5 ms·

You appear to have contradicted yourself? >So some people may choose to not include some transactions (Ethermine is already doing this on PoW with Tornado Cash

You appear to have contradicted yourself? >So some people may choose to not include some transactions (Ethermine is already doing this on PoW with Tornado Cash). But there is no mechanism that slashes your staked coins because the other validators didn't like what transactions you included. >PoS is in fact even more resistant because in PoS you can kick out the malicious validators by doing a social fork that slashes their stake. If a group of validators don't agree with your particular arrangement of transactions in the block, they can engineer a "social fork" that slashes your stake.

pa7x1 4y ago
What I think he means is that there is no in-protocol mechanism for slashing a censoring validator. But you can reach a social consensus (i.e. outside the protocol) and decide to slash the censors. At that point there would be effectively two different chains, the censored one and an uncensored one. The worth of each chain would be decided by market dynamics.
redox99 4y ago
Social fork here means running some other software basically. Imagine Vitalik saying "Ok, since coinbase is being evil, let's all move to a new Ethereum-without-cb that is a copy of Ethereum but their ETH is removed. To do so download the following software that follows a new Ethereum-without-cb chain instead of the Ethereum chain. And if enough people agree, we'll probably just call that just Ethereum (like the original Ethereum is now called Ethereum classic, and the current Ethereum is actually forked).
- sph 4y ago
  How is this a good thing, that a "charismatic leader" can censor transactions? It's absolutely terrible. Wasn't the goal to create digital money no one can control? I might as well use the US dollar then.
735409264082 4y ago
> If a group of validators don't agree with your particular arrangement of transactions in the block, they can engineer a "social fork" that slashes your stake. Why would I want to be on their fork? They can have their censored fork, but they can't do anything to anymore who doesn't want to be a part of it.

pa7x1 4y ago

What I think he means is that there is no in-protocol mechanism for slashing a censoring validator. But you can reach a social consensus (i.e. outside the protocol) and decide to slash the censors. At that point there would be effectively two different chains, the censored one and an uncensored one. The worth of each chain would be decided by market dynamics.

redox99 4y ago

Social fork here means running some other software basically. Imagine Vitalik saying "Ok, since coinbase is being evil, let's all move to a new Ethereum-without-cb that is a copy of Ethereum but their ETH is removed. To do so download the following software that follows a new Ethereum-without-cb chain instead of the Ethereum chain. And if enough people agree, we'll probably just call that just Ethereum (like the original Ethereum is now called Ethereum classic, and the current Ethereum is actually forked).

sph 4y ago
How is this a good thing, that a "charismatic leader" can censor transactions? It's absolutely terrible. Wasn't the goal to create digital money no one can control? I might as well use the US dollar then.

735409264082 4y ago

> If a group of validators don't agree with your particular arrangement of transactions in the block, they can engineer a "social fork" that slashes your stake. Why would I want to be on their fork? They can have their censored fork, but they can't do anything to anymore who doesn't want to be a part of it.