6 ms·

I would argue they already did achieve large scale trust, based on how many billions of assets are traded on the network.

anonporridge 5y ago
For sure. I certainly have trusted a significant single digit percentage of my wealth in Ethereum. But that's only predicated on them using PoW. I own no PoS tokens. I will likely dump my Eth once they lock in PoS and it becomes clear that they can't back peddle.
- michaelsbradley 5y ago
  Are you aware of how proof-of-stake works in the Ethereum Beacon Chain? To activate one validator node you stake 32 ETH (just ETH, no special token), no more and no less, i.e. your node can't be activated with less than 32 ETH staked and depositing more than 32 ETH is pointless (makes no difference). There are queues for activation and exit, so a node can't just jump in or out of that role on a moment's notice, needs to be anticipated over days and if it does immediately "drop off" then there will be penalties. All validators have equal weight and are randomly selected over time, for limited amounts of time, to carry out various responsibilities: attestations, block proposals, sync committees, slashing. In the big scheme of things, the main reason to run a validator node is the opportunity cost re: the estimated APR on the 32 ETH per rewards accumulated for correctly carrying out the various responsibilities mentioned above, versus doing something else in that time period with resources equivalent to 32 ETH + hardware/resource costs of running the node.
rvz 5y ago
The whole point of a public blockchain is for it to be trustless. Why do you even need to factor in achieving 'Large scale trust' with the largest Ethereum stakeholders to not say, attempt to revert a massive hack in 2016 to save the investors lost money? Why should I have to trust them to not do that again if another hack happened, even if they migrate to PoS and it causes a giant fork once again?
- anonporridge 5y ago
  There's some nuance here. A public blockchain is supposed to be "trustless" in that you don't have to trust humans to be honest, because the system is harshly fair and enforced by computation and the laws of physics that no one can trivially bullshit their way around. The important function of proof of work is that it solves the Byzantine generals problem such that everyone can trust the system without caring much about who else is using or controlling it. Proof of stake is problematic because it shifts the burden of trust back into the hands of humans, and we all know that "the hearts of men are easily corrupted".
  - thebean11 5y ago
    Miners are run by humans too, though, who could also theoretically attack the network. In both PoW and PoS they are incentivized not to.
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      The difference between miners and stakers... If miners start acting bad, anyone else on the planet can acquire chips and electricity to peacefully countervail their power. If stakers start acting bad, the only options you have are 1) abandon the monetary system or 2) violently coerce the top stakers and torture them into giving you control of their stake. This is why bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency likely to become the truly global, monetary asset that nation states use for trade and monetary reserves. No way in hell nation states will trust Vitalik and his gang to honestly secure their money.
      - etherael 5y ago
        And why would you trust Greg Maxwell and his gang?
        anonporridge 5y ago
        There's no intrinsic part of bitcoin that requires you to trust them. He might own a large amount of bitcoin, or have some sway in bitcoin core development, but that does not equal unilateral control authority of the protocol.

anonporridge 5y ago

For sure. I certainly have trusted a significant single digit percentage of my wealth in Ethereum. But that's only predicated on them using PoW. I own no PoS tokens. I will likely dump my Eth once they lock in PoS and it becomes clear that they can't back peddle.

michaelsbradley 5y ago
Are you aware of how proof-of-stake works in the Ethereum Beacon Chain? To activate one validator node you stake 32 ETH (just ETH, no special token), no more and no less, i.e. your node can't be activated with less than 32 ETH staked and depositing more than 32 ETH is pointless (makes no difference). There are queues for activation and exit, so a node can't just jump in or out of that role on a moment's notice, needs to be anticipated over days and if it does immediately "drop off" then there will be penalties. All validators have equal weight and are randomly selected over time, for limited amounts of time, to carry out various responsibilities: attestations, block proposals, sync committees, slashing. In the big scheme of things, the main reason to run a validator node is the opportunity cost re: the estimated APR on the 32 ETH per rewards accumulated for correctly carrying out the various responsibilities mentioned above, versus doing something else in that time period with resources equivalent to 32 ETH + hardware/resource costs of running the node.

rvz 5y ago

The whole point of a public blockchain is for it to be trustless. Why do you even need to factor in achieving 'Large scale trust' with the largest Ethereum stakeholders to not say, attempt to revert a massive hack in 2016 to save the investors lost money? Why should I have to trust them to not do that again if another hack happened, even if they migrate to PoS and it causes a giant fork once again?

anonporridge 5y ago
There's some nuance here. A public blockchain is supposed to be "trustless" in that you don't have to trust humans to be honest, because the system is harshly fair and enforced by computation and the laws of physics that no one can trivially bullshit their way around. The important function of proof of work is that it solves the Byzantine generals problem such that everyone can trust the system without caring much about who else is using or controlling it. Proof of stake is problematic because it shifts the burden of trust back into the hands of humans, and we all know that "the hearts of men are easily corrupted".
- thebean11 5y ago
  Miners are run by humans too, though, who could also theoretically attack the network. In both PoW and PoS they are incentivized not to.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    The difference between miners and stakers... If miners start acting bad, anyone else on the planet can acquire chips and electricity to peacefully countervail their power. If stakers start acting bad, the only options you have are 1) abandon the monetary system or 2) violently coerce the top stakers and torture them into giving you control of their stake. This is why bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency likely to become the truly global, monetary asset that nation states use for trade and monetary reserves. No way in hell nation states will trust Vitalik and his gang to honestly secure their money.
    - etherael 5y ago
      And why would you trust Greg Maxwell and his gang?
      - anonporridge 5y ago
        There's no intrinsic part of bitcoin that requires you to trust them. He might own a large amount of bitcoin, or have some sway in bitcoin core development, but that does not equal unilateral control authority of the protocol.