6 ms·
theyve changed the blockchain a couple of times so no.
by arkis22 6y ago
theyve changed the blockchain a couple of times so no.
- capnorange 6y agoblockchains are immutable for all practical purposes using social consensus/governance rules.
- arkis22 6y agosure. 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 agoagreed. 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 agoThe 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 ago51% 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