You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Reponse to Vitalik's Written Remarks

in #eos4 years ago (edited)

Your review of Casper is 2yrs old and is from when Ethereum has just launched... That is just too stale to be taken seriously in this space, especially given how much Casper has moved around since then. Worth refreshing or not citing.

In my Review of Casper, Ethereum's proposed Proof of Stake Algorithm I throughly debunk the algorithm.

And if you thoroughly debunk it, you (and other critics) have to consider why so many devs take Casper seriously enough to work on Ethereum as a platform for their projects. Otherwise it's like Greg Maxwell claiming to have proven that Bitcoin he proved Bitcoin was impossible...


What has changed in that time? Every thing google turns up shows nothing fundamental has changed. Users post a bond that is forfeited if they bet on an invalid block. The idea is flawed from this very high level description.

The idea is to simulate mining without the electricity. However, that idea is flawed in that without electricity consumption requirement you still have mining pool-like centralization only now it will be betting pools.

Please give me the latest documentation and I will see if it actually changes anything.

Vitalik's feedback on what's changed in Casper in two years and more, you probably already got the Reddit ping but if not here it is. Btw good on you for changing the picture out. You guys have interacted much more reasonably than those devs in most inter-project leader conversations.

@dan, your post is invaluable and forward-thinking on so many levels I don't even know where to begin. and just from my brief experience dealing with ethereum, between the EOS coin offering and etherdelta (whose major issues are almost entirely related to the current limitations of ethereum itself), from my perspective your points are all more or less right on the money.

I am not designing Casper nor am I critiquing it, so the latest documentation is not at my fingertips.

Wow, you said with full confidence that Casper has moved around since then; however when asked for proof you just did not bother to point dan in the correct direction??

Knowing it's been in active development/isn't static (it's arguably the most important piece of Ethereum's roadmap) and having at my fingertips the most recent documents are in no way mutually exclusive. Again, I'm not developing Casper nor critiquing it.

So in essence, you are basically assuming that his review is stale, because it is 2 years old?

I read it. It's insubstantial and pre-dates most of the Casper research. It may be 100% right in the end, we do not know the future, but yes, it's stale and not up to date.