what am I missing here🤔. thought a UASF is only possible if we had more individuals running their own nodes. that isn't the case with Ethereum as the validators set is heavily centralized, because it's practically impossible for little Jimmy to run a full node.
I don't see how a centralized set of validators would choose to punish each other. here are my worries;
- for instance, would blockdeamon (who's a regulated US company that runs Ethereum nodes), choose to slash Coinbase (assuming they are OFAC compliant), when tomorrow it could be blockdeamon that's been put on the hot seat.
- secondly, in an instance where Coinbase gets slashed, isn't it customers funds that would be at loss? and how would I for example, being in support of slashing Coinbase (assuming they are OFAC compliant), when I know my ether is staked with them.
I think decentralization should be at the protocol level and not based on social concensus. if Ethereum is going to rely on UASF in the future, then it's no different from what we have in the existing fait system (in terms of decentralization).
humans are faliable and a UASF is not a sustainable approach in my opinion. and coupled with the fact that a UASF would be only successful if more individuals ran their own nodes, rather than relying on someone else's node. I'm not picking on Ethereum here, just saying that the way this protocols are designed from the start makes them prone to centralization.
what am I missing here🤔. thought a UASF is only possible if we had more individuals running their own nodes. that isn't the case with Ethereum as the validators set is heavily centralized, because it's practically impossible for little Jimmy to run a full node.
I don't see how a centralized set of validators would choose to punish each other. here are my worries;
- for instance, would blockdeamon (who's a regulated US company that runs Ethereum nodes), choose to slash Coinbase (assuming they are OFAC compliant), when tomorrow it could be blockdeamon that's been put on the hot seat.
- secondly, in an instance where Coinbase gets slashed, isn't it customers funds that would be at loss? and how would I for example, being in support of slashing Coinbase (assuming they are OFAC compliant), when I know my ether is staked with them.
I think decentralization should be at the protocol level and not based on social concensus. if Ethereum is going to rely on UASF in the future, then it's no different from what we have in the existing fait system (in terms of decentralization).
humans are faliable and a UASF is not a sustainable approach in my opinion. and coupled with the fact that a UASF would be only successful if more individuals ran their own nodes, rather than relying on someone else's node. I'm not picking on Ethereum here, just saying that the way this protocols are designed from the start makes them prone to centralization.