|
|
|
|
|
|
by bendews
1370 days ago
|
|
|
Completely see where you are coming from now - absolutely agree. On your second point - where I am coming from is that there is nothing stopping countries from creating laws which introduce these powers and outlaw methods to avoid the new legislation. No it doesn't work with the current architecture. But we absolutely can end up in a situation where there is a U.S Ethereum chain where all nodes are legally required to follow updates/forks to the chain as they occur, caused by various court orders to reverse transactions etc. At this point the consensus can go whichever the government likes because those operating the nodes would want to be participating in the current legal chain. |
|
|
I think this is an unwarranted assumption on your part. Capital would flee the US-controlled fork, causing the price of US-ETH tokens to plummet and staking to centralize. At that point there'd be absolutely no reason for US-ETH to exist: you could operate the same system more efficiently without a blockchain, and by isolating the system you would have lost the main, if not only advantage that blockchain systems have today: low-friction international transactions. Corporate entities which stick with the US-ETH split would find their revenues dry up very fast. I guarantee you that those which survive would be looking for ways to go multinational in their corporate structure so they can continue supporting ETH for non-US participants, and focus all of their efforts there. All this would do is isolate and exclude the US from participating in blockchain innovation.