5 ms·
That “bad behavior” is precisely what the above poster meant by “changing the rules of the system.” If you or a syndicate have a large enough stake, you can man
by hellcow 4y ago
That “bad behavior” is precisely what the above poster meant by “changing the rules of the system.” If you or a syndicate have a large enough stake, you can manipulate the transactions which occur.
- rglullis 4y ago"By large enough", you mean 67% to attempt to do it with some chance of success, and if it fails it gets slashed. Not to mention that no one would be interested in using any network where this level of centralization could pose a real threat, and the most likely outcome of such a scenario would be a loss of the value of the native token.
- cowtools 4y ago...but if it succeeds, then everyone else gets slashed. The network has no concept of "truth". PoS doesn't fix this, it just puts all your eggs in one basket. Who would be interested in using any network which exists only for the profit of the existing stakeholders? Why not just fork it?
- aeternum 4y agoForking it is the real threat. If some entity does end up controlling 67% or doing something the community does not agree with, people will just stop using the chain. This already happened once with Ethereum.
- cowtools 4y agoYes, but etherium forked in favor of the stakeholders.
- skinnymuch 4y agoA lot of the stakeholders of Eth classic and the forked current Eth believe in code is law. The fork is and wasn’t in favor of that.
- rglullis 4y agoDepends on who you ask, and what fork they would rather be. Those that decide against the fork stayed on what became "classic".
- aeternum 4y agoWhich is the ultimate form of consensus: which fork does society actually choose to use? In the end, that's what really matters.
- programmarchy 4y ago...which incentivizes the network to become more decentralized.