That's not an "attack."
FaceDeer
joined 1 year ago
I googled "zero lock staking" and I'm not finding anything that contradicts what I said. There are systems that allow for delegated staking, where you hold transferable tokens that represent a share in a staking pool - rETH, for example. But there's still locked stake in that case. And this Quora response lists various proof-of-stake systems where you can unstake immediately, including Cardano and Polkadot, but those don't give you rewards while your tokens aren't staked - the token still needs to be locked during the staking itself.
I asked for clarification on what you found "damning" about the transition to proof of stake, I don't see how asking for clarification is "misinformation."
I presented a source for Ethereum's centralization trends. Got any of your own?
That's because there were just a handful of people mining the first blocks and there was no demand, so the price was basically zero.
The protocol is meant to promote decentralization, so I have no idea how a 51% attack would be an example of the protocol functioning properly. A 51% attack is a demonstration that the protocol is controlled by a single entity.
Ah, you're referring to non-proof-of-work chains. There's no need to be snarky, your comment could be interpreted in multiple ways.
Pants can be what keeps you from freezing to death and going to jail.
This is still dependent on societal consensus. Well, the going-to-jail part, anyway. The protection from cold issue is dependent on the climate and time of year of where you happen to be located. There are many parts of the world where you could comfortably go naked.
there is nothing inherent to the protocol that dictates such massive power use.
Yes there is, massive power use is the entire point of proof-of-work. If Bitcoin blocks could be produced without massive power use then the blockchain's system of validation would fail and 51% attacks would be trivial.
I went Googling for sources, and what I found says the opposite. Ethereum was becoming increasingly centralized under PoW but after the switch to PoS it became significantly more decentralized.
in order to stake to a pool, you need to lock your tokens away, making them impossible to spend for a specified time period.
This is exactly the point of proof-of-stake. You can't prove you've staked some coins if you don't actually stake them. If you've retained control over your tokens then they're not staked. I'm not sure how you think it could work otherwise.
most of the criticisms I have of ETH are more damming of the way they went about the transition between two radically different consensus algorithms than about Proof of Stake itself.
The transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake has been on Ethereum's roadmap since the beginning. It was rolled out in stages over the course of years. What was "damning" about the transition?
You think that there are only two possible uses for these things, and if I'm not interested in one of them I must therefore be using it for the other? Pretty weak logic.
If there's no demand for a particular crypto then people mining it can't sell it and go out of business. People mine this stuff because other people will pay them for it.
People speculate on the price of "normal currency" too.
Wow, you went from zero to furious at the drop of a hat. And I'm not a "bagholder", as I've said in other comments, I'm just interested in the tech.
I haven't argued any of these facts. "How TF else should they do it?!" could be my line here, except that I'm trying to remain civil so I wouldn't have worded it that way. This ultimately comes from your statement:
Which I still don't see as "damning" because - as you just said - how else would they do it? Cardano and Polkadot do it the same way, they've just changed the value of what that "specified time period" is.
I specifically mentioned Rocket Pool's rETH as an example of delegated staking that would let you sell your staked tokens more quickly, that's on Ethereum so if the exit queue is too long for you there you can try that instead.