5y ago
    And Satoshi, just one person, owns tens of billions in BTC. That is the top 0.01%.
    - yaa_minu 5y ago
      Satoshi mined every single one of it and anyone would have been able to do same also he never sold his coins and left the project early on to avoid having too much control. Quite the opposite with Vitalik who on the other hand premined his eth, has been selling them Ever since, and continues to have significant control over ehereum.
      - hanniabu 5y ago
        Satoshi did the equivalent of ninja mining.
    - rawtxapp 5y ago
      Satoshi is not actively working to move Bitcoin to PoS though. And for all practical purposes, his stash is as good as gone.
  - vbuterin 5y ago
    There's definitely ETH holders who have more ETH than I do, including those who did _not_ benefit from the premine. (And there's BTC holders with more than 0.3% of all BTC)
    - fredfoobar 5y ago
      > (And there's BTC holders with more than 0.3% of all BTC) And yet, they can't stake their Bitcoin gain influence in the network. They're just another user in user-land
      - vbuterin 5y ago
        What kind of "influence in the network" do you gain by staking? (Keep in mind that in present-day Ethereum, the influence that PoW miners have in protocol governance is pretty minimal)
  - tornato7 5y ago
    Zuckerberg owns 30% of Facebook! And he stands to gain the most from Facebook earning profits!!! It's all a scam!! See how ridiculous it sounds?
    - Salgat 5y ago
      That's fine as long as we agree that Ethereum is not a form of currency, otherwise it becomes terribly regressive for one person to have that much stake that continues to collect even more ether in the process.
- fredfoobar 5y ago
  How can you verify that? currently everybody just listens to what he has to say, when he decided to undo the DAO hack, the original "immutable" chain just died off because Vitalik put his vote on ETH. Sincerely, I really wish he hadn't done that. (I'm guessing vbuterin is THE vbuterin here)
  - suikadayo 5y ago
    Vitalik didn't decide to undo the DAO hack, there was a community vote (http://v1.carbonvote.com/ http://v1.carbonvote.com/), unlike Satoshi who singlehandedly rolled back the chain in 2010 after the 184 billion BTC hack. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9573#msg9573 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9573#msg9573
    - grubles 5y ago
      Coinvotes in the context of massive insider premines is completely useless. Of course a coinvote would reflect "Yes to censoring the DAO hacker" because the DAO hacker controlled more ETH than the top 3 current ETH accounts. And the insiders stand to benefit the most from proof of stake because it's a system designed to further enrich the already rich.
    - fredfoobar 5y ago
      Satoshi fixed a bug (that reverted it back to the initial rules everyone agreed upon). The DAO hack actually was an exploitation of the rules that everyone agreed upon in the DAO, recursively calling a function in your smart contract layer is not a bug. This brings us to an interesting topic, bugs are common in software, * Should you make the protocol layer so complex that it increases the probability of bugs being found, being harder to understand and potentially grind the whole system to a halt if a bug is found. OR * Should you break them up into layers where each layer has one responsibility (base monetary layer, a smart contract layer, a micro payments layer etc.)
      - fredfoobar 5y ago
        I want to add to this, some additional material, anyone interested in the current state of DeFi can understand this https://medium.com/coinmonks/demystify-the-dark-forest-on-ethereum-sandwich-attacks-5a3aec9fa33e https://medium.com/coinmonks/demystify-the-dark-forest-on-et...

looks like you missed "controls a large percentage of total ETH"

hanniabu 5y ago

Except he doesn't

grubles 5y ago
Vitalik, just one person, owns billions in ETH. That is the top 0.1%.
- SwagtimusPrime 5y ago
  And Satoshi, just one person, owns tens of billions in BTC. That is the top 0.01%.
  - yaa_minu 5y ago
    Satoshi mined every single one of it and anyone would have been able to do same also he never sold his coins and left the project early on to avoid having too much control. Quite the opposite with Vitalik who on the other hand premined his eth, has been selling them Ever since, and continues to have significant control over ehereum.
    - hanniabu 5y ago
      Satoshi did the equivalent of ninja mining.
  - rawtxapp 5y ago
    Satoshi is not actively working to move Bitcoin to PoS though. And for all practical purposes, his stash is as good as gone.
- vbuterin 5y ago
  There's definitely ETH holders who have more ETH than I do, including those who did _not_ benefit from the premine. (And there's BTC holders with more than 0.3% of all BTC)
  - fredfoobar 5y ago
    > (And there's BTC holders with more than 0.3% of all BTC) And yet, they can't stake their Bitcoin gain influence in the network. They're just another user in user-land
    - vbuterin 5y ago
      What kind of "influence in the network" do you gain by staking? (Keep in mind that in present-day Ethereum, the influence that PoW miners have in protocol governance is pretty minimal)
- tornato7 5y ago
  Zuckerberg owns 30% of Facebook! And he stands to gain the most from Facebook earning profits!!! It's all a scam!! See how ridiculous it sounds?
  - Salgat 5y ago
    That's fine as long as we agree that Ethereum is not a form of currency, otherwise it becomes terribly regressive for one person to have that much stake that continues to collect even more ether in the process.
fredfoobar 5y ago
How can you verify that? currently everybody just listens to what he has to say, when he decided to undo the DAO hack, the original "immutable" chain just died off because Vitalik put his vote on ETH. Sincerely, I really wish he hadn't done that. (I'm guessing vbuterin is THE vbuterin here)
- suikadayo 5y ago
  Vitalik didn't decide to undo the DAO hack, there was a community vote (http://v1.carbonvote.com/ http://v1.carbonvote.com/), unlike Satoshi who singlehandedly rolled back the chain in 2010 after the 184 billion BTC hack. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9573#msg9573 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9573#msg9573
  - grubles 5y ago
    Coinvotes in the context of massive insider premines is completely useless. Of course a coinvote would reflect "Yes to censoring the DAO hacker" because the DAO hacker controlled more ETH than the top 3 current ETH accounts. And the insiders stand to benefit the most from proof of stake because it's a system designed to further enrich the already rich.
  - fredfoobar 5y ago
    Satoshi fixed a bug (that reverted it back to the initial rules everyone agreed upon). The DAO hack actually was an exploitation of the rules that everyone agreed upon in the DAO, recursively calling a function in your smart contract layer is not a bug. This brings us to an interesting topic, bugs are common in software, * Should you make the protocol layer so complex that it increases the probability of bugs being found, being harder to understand and potentially grind the whole system to a halt if a bug is found. OR * Should you break them up into layers where each layer has one responsibility (base monetary layer, a smart contract layer, a micro payments layer etc.)
    - fredfoobar 5y ago
      I want to add to this, some additional material, anyone interested in the current state of DeFi can understand this https://medium.com/coinmonks/demystify-the-dark-forest-on-ethereum-sandwich-attacks-5a3aec9fa33e https://medium.com/coinmonks/demystify-the-dark-forest-on-et...