4 ms·
Yes and in 2017 there hadn't been a proof of stake network running in parallel for a year and a half, with 10% of all ETH deposited and locked in place until af
by DennisP 5y ago
Yes and in 2017 there hadn't been a proof of stake network running in parallel for a year and a half, with 10% of all ETH deposited and locked in place until after proof of work is killed off. Nor had there been multiple public testnets for the merge process.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jjulius 5y agoI'm just an outsider, but to OP's point, in 2017 they had none of what you just cited yet they were making the "within a year" claims, and continued to do so year after year. One can't help but draw a comparison to the boy who cried wolf. Edit: This isn't me taking a position, just observing.
- nicwolff 5y agoI'm also skeptical, but let's remember that the point of the fable is not "the boy's repeated claims lost credibility because the wolf never came", but rather "the people eventually learned to ignore the boy's claims and were caught by surprise when the wolf finally came" ツ
- lupire 5y agoBut if PoS comes after everyone stops caring about ETH (or PoS), it still fails. PoS isn't the hard part. Getting ETH successfully onto PoS is the hard part.
- DennisP 5y agoAccording to the people designing and building this stuff, PoS itself was a lot harder than merging it with the rest of the network. For PoS there was all sorts of complicated game theory, a whole new protocol, and trying to figure out every possible way to attack it. For the merge, it's basically just changing the fork choice rule of the existing network, so instead of going with the fork with the most work, it goes with the one being chosen by the PoS network.
- mccorrinall 5y agoThey still haven’t solved the nothing at stake issue. I don’t see any progress being made regarding game theory.
- DennisP 5y agoLocked deposits and slashing solve nothing-at-stake.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]