[mattdesl]

Placing control of the world’s compute under a small handful of powerful megacorps is not exactly ideal. Imagining a future where we can use and participate in (as stakers/validators) decentralized compute, storage, transactions, contracts, etc is pretty interesting.

[anonymouskimmer]

This blog post has a bunch of citations "showing that some assertion about the cryptocurrency ecosystem that crypto-bros make can't be true". And unfortunately decentralizing away from a small handful of powerful entities is one of these things. Below is one example.

https://blog.dshr.org/2022/09/impossibilities.html#more

"3) Impossibility of Full Decentralization in Permissionless Blockchains by Yujin Kwon et al (1st September 2019) provides a different formalization of the idea that economies of scale drive centralization by introducing the concept of the "Sybil cost":

    the blockchain system should be able to assign a positive Sybil cost, where the Sybil cost is defined as the difference between the cost for one participant running multiple nodes and the total cost for multiple participants each running one node.
    ...
    Considering the current gap between the rich and poor, this result implies that it is almost impossible for a system without Sybil costs to achieve good decentralization. In addition, because it is yet unknown how to assign a Sybil cost without relying on a TTP [Trusted Third Party] in blockchains, it also represents that currently, a contradiction between achieving good decentralization in the consensus protocol and not relying on a TTP exists."

[pavlov]

In the Ethereum PoS model, those with money perpetually own the network by definition.

At least with AWS, Amazon doesn’t also control the US dollar and the euro. If their service starts to suck, I can take my business elsewhere. But if Ethereum were to actually become a global standard, there would be no escape from the Ether plutocrats.

Any participation you and I can have in a system like Ethereum is table scraps from the overlords.

[anonymouskimmer]

> If their service starts to suck, I can take my business elsewhere.

This is an extraordinarily good point.

Centralization of Etherium means a centralization of both the VM and the currency. It would be as if the Fed and US Mint also owned AWS.

If Amazon sucks, as you say, you can take your dollars elsewhere. If Ethereum sucks, your Ether is going to be worthless, even if you could bridge it to another chain.

[pavlov]

I’ve sometimes thought that Ethereum represents the kind of computing network that 1950s Soviets would have appreciated. Massively inefficient, every operation needlessly repeated across every node only for the pretense of equality and democracy, and ideologically obsessed with a rhetorical illusion of immutability and permanence even though data can be wiped by simple agreement of the Politburo that controls the network.

“Now that the next five-year plan will be implemented as a smart contract on the Sovgosethereum, we’ll be mathematically guaranteed to meet our economic goals.” — Makes as much sense as the guaranteed crypto lending yields of 2021.

[mattdesl]

What you are describing does exist in some blockchains, like Tezos. But Ethereum's governance is social: not driven by token stake or "coin voting." In Ethereum PoS, users do not cede control of the protocol to validators - the users who run nodes and decide what software to run effectively own and control the protocol.

If the protocol starts to suck, users can change or fork the protocol (this has already happened multiple times, PoS being the latest example).

[threeseed]

Who exactly do you think underpins most of Ethereum. It's mega corporations. [1]

And decentralisation in crypto is in reality a myth when you have so many centralised players e.g. Binance, Metamask, OpenSea.

[1] https://crypto.news/3-cloud-providers-responsible-for-over-t...

[mattdesl]

The article cites a tweet, which cites Ethernodes. According to that site, 63% of hosted nodes are run by Amazon, or about 39% of all nodes. The next largest host is Hetzner at 7% of hosted (far lower than it was a few months ago, because they announced they are no longer supporting Ethereum) which accounts for about 4% of all nodes.

Not that surprising, since Amazon runs a huge percentage of all hosted compute in the world. Luckily, Amazon owning a large share of nodes doesn’t mean they own or can control Ethereum. But they certainly do pose a risk to the overall network security and health, and validation-at-home can and should continue to be made easier.

https://ethernodes.org/networkType/Hosting

[ilyt]

The ethereum DAO fork showed that the moment the "big ones" are hit there is not much stopping them from violating the "immutability" promise for their own gains.

Instead of few big banks there are few big mining pools deciding the fate, distinction almost without difference. And in both cases you need money to get in to the inner circle

[vba616]

Anarchy always falls apart. I don't know why anyone would think that's a historical accident rather than a logical inevitability.

[mattdesl]

There are no mining pools in Ethereum today. The chain is "immutable" only up to the point that the social layer wants it to be; majority users can change the protocol as they see fit (see EIP 1559, PoS, and other forks).

[nivenkos]

Most cryptocurrency mining still ends up being done by a few huge companies though.

[mattdesl]

Users cede very little control to PoS validators in Ethereum.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34685482

[yunohn]

There are innumerable companies you can rent cloud resources from - bare metal to “serverless”. Ethereum, on the other hand, is severely limited in what you can achieve for any amount of rent.