4 ms·
You can't just keep hard forking even time something had happens. The problem is inherit to digital assets: they can be hacked.
by 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 agoBanks 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 agoIt’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 agoThat'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.