4 ms·

open source, permissionless, programmable, trustless, unstoppable.

sjwright 6y ago
Nothing is trustless. It just distributes trust which makes it harder but by no means impossible for your trust to become misplaced.
arkis22 6y ago
theyve changed the blockchain a couple of times so no.
- capnorange 6y ago
  blockchains are immutable for all practical purposes using social consensus/governance rules.
  - arkis22 6y ago
    sure. it's immutable. they'll just fork the data and force you to choose. a lot of people enjoy not playing by the rules. https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-executes-blockchain-hard-fork-return-dao-investor-funds https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-executes-blockchain-hard-f...
    - capnorange 6y ago
      agreed. Here "they'll" is not Vitalik/co, it's in control of the node validators, ofcourse you are affected by this if are in disagreement of the majority. The reason why it will be difficult to pull off a hard fork today[1]. See UASF for the success in community governance. This is good proof that the users are always in control, not miners or Vitalik. [1] https://www.coindesk.com/binance-may-consider-bitcoin-rollback-following-40-million-hack#:~:text=In%20the%20wake%20of%20a,network%20to%20return%20the%20funds https://www.coindesk.com/binance-may-consider-bitcoin-rollba...
      - arkis22 6y ago
        The house has 435 members. the senate has 100. nobody thinks the 535 members are effective. enjoy your user uncontrolled anarchy do you have any response to > 50% attacks?
        capnorange 6y ago
        51% is possible, but it only leads to chain reorgs, not the actual consensus rules. In practice the actual cost and the uncertainty of an attack ensures that it is almost never attempted in practice for secure* blockchains: 1. You would need much greater hash rate share than 50% for good chances(forgoing the block rewards $$ incase of failure!), the social coordination is the bigger challenge, see mining pool distribution[1]. [1] https://btc.com/stats/pool https://btc.com/stats/pool
ac29 6y ago
open source: not exclusive to blockchain permissionless: seems to be code for "lets you do things that are illegal" programmable: not exclusive to blockchain trustless: also attracts those that are untrustworthy (scammers, etc) unstoppable: seems to also be code for "lets you do things that are illegal", and im sure the various people who are in prison and/or under investigation for their various blockchain related crimes would disagree with how "unstoppable" it really is
- kls 6y ago
  So just to be clear illegal does not mean immoral. Lets assume that tomorrow a percentage of nations decided to revoke wealth and confiscate wealth. They could pass laws and make what they are doing legal and evasion of it illegal. While it would be legal for them to do so, it would be immoral as it is basically theft, and one would not be immoral to try to protect the wealth that they have worked for and amassed by illegal activities such as trying to get that wealth out of the country via digital currency before fleeing. Let's take the Nazi's for example, because they are always the generic personification of an evil government. Had digital currencies existed in that time, it would not have been immoral for the Jews to transitional all of their wealth into digital currencies ahead of trying to flee Germany, though it would have certainly been illegal by German laws against the jews.

Nothing is trustless. It just distributes trust which makes it harder but by no means impossible for your trust to become misplaced.

arkis22 6y ago

theyve changed the blockchain a couple of times so no.

capnorange 6y ago
blockchains are immutable for all practical purposes using social consensus/governance rules.
- arkis22 6y ago
  sure. it's immutable. they'll just fork the data and force you to choose. a lot of people enjoy not playing by the rules. https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-executes-blockchain-hard-fork-return-dao-investor-funds https://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-executes-blockchain-hard-f...
  - capnorange 6y ago
    agreed. Here "they'll" is not Vitalik/co, it's in control of the node validators, ofcourse you are affected by this if are in disagreement of the majority. The reason why it will be difficult to pull off a hard fork today[1]. See UASF for the success in community governance. This is good proof that the users are always in control, not miners or Vitalik. [1] https://www.coindesk.com/binance-may-consider-bitcoin-rollback-following-40-million-hack#:~:text=In%20the%20wake%20of%20a,network%20to%20return%20the%20funds https://www.coindesk.com/binance-may-consider-bitcoin-rollba...
    - arkis22 6y ago
      The house has 435 members. the senate has 100. nobody thinks the 535 members are effective. enjoy your user uncontrolled anarchy do you have any response to > 50% attacks?
      - capnorange 6y ago
        51% is possible, but it only leads to chain reorgs, not the actual consensus rules. In practice the actual cost and the uncertainty of an attack ensures that it is almost never attempted in practice for secure* blockchains: 1. You would need much greater hash rate share than 50% for good chances(forgoing the block rewards $$ incase of failure!), the social coordination is the bigger challenge, see mining pool distribution[1]. [1] https://btc.com/stats/pool https://btc.com/stats/pool

ac29 6y ago

open source: not exclusive to blockchain permissionless: seems to be code for "lets you do things that are illegal" programmable: not exclusive to blockchain trustless: also attracts those that are untrustworthy (scammers, etc) unstoppable: seems to also be code for "lets you do things that are illegal", and im sure the various people who are in prison and/or under investigation for their various blockchain related crimes would disagree with how "unstoppable" it really is

kls 6y ago
So just to be clear illegal does not mean immoral. Lets assume that tomorrow a percentage of nations decided to revoke wealth and confiscate wealth. They could pass laws and make what they are doing legal and evasion of it illegal. While it would be legal for them to do so, it would be immoral as it is basically theft, and one would not be immoral to try to protect the wealth that they have worked for and amassed by illegal activities such as trying to get that wealth out of the country via digital currency before fleeing. Let's take the Nazi's for example, because they are always the generic personification of an evil government. Had digital currencies existed in that time, it would not have been immoral for the Jews to transitional all of their wealth into digital currencies ahead of trying to flee Germany, though it would have certainly been illegal by German laws against the jews.