7 ms·
Because then we wouldn't have a known number of issued coins as well as the full set of holders of those coins? Nor would we be able to trustlessly send them an
by trophycase 9y ago
Because then we wouldn't have a known number of issued coins as well as the full set of holders of those coins? Nor would we be able to trustlessly send them anywhere?
- runeks 9y ago> Nor would we be able to trustlessly send them anywhere? That’s not the case anyway, since Tether can retroactively refuse to honor tokens that were allegedly stolen. What if the attacker had traded his 30m Tether-USD in exchange for bitcoins? Then the seller of these bitcoins would be left holding the bag, because the central party that is Tether refuses to honor these obligations. Tether can never be trustless, because it’s credit. Some party needs to redeem tether tokens for USD, and if that party refuses to do so then your money is gone.
- ojr 9y agopeople who hold Tether trust the Tether system that is enough to keep the peg to the dollar for now, but I have doubts the peg holds
- fiatjaf 9y agoI don't understand your point. Are you saying Postgres is not capable of storing a list of accounts numbers with balances? Also, how is something "trustless" if all the miners and validators are run by the same person?