3 ms·
This is a distorted retelling of history. Mining pools ultimately did settle on voting in favor of the hard fork, but did so through collusion and lack of trans
by akyu 5y ago
This is a distorted retelling of history.
Mining pools ultimately did settle on voting in favor of the hard fork, but did so through collusion and lack of transparency.
Most notably, ethermine miners voted against the hard fork, but the pool operators contributed the entire pools votes in favor of the fork any way. There were similar situations with other mining pools, and in general the actual miners were left in the dark. The Ethereum Foundation was communicating with mining pool operators and exchange operators in private chats the entire time all of this was playing out.
Was the hard fork the right move in a pragmatic sense? Probably. But it was not at all the exemplar of decentralized consensus that people seems to remember these days. It was messy and ugly.
- TameAntelope 5y agoYeah but collusion and lack of transparency is what you get with a decentralized network! With no rules to enforce, the powerful can do whatever they want, including acting badly.
- 0ldskool 5y agohow does that differ from a centralized network. Let me copy/paste your comment Yeah but collusion and lack of transparency is what you get with a decentralized network! With no rules to enforce, the powerful can do whatever they want, including acting badly. into Yeah but collusion and lack of transparency is what you get with a CENTRALIZED network! With no rules to enforce, the powerful can do whatever they want, including acting badly. I see no difference.
- TameAntelope 5y agoYou should see a difference, because a centralized network can be governed (by the central entity!). A decentralized network necessarily cannot, because there is no controlling... centralized... mechanism.
- suikadayo 5y agoMiners are never in control of the chain. Node operators are.