7 ms·

What centralization? Adherence to protocol rules? How requirement of locking down 32ETH is different from requirement to run ASIC that does two rounds of SHA256

• wyager 4y ago
  The slashing enforcement mechanism introduces centralization; it has to, to work around nothing-at-stake. I'm not throwing around buzzwords. Please don't accuse people of that without sufficient understanding to be reasonably confident you're correct. > locking down 32ETH is different from requirement to run ASIC This is precisely the opex-vs-capex distinction we are discussing in this thread. 32eth is strict capex. ASIC capex <<< power opex.
  • exo762 4y ago
    > The slashing enforcement mechanism introduces centralization; it has to, to work around nothing-at-stake. It is other way around. Slashing is the solution for nothing-at-stake. By requiring multiple validators to sign each block height you prime them for being slashed if they ever double sign those heights (or sell key to someone who does). Where is centralization here? Are you speaking slashing condition detection? Or maybe about slashing tx inclusion into the chain?
    • wyager 4y ago
      > Are you speaking slashing condition detection Correct - the decision about when to slash
      • exo762 4y ago
        It is as easy as finding a duplicate signature. And while it takes some computational power (pennies comparing to PoW), you need just one watcher to guarantee that chain will remain honest. So, 1 honest person out of n. Almost as good as it gets. Whole spiel about "only EF will run those, whole thing is centralized" is just noise. You as an attacker can't distinguish between situation when I'm running a slasher from one when I'm not. Now go and risk the attack.