[unboxingelf]

Ethereum’s recent move to Proof of Stake undermines the their ability to be decentralized and permission-less. If a validator adds a blacklisted transaction, they will be slashed [0].

Ethereum had an unfair issuance. That means the founders kept a pool of coins for themselves and have unfair control of the network, furthered by PoS.

Ethereum is effectively a private tech company led by a CEO. They have a public roadmap.

Ultimately I think these fundamental properties of Ethereum make it inadequate as a permission-less money protocol. It works great for games and apps, but its foundations are susceptible to coercion and control - and you can’t build a permission-less protocol on that foundation.

[0] https://cointelegraph.com/news/51-of-ethereum-blocks-are-now...

[Canada]

> If a validator adds a blacklisted transaction, they will be slashed [0].

This is incorrect, and your reference doesn't back the statement up.

Validators don't have to include any transaction they don't want to, just like Bitcoin mining pools don't have to either.

[unboxingelf]

They do not have to, but they risk being slashed if they add transactions that are not “correct” as per the network.

The link I provided shows this coercion via OFAC compliance.

[3np]

No, your link shows that a majority of validators will not include certain transactions in a block. While problematic in itself, there is nothing around slashing other validators who do so, on their allotted blocks.

Technically you can still obtain 32 ETH on the market, permissionlessly set up your own beacon-, validator- and execution clients and wait until it's your go to send out txes.

[unboxingelf]

Ok, I assumed a validator providing blocks with unexpected transactions would trigger a penalty - guess not.