4 ms·

All us crypto-skeptics know about this is that it's technically possible to effectively erase and redistribute transactions by doing a hard-fork and that "the c

by smcl 5y ago

All us crypto-skeptics know about this is that it's technically possible to effectively erase and redistribute transactions by doing a hard-fork and that "the community" have shown they're quite willing to do so. Saying that they technically can't be erased but that they'd always exist in a potentially-worthless fork isn't exactly reassuring. In fact it's a little bit disingenuous because I think it's pretty clear what people's issue is with "immutability" (namely "they say it's immutable, but it looks like they can and will mutate it") and this is quite an artful dodge around around that. And people like us see that the world of cryptocurrencies is rife with scammy activity and bad actors, so we go "ah ok, it's just another one of those" and move on.

mattwilsonn888 5y ago
If worth matters to you you should be reassured that in the Ethereum style fork of 2016 no matter which side you agreed with you owned your coins in both chains (unless you were a hack victim or hacker). No one was punished for "choosing wrong." The concern about forks happening willy-nilly at the expense of users is sometimes legitimate in smaller chains or maybe even chains like Ethereum which do not incentivize decentralized node services and as a result has majorly centralized nodes, but for Bitcoin and more nascent protocols which understand this problem the concern over arbitrary forks is thankfully frivolous.