Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but probably moot if these "third party service providers" are just doing the busywork of interacting with the protocol, on behalf of Coinbase, on behalf of the user. I'm sorry, you can't just use the word protocol to change the first principles of the interaction. A bank is just doing the busywork of interacting with a borrower on behalf of me. >Nobody can "stake better" and expect more rewards out of it. This is s…
>you can't just use the word protocol to change the first principles of the interaction. A bank is just doing the busywork of interacting with a borrower on behalf of me Unless Coinbase Earn is fraudulent — maybe it is, I don't know — I would argue you can and should. In the case of Ethereum, Coinbase is providing an IT service. In the case of [other protocol], Coinbase is hiring a contractor to provide an IT service…
Please enlighten me then? I’d love to understand why they call it “rewards” and “penalties” if you can’t be good or bad at it.
Like from[0]:
The key concept is the following:
Rewards are given for actions that help the network reach consensus.
Minor penalties are given for inadvertant actions (or inactions) that hinder consensus.
And major penalities—or slashings—are given for malicious actions.
How can you read the above and make the point that everyone gets the same expected benefit from staking? Were you unaware of the minor penalties point?
[0]https://launchpad.ethereum.org/en/faq
And to be clear, since I think you're way missing my point here - consensus requires the potential for diversity, otherwise, if validation is deterministic (as you imply), then there is absolutely no need to decentralize it.
p.s. I won't criticize you personally, but I will remind you that when one feels like someone really doesn't understand something, there's a decent possibility they themselves don't.
Also, to lighten the mood - isn't it funny that ETH spells things wrong on its website so often? If only there was decentralized spell-check!