4 ms·

That description fits current banking systems just as much.

• bdcravens 10y ago
  So if it's not an improvement, why bother?
  • matthewbauer 10y ago
    From what I understand, it's much worse than any human legal system. Theory and precedent have all been thrown out and everyone is at the mercy of whoever can convince 51% of stakeholders. There's no concept of "equal protection" like in a modern legal system.
    • zwischenzug 10y ago
      Exactly - what happens when the next freedom fighter/terrorist/Kanye uses Ethereum, and a hysterical majority freeze them out. Where is your open distributed cryptocurrency then? Worse - as far as I can tell - than a properly regulated banking system working under the rule of law.
• DannyBee 10y ago
  Except, uh, no. Almost everywhere, there is a ton of legal (and other) recourse, as well as a theoretically neutral arbiter who will listen to you and make a decision. There is some due process. You can argue about the neutrality, the laws, whatever. There's something, and it's recourse for plenty of people/etc. Here, if all your neighbors get together and want to steal your money, they can steal your money, and you have no recourse.
  • matthewbauer 10y ago
    > Here, if all your neighbors get together and want to steal your money, they can steal your money, and you have no recourse And this was always possible even before the hard fork. The difference now is that there is an actual precedent for it and apparently at least 51% of Ethereum stakeholders are okay with doing that sort of thing. Anyone actually holding a significant amount of Ethereum should seriously question the original claims that the Ethereum team made on its value.