I know about that but thanks for your comment - I’ll clarify what I mean.
It’s just the specifics of how this works - slashing is part of the protocol in the sense that I described: when you are chosen to create a new block and you have proof that someone violated the rules then you include this proof in your proposed block and update balance. Any validator can do it including the smallest of home stakers.
Here we have slashing fields in the block body where you insert your proofs of slashable offense. There are functions with a “slash” in the name that describes precise state transition.
The hard part of slashing is finding these proofs because you have to do more work than necessary to detect slashing and produce proofs - that’s what this software does. It’s more expensive to run a slasher but you need only one and it does not matter who runs it, anyone can run it. The link that you sent says that this slasher broadcasts proofs by default - that way anyone can include it.
On either fork, anyone can submit proof of your equivocation and get you slashed.
There are currently over 400,000 full-fledged validators. The maximum supported number of validators is the number of ETH divided by 32, or about 3.75 million. Scaling is the reason the limit wasn't made even higher, by lowering the ETH per validator.
Your links do not say that there is a designated class of slashers. They just say that it is resource intensive relative to its rewards, so not everyone will want to be one. Anyone who chooses to, however, can be one.
If I understand correctly, you are not trusting "someone", u are trusting the network itself. Imo no different than any other operation on the network. Any operation on the network requires trust that the network will do what it agreed it will do.
Staking pools are not part of the Ethereum network protocol - they are a third party that you need to trust with your Eth. You are lending your Eth to this third party, who will then participate in the Eth network on your behalf, and who is also under no particular requirement to do what they say they will.
If I have to give my currency to a third party who will then invest it for me, then why bother with decentralised cryptos at all?
>any operation on the network requires trust that the network will do what it agreed it will do.
If I were an Eth apologist, I would explain how the code that defines the network operations is fully open and inspectable, so no trust needed.
>Social care is now on the council to fund and many councils have squashed social care, along with libraries and early years provisions. The trap of outsourcing caught many councils out.
It could be phrased as - social care was a way to paper over cultural and societal cracks, by paying peanuts to people with limited job choices.
As in most things, our response to Covid has just exposed the endgame much quicker than expected.
The two are not mutually exclusive; you can pay less for healthcare than other countries, and still get a bad deal.
Eg: It's currently almost impossible to get routine or early-stage healthcare. If I want a routine doctor's appointment, I have to phone every day at 8am when the next batch of appointments are released, and hope I get one. Last time, it took hours on hold, and attempts over several days, to get one.
Your GP surgery is privately run, so in this case the issue is likely very much an issue of the supply of available doctors, and how your GP surgery chooses to operate its appointment system.
I believe appointments are now run more efficiently due to the backlog and changes in processes due to Covid, with the reason for an appointment usually submitted digitally first, followed by an efficient telephone consultation that is well prepared based on your submitted reason for needing an appointment, and a follow-up consultation as necessary. Perhaps your GP surgery in particular is struggling, or you are perhaps not engaging with the new approach.
I have been surprised at just how well functioning the health service is right now despite the incredible pressures on it, but perhaps my local area is coping better than others.
Importantly, however, this issue was broadly not present 10 years ago when the NHS was better funded to meet its needs, and was still cheaper than other countries. So the issue is not the NHS, but funding, which is also corroborated by our relatively low level of health spending.
Not true. In your defence, I also only learned this today.
https://docs.prylabs.network/docs/prysm-usage/slasher https://lighthouse-book.sigmaprime.io/slasher.html