Hacker News Reader

Comment by leppr | Hacker News Reader

Yes, this was ad-hominem because it seems obvious the OP is not asking this in good faith. Their first comment is not in the form of a neutral question, but a prejudiced assumption based on a false idea that nothing in the linked article could lead one to believe.

> Is it incorrect to say that ethereum is now entirely centralized with some extra steps?

> Like, you have this proof of stake thing, but the only reason it works is because there's just a small number of validators, which is just going to be the ethereum foundation and friends.

I know Cunningham's Law is a valid discussion strategy, but the topics of cryptocurrency on HN already tends to attract enough flamewars and misinformation as it is.

View on HN

> Yes, this was ad-hominem because it seems obvious the OP is not asking this in good faith.

There's nothing here that was done in bad faith and I should not need to defend myself for asking a question in a tech forum. Assuming I'm not asking in good faith is bad faith.

The reason I asked was a description pasted a short while ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32535409

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32535912

Which included this line:

> Slashing is not meant to profitable, and the whistleblower reward is quite small. We don't need a million slashers, in fact, we could operate with just one... expect the Eth Foundation to run them, among other large players who can spare the resources.

Which sure sounds like a decentralized process that is ultimately just centralized around the ETH foundation at the end of the day.

Honestly I've learned a lot from the responses here. And I think people who assumed I was doing anything other than just asking questions because the idea I was asking about offended them are asshole. So yeah. Go pound sand.

> Which sure sounds like a decentralized process that is ultimately just centralized around the ETH foundation at the end of the day.

The validators need to be decentralized (i.e. prevent "harmful collusion"), but the slashers don't need to be in the same way (as long as the validators are).

Nope. That's very inaccurate. If only the ETH foundation is allowed to slash, then it's just a centralized system with extra steps. Because only the ETH foundation is allowed to decide what is bad behavior.

It is not the case that only the ETH foundation can slash, which was the crux of my original question.

The fundamental misunderstanding people seem to be having is that slashers show objective proof of bad events. That's accurate. But validators are still free to agree or disagree with that objective proof of bad events. If you can create a means to prevent consensus on slashing for your overtly malicious behavior, your stake is only at risk if the entire community agrees to fork, which is probable for huge malicious behaviors but I'm not convinced is true for smaller things or circumstances where large actors have a vested interest in preferring the original chain.

I agree with your 3rd, 4th, and 5th sentences, but not with your 1st and 2nd. Assuming a large number of independent validators, the Nash equilibrium is close to "there is no equivocation, hence no slashable evidence, hence no incentive to run a slasher node". (Remember that Nash equilibrium implicitly assumes that agents are not allowed to cooperate with each other). Suppose some fraction of the validators are deviating from this equilibrium by doing lots of equivocation, now there is an incentive to run a slasher node. So what this modelling suggests is that in the real world, we can have a small number of slashers and a large number of validators, and the security comes from the fact that anyone could be a slasher (it's OK that the number of people who actually are is small). But we cannot conclude that "it's OK to have a small number of validators, as long as anyone can be a validator".

I don't really agree but sure, however this counterpoint retracts the original premise, that the slashers are centralized. Something can be done with a small number of people and still be decentralized.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com