3 ms·

Their implementation of the Proof of Stake slashing is designed explicitly to prevent the type of censorship that is required to prevent transactions that breac

• DennisP 4y ago
  Slashing only occurs in response to certain specific rule violations. Censorship isn't one of those, and there's no way censorship could be one of those because the protocol doesn't know what's outside of it. To penalize censorship, you'd need to socially organize a hard fork that manually removes the stake of the censors. But you could do that with any proof-of-stake protocol. So then the question is whether the purpose of proof-of-stake in general is to enable social forks against censoring validators. But I think it's pretty clear that the primary purposes of proof-of-stake are to eliminate proof-of-work's absurd carbon impact and to provide more cost-effective security. Ethereum's particular PoS design also enables the scaling methods coming next in the roadmap. Another benefit is more regular block production, which is nice for UI. Meanwhile, PoW is not exactly prone to censorship either. If only 10% of the world's miners are willing to include a transaction, then it will just take 10X longer to get that transaction included. Any miner unwilling to build on blocks containing prohibited transactions is likely to pay an economic cost for that. Finally, it's not clear that sanctions law impacts block producers anyway. OFAC hasn't attempted to enforce sanctions that way, and at least according to Coinbase's chief legal officer, the law clearly doesn't apply to miners or stakers: https://twitter.com/iampaulgrewal/status/1566225955248427008 https://twitter.com/iampaulgrewal/status/1566225955248427008