Uhh, do bankers get paid for not doing their job?

My point is that by the same logic then banks are also trustless.

You don't need to trust the validator because the protocol and cryptography makes sure they can't do anything against you. And the incentive they have to mine aligns with what you want (having the chain validated)

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.

Nothing prevents them from taking your money, except the legal system of the country the bank resides in.

> makes sure they can't do anything against you

They can 100% choose to stop validator your particular chain, therefore causing all transactions to cease.

Remember when that literally happened to Solana?

> Uhh, do bankers get paid for not doing their job?

> 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....

Nobody can steal money from a 'properly secured' safe or centralized database either?

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.

A centralized database is owned by a centralized entity and the admin can change it at will to steal money - or at least the owner of the hardware can shut off power. Let's talk about Ethereum here since Solana hardly counts as decentralized. Ethereum stakers are subject to an Inactivity Leak penalty if they don't do work for the chain. If a validator decides to stop proposing or attesting to blocks, they will be penalized by the network and lose money. There's about $20bn of ETH staked that can literally disappear from existence if all of those validators decide to stop doing work.

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.

> Let's talk about Ethereum here since Solana hardly counts as decentralized.

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.

"Validators", and we are making the strong assumption that they can actually support your claims of ownership against scammers and they don't choose to side with the enemy, aren't necessarily going to be around forever.

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.