So this is how "Vitalik and ethereum", as the reddit/ethereum title sugests are
defending their ground?
Do you even know how to make technological rebuttal. Of course you do not.
You’re technologically illiterate.
Let’s go on a live video debate? Lol.
Here is another DPoS shill idiot:
Proxy is just another name for another account or whale or public person or not used at all, makes little difference. If we're talking about "power", mining pools in eth are far worse..
He did not even read what Vitalik linked to which refutes the power of miners do such malfeasance that can be done on DPoS:
With blockchain applications, however, we are doing something different: we are using coordination problems to our advantage, using the friction that coordination problems create as a bulwark against malfeasance by centralized actors. We can build systems that have property X, and we can guarantee that they will preserve property X to a high degree because changing the rules from X to not-X would require a whole bunch of people to agree to update their software at the same time. Even if there is an actor that could force the change, doing so would be hard. This is the kind of security that you gain from client-side validation of blockchain consensus rules.
Note that this kind of security relies on the decentralization of users specifically. Even if there is only one miner in the world, there is still a difference between a cryptocurrency mined by that miner and a PayPal-like centralized system. In the latter case, the operator can choose to arbitrarily change the rules, freeze people’s money, offer bad service, jack up their fees or do a whole host of other things, and the coordination problems are in the operator’s favor, as such systems have substantial network effects and so very many users would have to agree at the same time to switch to a better system. In the former case, client-side validation means that many attempts at mischief that the miner might want to engage in are by default rejected, and the coordination problem now works in the users’ favor.
Note that the arguments above do NOT, by themselves, imply that it is a bad idea for miners to be the principal actors coordinating and deciding the block size (or in Ethereum’s case, the gas limit). It may well be the case that, in the specific case of the block size/gas limit, “government by coordinated miners with aligned incentives” is the optimal approach for deciding this one particular policy parameter, perhaps because the risk of miners abusing their power is lower than the risk that any specific chosen hard limit will prove wildly inappropriate for market conditions a decade after the limit is set. However, there is nothing unreasonable about saying that government-by-miners is the best way to decide one policy parameter, and at the same saying that for other parameters (eg. block reward) we want to rely on client-side validation to ensure that miners are constrained. This is the essence of engineering decentralized instutitions: it is about strategically using coordination problems to ensure that systems continue to satisfy certain desired properties.
Vitalik did not bother to reply to all these idiot shills because never interrupt the enemy when they are in the process of destroying themselves.
And you recently said I was junior to Dan. Lol. I am going to hold your feet to the fire for that delusion you have.
And remember who
you’re beholden to when selling illegal securities to US persons. Do we even know who you are? A budding enrollee into organized crime syndicates?
I completly forgot that you also have legal "expertise" too! Although you sound more like a buffoon.
Vitalik had an interesting comment that is applicable:
China has decided to fully regulate ICOs. The Securities and Exchange Commission has also decided to allow ICOs only when they fulfill all the criteria necessary for initial public offerings.
ICOs are also likely to be banned in Korea. What do you think about the regulatory moves by the nation toward ICOs? Will the regulations hamper technological development?
I think banning ICOs completely will definitely hamper technological development, as we return to the problem that the open-source software industry has had before, which is that software development is very hard to monetize.
Imposing very specific regulations is also problematic at this stage, as rules that are not well implemented can often be either easily worked around or even counterproductive, as they encourage further obfuscation.
Deliberate ambiguity, so as to keep open the option to go after truly bad actors, may well be the optimal strategy in the short term. Dan the guy who has admitted in writing doing premeditated scams, continues to misrepresent material facts, goes for a money grab in cohoots with various shady people, and intentionally trying to subvert securities regulations might be an ideal candidate for bad actors.
The Block.one team is basically all the ii5 people that the CEO of Block.one brought in from his company in Hong Kong and a few people Dan brought with him from Bitshares/Steem. They put this together with Brock Pierce’s connections to investment bankers and created an offshore Cayman islands corporation yet still end up selling to US persons because they apparently did not KYC on buyers of the token sale.
They have some Chinese chick as their main lawyer who appears specialized in offshore corporations.
