4 ms·

The immutable state of the blockchain is fine, in fact it’s better because it’s proof of the fraudulent transaction. It’s possible to write smart contracts in

The immutable state of the blockchain is fine, in fact it’s better because it’s proof of the fraudulent transaction. It’s possible to write smart contracts in a way that an auditor, or group of auditors who reach consensus, can forcibly remove tokens and freeze accounts, of course this moves the needle towards centralisation more, (and I’m not interested in arguing the merits of that) - Im merely pointing out that immutability is not absolute in the way you are describing and exceptional circumstances and admin overrides can be coded in to EVM based systems at least.

endisneigh 5y ago
> auditor, or group of auditors who reach consensus If you are trusting a group of auditors why do you even need blockchain? The method in the OP is interesting, but I don't see the relevance of blockchain at all. Basically it comes down to some magical, incorruptible or comprisable auditor. That's fine enough, but if you have that, you don't need blockchain to begin with.
- malux85 5y ago
  You don’t, and I’m not interested in arguing the merits of that. I was pointing out that there are options on a technical level.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    I'm not sure what the point of your post is then - it was always possible to do a hard fork if the majority of miners/stakers/users agreed that a certain transactions was bad? That entire problem (consensus) is why blockchain supposedly exists and is purported to solve, no?
    - malux85 5y ago
      I'm not here to argue whether a blockchain is a correct use case or not, that's why I specifically said in my parent comment I'm not interesting in arguing about that, and also said it again in my parent comment. There's always someone here that is looking to pick a fight about "you dont need a blockchain", and I'm not interested in having that discussion (mostly because I agree with it in this case) But to your point that it's possible to hard fork, well, of course, computers being turing complete you can always go one level deeper into the platform and change the underlying system, but on a practical level forcing all of the miners to upgrade their software and coordinating this is a HUGE effort, and it seems like a very bad architectural decision to force an entire platform upgrade to deal with fraudulent users when safety can be built into the smart contracts themselves. But I'm not arguing this centralisation is a good idea either, I'm merely pointing out that immutability isn't as final as the original post would make it seem, and there are ways of dealing with the problems they outlined (someone having fraudulently acquired tokens)
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        Your smart contract proposal doesn't contradict my concerns about immutability. What if the contract is improperly written or does the wrong thing? What would be done then? A smart contract isn't magic. So again I'm not really sure what your point is? Is it that if everything goes perfectly with smart contracts being written perfectly with no bugs and all contingencies being taken into account and participants of the contract agree to the terms of said smart contracts in the event of fraud that's identified and confirmed it can be reversed? OK, point understood.

endisneigh 5y ago

> auditor, or group of auditors who reach consensus If you are trusting a group of auditors why do you even need blockchain? The method in the OP is interesting, but I don't see the relevance of blockchain at all. Basically it comes down to some magical, incorruptible or comprisable auditor. That's fine enough, but if you have that, you don't need blockchain to begin with.

malux85 5y ago
You don’t, and I’m not interested in arguing the merits of that. I was pointing out that there are options on a technical level.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I'm not sure what the point of your post is then - it was always possible to do a hard fork if the majority of miners/stakers/users agreed that a certain transactions was bad? That entire problem (consensus) is why blockchain supposedly exists and is purported to solve, no?
  - malux85 5y ago
    I'm not here to argue whether a blockchain is a correct use case or not, that's why I specifically said in my parent comment I'm not interesting in arguing about that, and also said it again in my parent comment. There's always someone here that is looking to pick a fight about "you dont need a blockchain", and I'm not interested in having that discussion (mostly because I agree with it in this case) But to your point that it's possible to hard fork, well, of course, computers being turing complete you can always go one level deeper into the platform and change the underlying system, but on a practical level forcing all of the miners to upgrade their software and coordinating this is a HUGE effort, and it seems like a very bad architectural decision to force an entire platform upgrade to deal with fraudulent users when safety can be built into the smart contracts themselves. But I'm not arguing this centralisation is a good idea either, I'm merely pointing out that immutability isn't as final as the original post would make it seem, and there are ways of dealing with the problems they outlined (someone having fraudulently acquired tokens)
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Your smart contract proposal doesn't contradict my concerns about immutability. What if the contract is improperly written or does the wrong thing? What would be done then? A smart contract isn't magic. So again I'm not really sure what your point is? Is it that if everything goes perfectly with smart contracts being written perfectly with no bugs and all contingencies being taken into account and participants of the contract agree to the terms of said smart contracts in the event of fraud that's identified and confirmed it can be reversed? OK, point understood.