Ethereum 2.0 developers want you to have blind faith in them

Key facts:
  • The difficulty bomb, the event that will launch Ethereum 2.0, has already been delayed 3 times.

  • Playing with the confidence of your community can make an impact.

The development of Ethereum is in the hands of programmers. Ethereum users must have blind faith that developers will do their job well for the arrival of Ethereum 2.0, but their mistakes left a lot to think about.

Developers claim to believe in their work, But they failed on several occasions to play with the confidence of the community. A frequent situation has been the rescheduling of dates in Ethereum 2.0 releases.

The first part of this update, known as the merge (“merging”) at the beginning of 2022. However, in December of last year, it was rescheduled for the middle of this year, and recently it was postponed again.

The reason to do this? “We need to polish a few things.” And yes, there are still many steps to take to get access to Ethereum 2.0. So why should we trust new scheduled appointments?

Ethereum Developers: Trust Us, We’re Doing What We Can

From my experience in the programming world, I must admit that delays in software development are common. Deadlines may not be met because there are units that are not considered timely for development. From this point on, I can accept some delays within Ethereum 2.0, but there were so many that they became memes.

Not every decision in Ethereum is made arbitrarily. Every now and then, DevCalls are held, which are open meetings for programmers, where anyone is invited to submit their suggestion.

Advertising

After each meeting, a minute is worked out on the points agreed upon. Tim Peko, for example, one of the main developers of Ethereum, Usually download Twitter thread Explain how each meeting ended.

In one of the last meetings held on June 10, Beiko commented that the whole team is “OK” Postponing the launch date of the merger (“merging”). He justified this by saying that a “short delay” would allow them to be more focused.

Another example of a blind belief claim situation is the punishment system for Ethereum 2.0 validators. This has been criticized since, mainly, those who programmed the mechanism They play the role of judge over auditors, Set penalties and penalties just because a node goes offline. Although her system maintains the integrity of the nodes, it does not seem to take into account that it is humanly impossible not to have a node break, be it an electrical failure or an Internet failure. This decision was taken without consultation and no choice but to accept it.

The justification is always the same “we’re doing it for everyone’s good”, something like “we know what we’re doing, and being late is the best thing to do”. It would seem that failure to meet deadlines, for example, justified by a greater interest, wants to instill blind faith.

There is no other choice but to trust

In bitcoin and cryptocurrency there is a principle: do not trust verification. In the world of software development In Ethereum 2.0, everything is verifiable and open source. But, another great idea seems to apply as well, in this case from Napoleon Bonaparte: “the end justifies the means” the developers of Ethereum 2.0.

user community You don’t have options to choose between developers. This is the Ethereum development system: someone submits a proposal (EIP or Ethereum Improvement Proposal), it is discussed, and the editors, a group of 8 people, decide whether or not to add it to the source code.

No matter what scrutiny people may do, they have no choice. You have to follow what they say. If there’s a rescheduling that users don’t like, they can’t vote to hire another group of developers. It remains only to wait and trust.

A blind trust system can take its toll. Only one error occurred at the time of the launch of Ethereum 2.0, which could cause the project to fall, making any recovery arduous, as the community will lose faith in the project and its leaders.


Disclaimer: The opinions and opinions expressed in this article belong to its author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of CriptoNoticias.

 

 

 

 

 

Bitcoin Review

Leave a Comment