4 ms·

There's a third option you didn't mention in your comment: instead of signing the block with these banned transactions (option 1), or signing an alternate block

by cesarb 4y ago

There's a third option you didn't mention in your comment: instead of signing the block with these banned transactions (option 1), or signing an alternate block with other transactions (option 2), the node could pretend to be offline for that block (option 3). Instead of being slashed, the node would then be subject only to the much smaller inactivity leak for these blocks. The only question then is how indirect these sanctions can be. The node might not be allowed to validate a block with banned transactions, but what about the next block, which does not include these blocked transactions, only a pointer to a block with these banned transactions? What about the second next block, which has only a pointer to a block with a pointer to a block with these banned transactions? How many blocks until the link is tenuous enough that the validators under USA jurisdiction could validate again without fear?

dcolkitt 4y ago
One thing to keep in mind is that Ethereum is nothing but a network of computers passing messages to each other. Those messages are considered speech from a Constitutional perspective. Same as you sending a text message to your friend. Therefore normal free speech protections almost certainly apply, and most relevantly the Brandenburg test for imminent lawless action. Suppose Tony texts Paulie and tells him to wack a guy. That's illegal, unprotected speech, because it directly leads to imminent lawless action. Similarly the wallet owner who signs and broadcasts an Ethereum transaction to send money to North Korea would bass the Brandenburg test because it obviously leads to imminent lawless action. The validator who builds the block that includes an illegal transaction is an interesting question. On the one hand by building the block, one could argue that they're instrumental in putting carrying out the illegal transaction. OTOH one might argue that if the transaction is in the network (and priced appropriately) it almost certainly will get included on-chain eventually. Therefore the validator might argue that it's activity doesn't create any imminent lawless activity, because the transaction being in the mempool is already fait accompli. The validator is more like the reporter writing about a crime in the newspaper. But what I'm nearly certain of is that building on top of a chain with a previously finalized illegal transaction is okay. It's certainly not illegal to talk about a crime that's already happened. The further a block gets away from the initial block, then the less imminent the illegal action becomes. SCOTUS has historically held a very high standard for Brandenburg, which is why it's not even illegal to advocate for genocide or the violent overthrow of the American government.
- codeflo 4y ago
  > Those messages are considered speech from a Constitutional perspective. I have no reason to doubt that your credentials as a constitutional lawyer are impeccable. > The further a block gets away from the initial block, then the less imminent the illegal action becomes. This very plausible legal theory inspires incredible confidence.
- meltyness 4y ago
  Not only are you right, but it would be hard to convince a majority to vote either way over our mostly invisible future.
pcthrowaway 4y ago
I think many American stakers wouldn't bother with the hassle, and instead would take a small haircut to stake with fully decentralized services (like rocket pool) or semi-centralized (but foreign-based) staking pools (like Lido) to prevent the threat of the U.S. government having any kind of control over the network.

by cesarb 4y ago

dcolkitt 4y ago

One thing to keep in mind is that Ethereum is nothing but a network of computers passing messages to each other. Those messages are considered speech from a Constitutional perspective. Same as you sending a text message to your friend. Therefore normal free speech protections almost certainly apply, and most relevantly the Brandenburg test for imminent lawless action. Suppose Tony texts Paulie and tells him to wack a guy. That's illegal, unprotected speech, because it directly leads to imminent lawless action. Similarly the wallet owner who signs and broadcasts an Ethereum transaction to send money to North Korea would bass the Brandenburg test because it obviously leads to imminent lawless action. The validator who builds the block that includes an illegal transaction is an interesting question. On the one hand by building the block, one could argue that they're instrumental in putting carrying out the illegal transaction. OTOH one might argue that if the transaction is in the network (and priced appropriately) it almost certainly will get included on-chain eventually. Therefore the validator might argue that it's activity doesn't create any imminent lawless activity, because the transaction being in the mempool is already fait accompli. The validator is more like the reporter writing about a crime in the newspaper. But what I'm nearly certain of is that building on top of a chain with a previously finalized illegal transaction is okay. It's certainly not illegal to talk about a crime that's already happened. The further a block gets away from the initial block, then the less imminent the illegal action becomes. SCOTUS has historically held a very high standard for Brandenburg, which is why it's not even illegal to advocate for genocide or the violent overthrow of the American government.

codeflo 4y ago
> Those messages are considered speech from a Constitutional perspective. I have no reason to doubt that your credentials as a constitutional lawyer are impeccable. > The further a block gets away from the initial block, then the less imminent the illegal action becomes. This very plausible legal theory inspires incredible confidence.
meltyness 4y ago
Not only are you right, but it would be hard to convince a majority to vote either way over our mostly invisible future.

pcthrowaway 4y ago

I think many American stakers wouldn't bother with the hassle, and instead would take a small haircut to stake with fully decentralized services (like rocket pool) or semi-centralized (but foreign-based) staking pools (like Lido) to prevent the threat of the U.S. government having any kind of control over the network.