3 ms·
What I described would be part of the rules of system (or at least certain players). It just says "no changing history after X point". If anything, relying on
by orblivion 8y ago
What I described would be part of the rules of system (or at least certain players). It just says "no changing history after X point".
If anything, relying on an outside source is what we're doing now. Coinbase and others are telling us that they detected something and I haven't heard anybody question them. (And I'm assuming they're not lying). Though that's not to say the blockchain will be changed by this information.
- pryce 8y ago> If anything, relying on an outside source is what we're doing now. You are correct of course. To me, problems like this recent attack highlight an inherent contradiction in the blockchain idea - that the "51%+ of hashing power determines the truth" rule is really either lip-service; techno-marketing vanity that doesn't actually translate to practice (if corrective action ensues), and in which case the adjudicator is clearly not the blockchain tech we were told, but instead a nebulous collection of companies and stakeholders OR - that "51% determines the truth" is indeed a strictly-held principle even though we have already demonstrated that there exist actors with enough resources and motivation to make attacks of this nature on some of the most prominent blockchain projects already - and we haven't even yet witnessed what a 51% attempt by an actor with the resources of a state would look like. This is one of the reasons I have become skeptical of blockchain projects.