110 sats \ 3 replies \ @harrigan 22 May 2023 \ on: Vitalik Sees The Writing On The Wall bitcoin
TBF, the original article (https://vitalik.ca/general/2023/05/21/dont_overload.html) isn't about over-engineering, but about reusing Ethereum's social consensus layer. He argues that reusing Ethereum's cryptoeconomic consensus system (validator staked ETH) is acceptable but reusing Ethereum's social consensus system is not. He's saying that there won't be a repeat of the TheDAO fork in the future, even if systems like Eigenlayer or the L2s mess up. There's plenty to criticise but the linked article does a bad job of stating his argument and linking it to a memecoin.
write
preview
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @siggy47 OP 22 May 2023
I should have posted the link to the original post. Thanks for doing that. I agree the article didn't explain the situation well. The centralization risks are what struck me most, especially considering POS and the already centralized validators.
reply
1 sat \ 1 reply \ @harrigan 22 May 2023
Yeah, there are definitely risks here. I think the problem stems more from ETH's dual purpose as a native token and as stake in the consensus mechanism.
Also, does Vitalik try to trigger Bitcoiners by intentionally putting TheDAO fork and the Bitcoin Cash fork in the same basket every chance he gets? TheDAO fork is similar to his BRL story, but the Bitcoin Cash fork was very different.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 OP 22 May 2023
Very likely regarding DAO and BCH, although to compare the two only highlights ETH's status as a centralized security!
reply