randomran01234

6 ms·

1.
by randomran01234 4y ago
I’ve thought about this a bit more. You can target the UXTO so that their value in crypto starts back at zero. But because they still have the mining hardware, they still control 51% of the hash power that secures the network. They can just
2.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Most crypto including Bitcoin is governed off-chain. People come to consensus on a set of rules that allows them to create a public and permissionless BFT ledger. Attacking the ledger then costs millions or billions of dollars. If one disho
3.
by randomran01234 4y ago
If the 51% is a single staker or small group of colluding stakers attacking the chain, the rest of the users will probably not want to continue using that chain. The users can activate a soft fork, just by changing the rules of the code to
4.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Users and the market decides on the chain, governance in Ethereum is based on social consensus not “one coin one vote.”
5.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Good question, I’d be interested to hear a core dev’s thoughts on this.
6.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Users, developers, other stakers.
7.
by randomran01234 4y ago
It takes time to learn but it isn’t obtuse. It’s extensively documented, with multiple open source clients being built in tandem. Besides, it is not the only PoS system running today. All fields of engineering are complex to those that have
8.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Their actions would most likely be visible on the network because it is transparent. The community can then decide whether to activate a fork and punish the colluding nodes.
9.
by randomran01234 4y ago
In PoW, if you control 51% of mining the users can defend by switching to another hash algorithm, meaning the attacker needs to re-buy a lot of new hardware. If they’ve anticipated this, and attack again with new hardware, there is not much
10.
by randomran01234 4y ago
So your main argument is that people are too stupid to understand that Ethereum is not the same as Infura, and so when one goes down you may as well call them both down? Lol. Lack of education can be fixed. You can even help: instead of spr
11.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Why? PoW can only afford to be attacked twice. It even has a name: “spawn camping.” In proof of stake, this is pretty easy to defend against repeatedly. https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html
12.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Can you point to any sources? I would like to read about how this will be accepted even if the majority is against inclusion.
13.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Trying to understand how this differs in practice. Anyone delegating to a staking pool is forced into their values. Ethermine recently started blocking OFAC transactions, so does the majority of miners in that pool agree with this? If so, w
14.
by randomran01234 4y ago
It’s the same with staking. If you aren’t solo staking, you are just delegating to a staking pool. And you can withdraw that and deposit it elsewhere if they do not align with your values.
15.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Interesting, so this is a problem if 66% or more decide to reject a transaction. How many blocks are currently signed by solo miners in PoW? Almost all blocks are signed by pools which looks like the PoS committees in practice yo my naive e
16.
by randomran01234 4y ago
> This was not an issue with the old proof of work scheme. Censorship of transactions because of OFAC is already happening in PoW mining. https://twitter.com/takenstheorem/status/1560690035955011585...
17.
by randomran01234 4y ago
How much of this is a real problem? Same argument can be made for key management. A typical user could use non custodial wallet, but they don’t. But that option exists, for when they become unsatisfied with their centralized wallet custod
18.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Is there any evidence that almost 100% of transactions use Infura? There are several other popular nodes as a service since the cited 2018 article was written: Alchemy, Quicknode, Moralis. Anybody running a full node, including home stakers
19.
by randomran01234 4y ago
He does not need to sell his anti-Amazon book on Amazon, it is laughably hypocritical and goes against his entire message in his Twitter announcement: > it's an action-oriented look at how tech and entertainment monopolies steal cre
20.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Sorry but “he has to sell his anti-Amazon book on Amazon” is delusional, cognitive dissonance in action.
21.
by randomran01234 4y ago
You can pre-order his anti-Amazon book on Amazon. You don’t need to sell your book on Amazon just to live in a capitalist society. To me this is hypocrisy, but I guess not everybody agrees. https://www.amazon.ca/Chokepoint-C
22.
by randomran01234 4y ago
As I said in another comment: > You can pre-order the book on Amazon. It’s like a PETA selling furs to support their anti-fur campaign.
23.
by randomran01234 4y ago
You can pre-order the book on Amazon. It’s like a PETA selling furs to support their anti-fur campaign.
24.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Feels a bit odd to rail against tech companies extracting dollars from artists, and then use Amazon, Kickstarter and PayPal as a sales mechanism. Could be worse I guess. Edit: included Amazon as he is also selling his product through it. h
25.
by randomran01234 4y ago
It's very possible that an EVM-compatible L2 eventually captures this space, or a subset of it. Harder to imagine any L1 blockchain ever being able to reach the throughput needed without dramatic trade-offs in decentralization, censors
26.
by randomran01234 4y ago
“free speech” = “protected by first amendment” Do you disagree with the widespread reporting on the outcome of this case? https://www.britannica.com/event/Bernstein-vs-the-US-Departm... > Bernstein v. the U.S. Depar
27.
by randomran01234 4y ago
US sanctioning an Ethereum contract address and unrelated source control providers deleting user accounts and repositories is a good example of chilling effect in action. The individual developers are not in scope of the sanctions, and are
28.
by randomran01234 4y ago
GitHub can do whatever it likes as a private company. But there are laws that protect against chilling effects: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect The bigger problem is whether republishing the source code
29.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Bernstein v United States: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab... The debate is pretty settled that code and language should be protected by 1st amendment as free speech. Based on thi
30.
by randomran01234 4y ago
Sad and troubling that so many people hearing this will equate privacy with evil and illegal behavior. This is why I am pointing out Tor, because there are many licit users of it.

More ›