8 ms·
From the article: > In February of 2019, someone accidentally paid 2,100 ETH in fees to move .1 ETH. Coindesk reported at the time that the South Korean blockc
by lgl 6y ago
From the article:
> In February of 2019, someone accidentally paid 2,100 ETH in fees to move .1 ETH. Coindesk reported at the time that the South Korean blockchain firm behind the error admitted to the mistake, contacted the mining pool that had benefitted, and worked out a deal where the firm got half of the accidentally sent ETH returned.
Who wouldn't want to live in a cryptocurrency powered world economy, right? No mistakes allowed, no insurances, so many nice guys like these. What could go wrong?
- pxeboot 6y agoLike cash, these properties are also desired in many cases.
- EGreg 6y agoI disagree. You can build conflict resolution on top of the database. Can we say the same about voting or other data? That we don’t want consistency in the database? The flipside is anyone can change your vote or your balance as long as they get access to the keys.
- m3kw9 6y agoYou want decentralized you get these “issues”. Even if the protocol had features to reverse some situations, there are way too many that is complex and need human intervention to resolve for many cases, which becomes some what centralized again. They need to solve these things where your life savings can be lost by accident, guarantees etc. Banks do that either you believe it or not.
- TrackerFF 6y ago"The market will regulate itself, by rewarding the honest players and punishing the dishonest ones"
- gremlinsinc 6y agoNo drug lord ever lost a case of fiat? What about pirate treasure? Bank fraud? Nothing is fully secure. Better option is some time limit for accidents or buyers remorse built into ther protocol...