3 ms·

You're splitting hairs. Sure, your carefully constructed "microtheys" don't have the power you fear. But someone does[1]. And they act. And have. [1] As cu

by ajross 4y ago

You're splitting hairs. Sure, your carefully constructed "microtheys" don't have the power you fear. But someone does[1]. And they act. And have. [1] As currently constructed, it (probably) requires a 51% attack by staked ETH owners. There's a lot more wealth concentration on the blockchain than you think there is, this isn't a lot of actual people!

rglullis 4y ago
> someone does. Who?! Give it a name, or set of names. I'm all for healthy skepticism, but you are far from it. > There's a lot more wealth concentration on the blockchain First, with Ethereum you need 67% of the staked ETH to make an attack on the network. Second, stakers do not have power to change consensus rules. They are not able to dictate how people transact (not without losing their take) and they are not able to change transactions. Third, do you understand that even if one single entity had that much power to launch an attack of the network, it would not be in their interest to do so? If the network got to be controlled by any single entity, the other people would simply lose confidence on it, they would stop using it and then all of the staked token would lose its value.
- ajross 4y ago
  > Third, do you understand that even if one single entity had that much power to launch an attack of the network, it would not be in their interest to do so? If that were true, then why was the Ethereum network attacked and forked last month? I think what's happening here is that you've confusing "blockchain consensus" with "not evil", because you trust the giant faceless organization making decisions about the future of your activity in their system to act in something approximating your personal interests. Just like people trust Google and Microsoft with their email. Get it now? As to which entities are "really" more trustworthy, I'll just drop this link and flee: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://web3isgoinggreat.com/
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > Ethereum network attacked and forked last month What?! What attack are you referring about? What fork are you talking about? Please, provide actual information instead of throwing around sites that are clearly just helping you to confirm your biases. > you've (sic) confusing "blockchain consensus" with "not evil" because you trust the giant faceless organization making decisions Not really. The thing that I care about is self-sovereignty. I do not want to depend on a system where any single entity or institution (whether is a big corporation or a government) can have this type of control over me and that leave without choice. But it seems that it doesn't really matter what I think though, you already have made your mind and you are not interested in a healthy discussion. Have a good one.
    - ajross 4y ago
      > What?! What attack are you referring about? What fork are you talking about? Wait, really? On September 15th, someone attacked the Ethereum blockchain and stole all the value, handing it off to this other coin. Our coins are still there, but per current markets they're only worth 0.47% of the value they should have. I can't believe you missed that. Now, obviously you think that's different. And that this giant act of fiat by a centralized operating body was a GOOD act of fiat by a centralized operating body. But it was still a giant act of fiat by a centralized operating body, which points out that the kind of "self-sovereignty" you believe in doesn't exist. You are and will always remain solvent at the whim of the people running the economy you're part of. That's simply the truth. The difference is that you trust the ETH cabal where you don't trust email providers. And I think that's misplaced.
      - rglullis 4y ago
        > And that this giant act of fiat There was no "giant act of fiat". The merge only happened because the overwhelming majority of participants were in full support of such a change. At no single point of time, the ETH developers had any way to decree that the beacon chain was the only one that had any value. > That's simply the truth. Thank you though for finally showing that you are just full of dishonest rhetoric.

by ajross 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago

> someone does. Who?! Give it a name, or set of names. I'm all for healthy skepticism, but you are far from it. > There's a lot more wealth concentration on the blockchain First, with Ethereum you need 67% of the staked ETH to make an attack on the network. Second, stakers do not have power to change consensus rules. They are not able to dictate how people transact (not without losing their take) and they are not able to change transactions. Third, do you understand that even if one single entity had that much power to launch an attack of the network, it would not be in their interest to do so? If the network got to be controlled by any single entity, the other people would simply lose confidence on it, they would stop using it and then all of the staked token would lose its value.

ajross 4y ago
> Third, do you understand that even if one single entity had that much power to launch an attack of the network, it would not be in their interest to do so? If that were true, then why was the Ethereum network attacked and forked last month? I think what's happening here is that you've confusing "blockchain consensus" with "not evil", because you trust the giant faceless organization making decisions about the future of your activity in their system to act in something approximating your personal interests. Just like people trust Google and Microsoft with their email. Get it now? As to which entities are "really" more trustworthy, I'll just drop this link and flee: https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://web3isgoinggreat.com/
- rglullis 4y ago
  > Ethereum network attacked and forked last month What?! What attack are you referring about? What fork are you talking about? Please, provide actual information instead of throwing around sites that are clearly just helping you to confirm your biases. > you've (sic) confusing "blockchain consensus" with "not evil" because you trust the giant faceless organization making decisions Not really. The thing that I care about is self-sovereignty. I do not want to depend on a system where any single entity or institution (whether is a big corporation or a government) can have this type of control over me and that leave without choice. But it seems that it doesn't really matter what I think though, you already have made your mind and you are not interested in a healthy discussion. Have a good one.
  - ajross 4y ago
    > What?! What attack are you referring about? What fork are you talking about? Wait, really? On September 15th, someone attacked the Ethereum blockchain and stole all the value, handing it off to this other coin. Our coins are still there, but per current markets they're only worth 0.47% of the value they should have. I can't believe you missed that. Now, obviously you think that's different. And that this giant act of fiat by a centralized operating body was a GOOD act of fiat by a centralized operating body. But it was still a giant act of fiat by a centralized operating body, which points out that the kind of "self-sovereignty" you believe in doesn't exist. You are and will always remain solvent at the whim of the people running the economy you're part of. That's simply the truth. The difference is that you trust the ETH cabal where you don't trust email providers. And I think that's misplaced.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      > And that this giant act of fiat There was no "giant act of fiat". The merge only happened because the overwhelming majority of participants were in full support of such a change. At no single point of time, the ETH developers had any way to decree that the beacon chain was the only one that had any value. > That's simply the truth. Thank you though for finally showing that you are just full of dishonest rhetoric.