[martindale]

This difference is that in PoS, if anyone ever holds more than ⅓ of the total supply (as is the case with Ethereum's founders currently holding 65% of the overall issuance, for example), they can indefinitely control the chain through their re-org capability.

[Entwickler]

Apparently Vitalik has 333,000 ETH https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2021/01/11/b.... Which would be 0.29% of the 115 million current supply.

I guess Joe has the other 64.71%, or perhaps there are a whole bunch of other founders that I'm unaware of...

[elcritch]

It’s probably for ethereum 2, which is PoS.

[Entwickler]

The total amount of ETH held by addresses doesn't change when going from ETH to ETH 2.0.

[Entwickler]

Could you: 1. Point me to the source that says, " if anyone ever holds more than ⅓ of the total supply (as is the case with Ethereum's founders currently holding 65% of the overall issuance, for example), they can indefinitely control the chain through their re-org capability." 2. Point me to the addresses of Ethereum's founders? Presumably it's then 65% of 115 million eth.

Would honestly love to see the details.

[inter_netuser]

I don't have a reference but rumours have it Joe Lubin alone controls close to 10%, which would be close to 50 billion today.

With the usually apathetic voters/stakers, one such loud voice can sway a PoS network easily.

[HeadsUpHigh]

There's ~100m eth so your numbers are way off. I have a sneaky suspicion you don't really know what you are talking about.

[inter_netuser]

Like i said, it's just a rumour, but from a fairly informed source.

Do you have a better estimate?

Total amount of fundraising ETH did initially was about 20 mil? 1-2 mil sounds like a feasible early VC check to get 10%, not including games you can play later to increase your stack further.

[HeadsUpHigh]

10% with the current market cap would put him among the top 10 richest people in the world... I highly doubt these numbers are accurate.

[Entwickler]

"With the usually apathetic voters/stakers"

What makes you think eth stakers are apathetic?

[inter_netuser]

all experiments with onchain voting seem to have that problem, just like with voting in real life.

read up on the DAO exploit and carbon vote. Even in a drastic situation turnout was low.

It's a permissionless industry and I suppose people can try different things, but one thing that sets apart Bitcoin from everything else - it is not a democracry.

Democracy was designed for cities of 50-60k in size, where only rich landowners got to vote and everyone else was basically peons. It doesn't scale and is not particularly great.

PoS is just another string of boneheaded attempts to make democracy great again...by marrying it with plutocracy? idk.

Would you care to vote with your measly stake if you know the insiders have over 50% anyway?

[Entwickler]

"the insiders have over 50% anyway?" This is false. Hard to take the rest of your premise seriously when they are not based on facts and sound more like maximalism.

[inter_netuser]

That's a hypothetical conjecture.

In any distribution, the small number of players usually controls most of the wealth, as we've seen throughout the history.

What are the odds it will not be a handful people, coordinating their interest vs everyone else? That's inevitable.