This statement supports exactly the opposite of the point you're trying to make.
Think about it:
* Bankers have economic incentive to work at a bank (the salary)
* Validators have economic incentive to work on your chain (the block rewards)
That's literally the entire point. You don't need to trust any validator, only that the majority are self-interested, rational actors.
My point is that by the same logic then banks are also trustless.
You need to trust bankers because nothing prevent them to just take your money. They're not working for you, they are working for the bank.
They can 100% choose to stop validator your particular chain, therefore causing all transactions to cease.
Remember when that literally happened to Solana?
> My point is that by the same logic then banks are also trustless.
There's no logical connect with what you're saying at all. Ethereum is "trustless" because nobody can steal ETH from a properly secured wallet, not even the validators.
You should probably understand the basics of how validators work before making a comment on them....
And to be clear, what I mean is that there's nothing to stop validators from not doing work on your behalf, therefore killing the chain.
Remember when that literally happened to Solana?
Edit: >You should probably understand the basics of how validators work before making a comment on them....
I'd love for you to walk me through, in detail how Ethereum and Bitcoin compile transactions into blocks, since you're the expert.
This is an even better incentive mechanism than a bank salary. It's like if a bank made all it's employees keep all their money with the bank and if they didn't do their job they lose all their savings.
1) My joke was how much work you were having “properly secured” do. It’s a genuine trope called no true Scotsman. Every crypto phenomenon that involves theft “wasn’t decentralized enough” or “wasn’t properly secured”. But then centralized databases are discussed as a monolith.
2. > Ethereum stakers are subject to an Inactivity Leak penalty if they don't do work for the chain.
Sure. That’s an economic incentive. Bank workers get fired and lose salary if they don’t show up.
3. > It's like if a bank made all it's employees keep all their money with the bank and if they didn't do their job they lose all their savings.
Yeah, like getting paid in stock?
Edit: still waiting for the definition of a mempool as well.
They can suddenly leave your cryptocurrency of choice by simply cashing out and switching to the "block rewards" of another crypto scheme, and then you are going to be alone with the bad actors.
People always say this, but you definitely have to trust that a group of unknown validators/miners/stakers will choose to keep working on your chosen chain, just as much as you have to trust that the bank will keep doing it's job as they promised you they would.
And before you say "I don't need trust, validators have economic incentive to keep doing it, and if they don't someone else will", I have something to tell you about why people choose to work at banks (it's the salary).