4 ms·
Clearly there is some group of people with the power and influence to make this decision. How does that group compare to, say, US central bankers, in terms of t
by jl6 4y ago
Clearly there is some group of people with the power and influence to make this decision. How does that group compare to, say, US central bankers, in terms of transparency and democratic accountability?
Edit: To be clear, I’m not talking about banking operations, I’m talking about decision making by central bank leadership. One of the purported benefits of crypto is independence from the shadowy cabals that run the US dollar.
Except the Treasury isn’t actually all that shadowy - the staff have names, and are appointed through an ultimately democratic process. Whereas I really have no idea who is pulling the strings behind crypto and who they are accountable to. The original vision was for decentralized finance where nobody could pull the strings, but the level of coordination on display here in the PoW-to-PoS switch makes it obvious that strings exist and they are capable of being pulled.
- jakswa 4y agoAt first bluff, I'd expect a ton of example and implementation code to be open-sourced. I still don't know what nightmare code is crawling CSV/ZIP (forget which) files daily doing ACH transfers, but afaik that's still how electronic banking is done? Would love to learn I'm outdated there.
- mattdesl 4y agoThe development is in the open, happening through PRs on GitHub and across several independent client teams. You can join the R&D discord (I’m there as a casual observer) and watch or engage in technical discussions. You can propose EIPs or make suggestions about how the chain should work, and everybody can collectively decide it is a good or bad idea for the protocol. Overall it’s very open, although they do have to draw the line somewhere and I assume the core dev’s weekly zoom calls and standups are not open to everybody to join lest it degrade into madness (these devs work across a range of independent companies and orgs fwiw). Even these calls and notes are shared btw.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoWho will implement the final decision?
- woah 4y agoUsers and exchanges who choose to recognize the token of this new chain as "real eth"
- tomhallett 4y agoFrom my very limited understanding, with Bitcoin the separation of powers comes from the miners ability to reject an update. With ETH Proof of stake, that is less clear - can the people staking refuse to accept a new protocol version/update?
- ruuda 4y agoThe people who run the validators can, but validators on the old version will be incompatible with the rest of the network (if the rest of the network did update), and they will not be able to sync. It's no different from Bitcoin in that sense.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rufusroflpunch 4y agoThe core devs have implemented a “difficulty bomb” in order to pressure the community to adopt their changes. If you don’t accept their hard forks you will stuck operating on a chain where you can’t mint new blocks. It’s not quite force or coercion but it’s something close. It allows the Ethereum team to operate similar to a software company and retain tight control over the so called decentralized network. This is a primary example of why many people argue that Ethereum operates more like a security.
- im3w1l 4y agoThere is one key thing to realize. The current Ethereum team can remove / post-pone the difficulty bomb. But so could a competing team. It doesn't favor one over the other. All it does is disincentivize stagnation.