为什么Geth客户端中心化导致Staking资产丢失是危言耸听？

Obviously, this article claiming that using the client will lead to the loss of assets is too alarmist. The author assumes that the client failure may cause a bad situation through the case of the client failure. It can only be said that this is an extreme assumption and an over-interpretation of the client centralization problem. Simply talk about my idea. The node clients of Ethereum include waiting clients. These executing clients are just a kind of terminal configuration selection and chain consensus that developers are implementing block rights, especially. There is no direct relationship between these issues, but the only difference is that some developers may choose to wait for a small client from the perspective of familiarity or cost, and some developers will follow the trend. No matter what kind of client the developer uses, the probability of being in the block mechanism is only related to the pledge, but the high coverage of the client gives people an intuitive feeling that most of the block rights are in fact only because most nodes are used and the amount of pledge on them is large, which leads to the logical connection. As for why the client will occupy it. Compared with becoming a mainstream client, it has superior performance, strong compatibility, rich functions, mature and stable results. A positive cycle has good performance, and developers are active, fast, stable and easy to use. Developers are more active, and the greater the proportion, although the Ethereum Foundation has continuously increased the proportion of other clients, the results have not helped. The consensus of clients is getting stronger and stronger. According to the logic of the author of the article, once there is a problem, the block of Ethereum will be unstable and cause great harm. This is a false proposition, because if it is not easy for the client to use, it can't account for the largest proportion. Since the large proportion is the result of easy use, what is the probability of assuming a problem? Even if this assumption is established, it is not as simple as a node, and it may involve the hard bifurcation problem of the chain and the concept of one of them, which makes the participating nodes ensure the stability of the communication connection, the software stability and the repair rate, the effective blocking and verification process, and so on, which means that the participating nodes will tend to choose. If you choose a client and the nodes in the set want to continue to participate, you must try to improve the terminal load level and further improve the performance. Therefore, the sum will only lead to more competition at the client level, which means that the proportion of clients may be further enlarged. Therefore, the view that the client centralization accounts for a large proportion is obviously untenable and the potential risk is indeed a problem, especially in the context of decentralized world modeling, which will always cause hidden worries, but there are many clients. The Ethereum Foundation has been trying to optimize the relationship between this and the explosion, which is not directly related. If it is not related, it can only be said that the popularity of the client may aggravate the further centralization of the client. Only in this way, it is somewhat alarmist to complain about the risk of client centralization. To weigh the initiative of client centralization and potential risks, in fact, if the client node diversity is consciously increased and the developer problem of various clients is sponsored, it will be improved accordingly. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=61220