These are just bots
Doesn't change the underlying problem.
46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses
31–40 of 49 posts
Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses
#32I tend towards the theory that POS is more centralizing than POW, and the question is will it stay decentralized or end up with one address (or rather one entity) controlling 50%? With POW a miner needs to continually provide new investments to be competitive, with new and more effective hardware and electricity. But with POS you can just keep your coins in one place, and it will keep building up with no new investme…
Little nitpick: it's 2/3 needed now, not 50%.
If a bad actor misbehaves before controlling 2/3 then their stake gets eroded or even erased as punishment. Even merely being offline can result in stake erosion.
Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses
#33I tend towards the theory that POS is more centralizing than POW, and the question is will it stay decentralized or end up with one address (or rather one entity) controlling 50%? With POW a miner needs to continually provide new investments to be competitive, with new and more effective hardware and electricity. But with POS you can just keep your coins in one place, and it will keep building up with no new investme…
From a POS point of view it is easier to get people to leave custodial wallets (the biggest holders you see here, like coinbase). BUT people don't for a lot of pretty valid reasons. First is that you won't be staking on ETH2 if you don't have 32 tokens (roughly $50k). (I see this as a pretty centralizing barrier and similar to why people joined mining pools instead of being on their own) The second is that people invest in many coins, so it makes sense to keep everything in a singular location than 20 different wallets. So, convenience.
I honestly have yet to see a system that provides a strong decentralizing force. To be fair, I think this is a really difficult task that people don't really give it it's credit. I mean there's resource momentum and resources make it easier to obtain more resources. The problem with that is that it seem to be outside the control of any cryptocurrency and this makes the issue infinitely more difficult.
Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses
#34funny how they just ceded true decentralization to Bitcoin & the usual detractors will miss out due to deep-seated prejudices you may as well just use a central bank or traditional database, POW is unlike the rest and for good reason
Bitcoin ceded true decentralization to mining farms a long time ago.
nah, as long as it's still easy for an individual to run a node and store the entire blockchain on their own it's miles ahead of anyone else
Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses
#35Reminds me of my favorite crypto joke: "cryptocurrency is an alternate banking system for people whose primary complaint about the 2008 financial crisis was that they weren't _in_ on it."
The primary complaint about the 2008 (and the entire move to fiat) is (1) the government gets to print money at its own whim, deflating everyone's hard work. (2) fiat is inherently based on usury, which billions of people find appalling and abhorrent. What happened in 2008 was the natural outcome of such a system, and it will continue to happen if things are not fixed.
Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses
#36Reminds me of my favorite crypto joke: "cryptocurrency is an alternate banking system for people whose primary complaint about the 2008 financial crisis was that they weren't _in_ on it."
And those that exaggerate all its deficiencies are upset they weren’t in on the cryptocurrencies. Wonder what comes next…
It's hard to find a successful pyramid scheme or bubble that I'm not upset I wasn't on the ground floor of. I'm also upset that I didn't win the lottery. It doesn't mean that I secretly think pyramid schemes, lotteries, and beanie babies are good, and that I'm naysaying them because I didn't get a piece. I would naysay them 10x as much if they had made me rich. I'd be rich and an authoritative source, who's going to stop me from talking shit about the things I dislike?
Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses
#37I tend towards the theory that POS is more centralizing than POW, and the question is will it stay decentralized or end up with one address (or rather one entity) controlling 50%? With POW a miner needs to continually provide new investments to be competitive, with new and more effective hardware and electricity. But with POS you can just keep your coins in one place, and it will keep building up with no new investme…
Little nitpick: it's 2/3 needed now, not 50%. If a bad actor misbehaves before controlling 2/3 then their stake gets eroded or even erased as punishment. Even merely being offline can result in stake erosion.
No I mean 50% as in nobody can ever remove you from the 50%.
But to your point, who should decide who the misbehaving actor is? In what situation can you punish the network with only 1/3, as compared to 1/2 as with Bitcoin?
Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bitcoin ceded true decentralization to mining farms a long time ago.
nah, as long as it's still easy for an individual to run a node and store the entire blockchain on their own it's miles ahead of anyone else
Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses
#39This will probably get lower over the next few days but it still doesn't look very distributed compared with the existing Banking system. It's hard to tell the difference between ETH running on infrastructure maintained by Binance, Binance, and FTX etc and USD going between JPMorgan, Citi, and Goldman. I read a statistic that over 50% of the Ethereum Mainnet is on AWS (but can't find it now) - hopefully that isn't al…
I agree but there people are likely overpaying. Heck, it should be Hetzner or OVH.
Considering that you can get penalized if your validator is offline, I think any gain in reliability from using the most reliable provider you can is going to pay off.
Re: 46% of ETH POS post merge is just two addresses
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
nah, as long as it's still easy for an individual to run a node and store the entire blockchain on their own it's miles ahead of anyone else
https://mobile.twitter.com/ercwl/status/1555719147941683200
Making blocks is much different than accepting blocks. Blocks have to be verified & accepted by peers aside from getting over the hurdle of POW. He complains about BTC arguing that the ability to “make a block” is the true basis of decentralization. But it’s the ability to verify & reject blocks that’s important. And anyone can maintain their own BTC blockchain from the beginning of time relatively easily (less than $500). Trustless is the way.