3 ms·

This is not even an argument, there's no substance at all, just "I don't know how this works, I won't bother to learn and I don't trust it". Even a 1 minute ski

This is not even an argument, there's no substance at all, just "I don't know how this works, I won't bother to learn and I don't trust it". Even a 1 minute skim of Ethereum's docs on proof of stake[1] would prove him wrong. Proof of stake means the you have to hold ETH to validate transactions, meaning defrauding the network and causing a fork would destroy the value of your own stake. [1] https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/ https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms...

optymizer 5y ago
How would your stake get devalued? If the whole currency gets devalued then it would be devalued for everyone, not just for you. You'd end up holding the same % stake in the original network, and the same or greater stake in the fork as well.
- zaptheimpaler 5y ago
  The attackers percentage of stake would obviously not change but all tokens on that entire chain would be worth nothing once the public realized it had been hacked. They would hold 51%, or even 100% of a $0 token. All the verifiers who took part in the fraud and all the accounts linked to them would be traced and not given any stake in the new fork.
jml7c5 5y ago
I don't believe the author is talking about something like double-spending. They're describing a situation where major holders want to change something about the protocol, especially a change that is to their advantage.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  Same deal. If the other smaller half decides it's worth less because of it, your big stake will decrease in value.
mumblemumble 5y ago
I think that the argument is that people who hold enough ETH could fraudulently give themselves more ETH and then take over all the ETH. Which, yeah, I can believe that a 51% attack could destroy a proof-of-stake system even more spectacularly than it could a proof-of-work system. But I'm not sure why I should care? Spectacularly destroyed, astoundingly destroyed, stupendously destroyed. . . regardless of the adverb, it's still been destroyed.
- ric2b 5y ago
  51% attacks don't destroy anything, they can temporarily censor transactions and have some ability to perform double-spends.
  - atc 5y ago
    Is that somehow better?!
  - nomoreplease 5y ago
    It does destroy trust in the chain
stickfigure 5y ago
You hold ETH because the blockchain says you do. A hard fork of the chain could say that you do not. There is no external way to distinguish between these two chains; they are equally valid to the people who follow them. You think this is impossible? Ethereum has already had one contentious hard fork in its incredibly brief life. What stops it from happening again?

optymizer 5y ago

How would your stake get devalued? If the whole currency gets devalued then it would be devalued for everyone, not just for you. You'd end up holding the same % stake in the original network, and the same or greater stake in the fork as well.

zaptheimpaler 5y ago
The attackers percentage of stake would obviously not change but all tokens on that entire chain would be worth nothing once the public realized it had been hacked. They would hold 51%, or even 100% of a $0 token. All the verifiers who took part in the fraud and all the accounts linked to them would be traced and not given any stake in the new fork.

jml7c5 5y ago

I don't believe the author is talking about something like double-spending. They're describing a situation where major holders want to change something about the protocol, especially a change that is to their advantage.

koonsolo 5y ago
Same deal. If the other smaller half decides it's worth less because of it, your big stake will decrease in value.

mumblemumble 5y ago

I think that the argument is that people who hold enough ETH could fraudulently give themselves more ETH and then take over all the ETH. Which, yeah, I can believe that a 51% attack could destroy a proof-of-stake system even more spectacularly than it could a proof-of-work system. But I'm not sure why I should care? Spectacularly destroyed, astoundingly destroyed, stupendously destroyed. . . regardless of the adverb, it's still been destroyed.

ric2b 5y ago
51% attacks don't destroy anything, they can temporarily censor transactions and have some ability to perform double-spends.
- atc 5y ago
  Is that somehow better?!
- nomoreplease 5y ago
  It does destroy trust in the chain

stickfigure 5y ago

You hold ETH because the blockchain says you do. A hard fork of the chain could say that you do not. There is no external way to distinguish between these two chains; they are equally valid to the people who follow them. You think this is impossible? Ethereum has already had one contentious hard fork in its incredibly brief life. What stops it from happening again?