> the DAO fork was a result of centralized control due to social factors. As with bitcoin, a >50% consensus is necessary to fork a blockchain I'm not very well

> the DAO fork was a result of centralized control due to social factors. As with bitcoin, a >50% consensus is necessary to fork a blockchain I'm not very well-versed in computational power requirements on this scale, but it doesn't sound at all infeasible that a nation state (or a couple in unison) could setup a "51% attack", thus reducing the social form of control back to only the computational one. And if anything, that threat is only going to become worse with ever-increasing computational capability, advent of quantum computers at some point, etc. Nations (and other huge players) have the resources to tap into all that new power, while the individuals ideally making up the bulk of a blockchain's computing power would most probably not, at least not in big enough scale. I don't see how that could be prevented, and that leaves me somewhat confused on why the blockchain is advertised as "immutable" as it is.