4 ms·
They didn't say it was faultless. A year & 150 phones calls is a significant improvement on "nope, nope, not ever ever ever ever". Also the current system at l
by ineedasername 5y ago
They didn't say it was faultless. A year & 150 phones calls is a significant improvement on "nope, nope, not ever ever ever ever".
Also the current system at least has the potential to be improved, maybe. While irreversibility is baked into the ideology of many (not all) proponents if crypto.
- danamit 5y agoYou can implement irreversibility in a blockchain or a smart contract easily, many coins can freeze funds and issue funds, that's defacto irreversibility.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- azinman2 5y agoSeems this is a counter example.
- lukeschlather 5y agoOnly to the extent that the code doesn't have bugs and your algorithm has no design flaws. (All code has bugs and you should assume all algorithms have design flaws.)
- ineedasername 5y ago>Irreversibility is both easy & often Did you mean reversibility? Because otherwise you're agreeing with me: I'm saying irreversibility is easy, often the default with crypto Yes, that is what I am saying. In traditional banking reversibility is easier, and (mostly) the norm for situations of standard human error. In the case of this particular contract a limited form of reversibility is even what was intended, but that doesn't matter. It's a system that doesn't allow for honest error. For some, that's a feature. For the vast majority required to take smart contracts mainstream, that is not a feature. Better error resistant reversibility can be built, and that's when things may become attractive to more people. But, again, many proponents view irreversibility as a feature so it's not primary consideration when building things.