Important to note that anyone who holds ETH gains if the price goes up.

I salute you Sherlock.

Vitalik in particular stands to gain from the system switching to rewarding those with more wealth in the system.

And shockingly (/s) Vitalik allocated a disproportionate stake relative to 99% of people.

It's the rich getting richer but on the blockchain <tm>.

No, he donated an illiquid pump and dump shitcoin that was sent to him by the scammers who created it. There's little to praise about this.

That, and a lot of his ETH. The illiquid shitcoins are still worth a couple hundred million at the very least. +$200k in ETH.

Until they try to sell and dump the price to 0.

looks like you missed "controls a large percentage of total ETH"

Except he doesn't

How can you verify that? currently everybody just listens to what he has to say, when he decided to undo the DAO hack, the original "immutable" chain just died off because Vitalik put his vote on ETH. Sincerely, I really wish he hadn't done that.

(I'm guessing vbuterin is THE vbuterin here)

Every single one of your comments up and down this thread is incorrect misinformation and it's extremely tiring.

1) His address is public (which I'm sure you're well aware and are intentionally ignoring so you can FUD): https://etherscan.io/address/0xab5801a7d398351b8be11c439e05c...

2) The blockchain wasn't mutated after the DAO hack. This has been well reported.

3) "He" didn't decide to do anything, the Ethereum community did.

Stop with the endless BTC maxi talking points and misinformation warfare.

> The blockchain wasn't mutated after the DAO hack. This has been well reported.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201214170136if_/https://www.re...

from another post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27202347

That's a post on Reddit spewing a lot of provenly false Bitcoin-maxi tropes. Same old tired song and game. Bitcoin relies on misinforming people in order to stay relevant. Good day to you sir.

I'm not a Bitcoin-maxi, calling someone a "bitcoin-maxi" and dismissing their argument isn't a valid way to counter. Kindly explain the tropes to us and enlighten us why that is provenly false. I'll read it, I promise.

Why did you edit out the actual address?

Vitalik didn't decide to undo the DAO hack, there was a community vote (http://v1.carbonvote.com/), unlike Satoshi who singlehandedly rolled back the chain in 2010 after the 184 billion BTC hack.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9573#msg9573

Satoshi fixed a bug (that reverted it back to the initial rules everyone agreed upon).

The DAO hack actually was an exploitation of the rules that everyone agreed upon in the DAO, recursively calling a function in your smart contract layer is not a bug.

This brings us to an interesting topic, bugs are common in software,

* Should you make the protocol layer so complex that it increases the probability of bugs being found, being harder to understand and potentially grind the whole system to a halt if a bug is found.

OR

* Should you break them up into layers where each layer has one responsibility (base monetary layer, a smart contract layer, a micro payments layer etc.)

> Satoshi fixed a bug (that reverted it back to the initial rules everyone agreed upon).

The Bitcoin chain fork where the bug manifested wasn't reverted. Instead, a chain fork where the bug didn't manifest outgrew the one that did, and is now the canonical fork. If they wanted, miners could continue to mine the fork where the bug manifested. The point is, the Bitcoin protocol didn't change at all -- it merely presented miners and users a choice between two conflicting histories. You can start up a miner on the other fork today if you wanted.

This is not true for Ethereum. Because the undecidability of the EVM precludes miners from determining whether or not a given transaction would touch the DAO contract without first executing the transaction for less than the cost of executing them, there was really no good answer to dealing with the DAO hack. The options were:

* Let the DAO hacker keep the proceeds (this became Ethereum Classic)

* Change the network protocol to prevent the DAO code from ever running (this is Ethereum today)

* Change the EVM so it would permit miners to determine which contract(s) are reachable from a given transaction, thereby allowing them to filter out contracts that could move the DAO funds (a path not taken, because censorship)

> The Bitcoin chain fork where the bug manifested wasn't reverted. Instead, a chain fork where the bug didn't manifest outgrew the one that did, and is now the canonical fork.

That's right, thank you for adding the missing nuance.

I want to add to this, some additional material, anyone interested in the current state of DeFi can understand this

https://medium.com/coinmonks/demystify-the-dark-forest-on-et...

Coinvotes in the context of massive insider premines is completely useless. Of course a coinvote would reflect "Yes to censoring the DAO hacker" because the DAO hacker controlled more ETH than the top 3 current ETH accounts. And the insiders stand to benefit the most from proof of stake because it's a system designed to further enrich the already rich.

Vitalik, just one person, owns billions in ETH. That is the top 0.1%.

There's definitely ETH holders who have more ETH than I do, including those who did _not_ benefit from the premine.

(And there's BTC holders with more than 0.3% of all BTC)

> (And there's BTC holders with more than 0.3% of all BTC)

And yet, they can't stake their Bitcoin gain influence in the network. They're just another user in user-land

What kind of "influence in the network" do you gain by staking?

(Keep in mind that in present-day Ethereum, the influence that PoW miners have in protocol governance is pretty minimal)

And Satoshi, just one person, owns tens of billions in BTC. That is the top 0.01%.

Satoshi is not actively working to move Bitcoin to PoS though. And for all practical purposes, his stash is as good as gone.

Satoshi mined every single one of it and anyone would have been able to do same also he never sold his coins and left the project early on to avoid having too much control. Quite the opposite with Vitalik who on the other hand premined his eth, has been selling them Ever since, and continues to have significant control over ehereum.

Satoshi did the equivalent of ninja mining.

Zuckerberg owns 30% of Facebook! And he stands to gain the most from Facebook earning profits!!! It's all a scam!!

See how ridiculous it sounds?

That's fine as long as we agree that Ethereum is not a form of currency, otherwise it becomes terribly regressive for one person to have that much stake that continues to collect even more ether in the process.

Isn't this just saying "the Ethereum proof of stake transition benefits ETH holders"?

Wouldn't it benefit you much much more because, well, you premined a billion dollars worth of ETH for yourself and designed Ethereum to benefit wealthy people?

How is Ethereum designed to benefit wealthy people?