5 ms·

What GP posted is not an ad hom; they did not argue for or against anything, and even if they did it wasn't based on the characteristics of the speaker.

ethbr0 4y ago
> I would suggest to stop spamming the HN comment section and read the introductory articles people helpfully linked you to.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  Yep, this is what was said. It is not an argument for or against any point under discussion. Ad hominem is "you are wrong because you (fill in the blank)". It is not "go read the articles given to you". "You are wrong because you are an idiot" is ad hominem. "You are wrong" is denial. "You are an idiot" is insult.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    "You are spamming the HN comments and didn't read links, therefore your question is invalid, because of who asked it" is ad hominem. It's easy enough not to reply. No need to get an attitude about it.
    - leppr 4y ago
      Yes, this was ad-hominem because it seems obvious the OP is not asking this in good faith. Their first comment is not in the form of a neutral question, but a prejudiced assumption based on a false idea that nothing in the linked article could lead one to believe. > Is it incorrect to say that ethereum is now entirely centralized with some extra steps? > Like, you have this proof of stake thing, but the only reason it works is because there's just a small number of validators, which is just going to be the ethereum foundation and friends. I know Cunningham's Law is a valid discussion strategy, but the topics of cryptocurrency on HN already tends to attract enough flamewars and misinformation as it is.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        > Yes, this was ad-hominem because it seems obvious the OP is not asking this in good faith. There's nothing here that was done in bad faith and I should not need to defend myself for asking a question in a tech forum. Assuming I'm not asking in good faith is bad faith. The reason I asked was a description pasted a short while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32535409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32535409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32535912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32535912 Which included this line: > Slashing is not meant to profitable, and the whistleblower reward is quite small. We don't need a million slashers, in fact, we could operate with just one... expect the Eth Foundation to run them, among other large players who can spare the resources. Which sure sounds like a decentralized process that is ultimately just centralized around the ETH foundation at the end of the day. Honestly I've learned a lot from the responses here. And I think people who assumed I was doing anything other than just asking questions because the idea I was asking about offended them are asshole. So yeah. Go pound sand.
        zodiac 4y ago
        > Which sure sounds like a decentralized process that is ultimately just centralized around the ETH foundation at the end of the day. The validators need to be decentralized (i.e. prevent "harmful collusion"), but the slashers don't need to be in the same way (as long as the validators are).
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        Nope. That's very inaccurate. If only the ETH foundation is allowed to slash, then it's just a centralized system with extra steps. Because only the ETH foundation is allowed to decide what is bad behavior. It is not the case that only the ETH foundation can slash, which was the crux of my original question. The fundamental misunderstanding people seem to be having is that slashers show objective proof of bad events. That's accurate. But validators are still free to agree or disagree with that objective proof of bad events. If you can create a means to prevent consensus on slashing for your overtly malicious behavior, your stake is only at risk if the entire community agrees to fork, which is probable for huge malicious behaviors but I'm not convinced is true for smaller things or circumstances where large actors have a vested interest in preferring the original chain.

ethbr0 4y ago

> I would suggest to stop spamming the HN comment section and read the introductory articles people helpfully linked you to.

Karunamon 4y ago
Yep, this is what was said. It is not an argument for or against any point under discussion. Ad hominem is "you are wrong because you (fill in the blank)". It is not "go read the articles given to you". "You are wrong because you are an idiot" is ad hominem. "You are wrong" is denial. "You are an idiot" is insult.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  "You are spamming the HN comments and didn't read links, therefore your question is invalid, because of who asked it" is ad hominem. It's easy enough not to reply. No need to get an attitude about it.
  - leppr 4y ago
    Yes, this was ad-hominem because it seems obvious the OP is not asking this in good faith. Their first comment is not in the form of a neutral question, but a prejudiced assumption based on a false idea that nothing in the linked article could lead one to believe. > Is it incorrect to say that ethereum is now entirely centralized with some extra steps? > Like, you have this proof of stake thing, but the only reason it works is because there's just a small number of validators, which is just going to be the ethereum foundation and friends. I know Cunningham's Law is a valid discussion strategy, but the topics of cryptocurrency on HN already tends to attract enough flamewars and misinformation as it is.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      > Yes, this was ad-hominem because it seems obvious the OP is not asking this in good faith. There's nothing here that was done in bad faith and I should not need to defend myself for asking a question in a tech forum. Assuming I'm not asking in good faith is bad faith. The reason I asked was a description pasted a short while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32535409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32535409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32535912 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32535912 Which included this line: > Slashing is not meant to profitable, and the whistleblower reward is quite small. We don't need a million slashers, in fact, we could operate with just one... expect the Eth Foundation to run them, among other large players who can spare the resources. Which sure sounds like a decentralized process that is ultimately just centralized around the ETH foundation at the end of the day. Honestly I've learned a lot from the responses here. And I think people who assumed I was doing anything other than just asking questions because the idea I was asking about offended them are asshole. So yeah. Go pound sand.
      - zodiac 4y ago
        > Which sure sounds like a decentralized process that is ultimately just centralized around the ETH foundation at the end of the day. The validators need to be decentralized (i.e. prevent "harmful collusion"), but the slashers don't need to be in the same way (as long as the validators are).
        spywaregorilla 4y ago
        Nope. That's very inaccurate. If only the ETH foundation is allowed to slash, then it's just a centralized system with extra steps. Because only the ETH foundation is allowed to decide what is bad behavior. It is not the case that only the ETH foundation can slash, which was the crux of my original question. The fundamental misunderstanding people seem to be having is that slashers show objective proof of bad events. That's accurate. But validators are still free to agree or disagree with that objective proof of bad events. If you can create a means to prevent consensus on slashing for your overtly malicious behavior, your stake is only at risk if the entire community agrees to fork, which is probable for huge malicious behaviors but I'm not convinced is true for smaller things or circumstances where large actors have a vested interest in preferring the original chain.