4 ms·

Tether is handling this completely wrong. They should not hard fork Omni and force everyone to blacklist addresses. Instead, tell everyone to halt on-chain trad

Tether is handling this completely wrong. They should not hard fork Omni and force everyone to blacklist addresses. Instead, tell everyone to halt on-chain trading, take a snapshot of the chain, then create a new tether token and send them to everyone holding the old tethers (minus the thief). I think the bitcoins Tether would have to pay in transfer fees would be a fitting punishment for their poor security.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
You can't just keep hard forking even time something had happens. The problem is inherit to digital assets: they can be hacked.
- chrisco255 9y ago
  Banks can be robbed, museums can be swindled, even credit bureaus like Equifax can get hacked. There's no such thing as hack-proof. That some cryptos will hard fork and adjust shows that the system can heal itself and not be in a permanent state of disrepair. That's not a bad thing at all.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    It’s a bad thing to the idea of a trustless, irrevocable, fully machine audited ledger of account. Why not just run it in your favorite RDBMS? That way we’d at least save a bunch of CO2 emissions.
    - unabridged 9y ago
      >the idea of a trustless, irrevocable, fully machine audited ledger of account This is just giving sentimentality an economic value. Forking should constantly be considered, you should always be looking to maximize the value of your stake. Imagine two coins A & B with exactly the same distribution, except in coin A a real jerk has 10% of the coins and you know his addresses. You also know almost all of the holders also consider this guy a jerk who will not contribute to positively to the value of the coin (at least not 110%). Its in everyone's best interest to just erase this jerk from the ledger and choose B, everyone ends up with 110% of their original stake.
      - icelancer 9y ago
        That's literally the tyranny of the majority. Who determines what the majority is? 90% in your example, but what if 65% of people do the same and wipe 35% out? That could easily be done by buying enough of the coins / merging with enough of the users. That scenario is completely ridiculous and unacceptable.
zeven7 9y ago
That is a fantastic idea.
verroq 9y ago
Tether uses the Bitcoin blockchain (omnilayer) to store transactions. To do that they'll need to rewrite the block chain (150gb).
- unabridged 9y ago
  Not the entire chain or even the entire omni chain, they only need to send coins to the current endpoints holding tether.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago

You can't just keep hard forking even time something had happens. The problem is inherit to digital assets: they can be hacked.

chrisco255 9y ago
Banks can be robbed, museums can be swindled, even credit bureaus like Equifax can get hacked. There's no such thing as hack-proof. That some cryptos will hard fork and adjust shows that the system can heal itself and not be in a permanent state of disrepair. That's not a bad thing at all.
- kobeya 9y ago
  It’s a bad thing to the idea of a trustless, irrevocable, fully machine audited ledger of account. Why not just run it in your favorite RDBMS? That way we’d at least save a bunch of CO2 emissions.
  - unabridged 9y ago
    >the idea of a trustless, irrevocable, fully machine audited ledger of account This is just giving sentimentality an economic value. Forking should constantly be considered, you should always be looking to maximize the value of your stake. Imagine two coins A & B with exactly the same distribution, except in coin A a real jerk has 10% of the coins and you know his addresses. You also know almost all of the holders also consider this guy a jerk who will not contribute to positively to the value of the coin (at least not 110%). Its in everyone's best interest to just erase this jerk from the ledger and choose B, everyone ends up with 110% of their original stake.
    - icelancer 9y ago
      That's literally the tyranny of the majority. Who determines what the majority is? 90% in your example, but what if 65% of people do the same and wipe 35% out? That could easily be done by buying enough of the coins / merging with enough of the users. That scenario is completely ridiculous and unacceptable.

zeven7 9y ago

That is a fantastic idea.

verroq 9y ago

Tether uses the Bitcoin blockchain (omnilayer) to store transactions. To do that they'll need to rewrite the block chain (150gb).

unabridged 9y ago
Not the entire chain or even the entire omni chain, they only need to send coins to the current endpoints holding tether.