2 ms·

I disagree that this is a realistic threat in a world where Ethereum tokens are reasonably distributed. Stakers will simply defect and sell their tokens as the

I disagree that this is a realistic threat in a world where Ethereum tokens are reasonably distributed. Stakers will simply defect and sell their tokens as the price increases. Conversely, this kind of attack would bring the price down as investors lose confidence, further encouraging people to defect and either validate honestly or sell tokens.

anonporridge 5y ago
Can you prove that tokens are sufficiently distributed? It is trivial for a large staker to masquerade as many individuals. Can you ensure that no small group will ever one take take the a controlling stake, either by time and patience or by violent force, coercing or killing other stakers? And yes, it would cause people to lose confidence, which is why this kind of attack probably won't happen unless Ethereum or some other PoS system achieves a much greater level of global dominance where it has become too big to fail.
- thebean11 5y ago
  No I agree you can't prove they are distributed, but I don't see the threat as realistic. I also think the only reason for someone to take a controlling stake and attack the network would be to kill Ethereum and make everyone lose confidence. Bitcoin is susceptible to the exact same attack, someone could build or buy enough mining power and cause a huge reorg to wreak havok. I take your point that Bitcoin could more easily recover from this, as new mining hardware can be built by honest participants unlike tokens, but it would take too long. It would be too late to restore confidence at that point anyway. I think both networks are resistant to the attack for the same reason, it's just too expensive. You could argue that Ethereum is actually more resistant, as buying tokens drives up the price. Bitcoin has the opposite economies of scale. The more chips an attacker produces, the better they get at making them, and the more cheaply they can amass hashrate.

anonporridge 5y ago

Can you prove that tokens are sufficiently distributed? It is trivial for a large staker to masquerade as many individuals. Can you ensure that no small group will ever one take take the a controlling stake, either by time and patience or by violent force, coercing or killing other stakers? And yes, it would cause people to lose confidence, which is why this kind of attack probably won't happen unless Ethereum or some other PoS system achieves a much greater level of global dominance where it has become too big to fail.

thebean11 5y ago
No I agree you can't prove they are distributed, but I don't see the threat as realistic. I also think the only reason for someone to take a controlling stake and attack the network would be to kill Ethereum and make everyone lose confidence. Bitcoin is susceptible to the exact same attack, someone could build or buy enough mining power and cause a huge reorg to wreak havok. I take your point that Bitcoin could more easily recover from this, as new mining hardware can be built by honest participants unlike tokens, but it would take too long. It would be too late to restore confidence at that point anyway. I think both networks are resistant to the attack for the same reason, it's just too expensive. You could argue that Ethereum is actually more resistant, as buying tokens drives up the price. Bitcoin has the opposite economies of scale. The more chips an attacker produces, the better they get at making them, and the more cheaply they can amass hashrate.