3 ms·
Well, yes, technically you are right - if the majority of the miners agreed to "censor" a specific transaction, then it would be censored. But that's not what t
by smsm42 4y ago
Well, yes, technically you are right - if the majority of the miners agreed to "censor" a specific transaction, then it would be censored. But that's not what the article claimed - Chainalysis, or any company like that, certainly wouldn't have power to command the majority of miners to do that. If there's a reasonable valid reason - such as a bug in the software - then you'd expect the majority of miners to accept that. If somebody like Coinbase would be able to control the majority of miners, then yes, they'd also would gain the ability to censor transactions. But I don't see any sign of that actually happening.
- geraldyo 4y agoYou need to follow through your logic... > if there's a reasonable valid reason Who says it's a valid reason? Who says the reason is what they say it is? Who decides the best fix would be to censor a transaction? What if FakeBlockchainCorp decides to target you, then says there was a bug with these transactions, everyone agrees... Where's your bitcoin?
- smsm42 4y ago> Who says the reason is what they say it is? I think I answered this question above - the majority of miners. If you succeed in convincing the majority of miners, then it will be valid. That's what "decentralized" means - it doesn't mean nobody is in control. It means the control is not concentrated in one place - it is spread between miners. > then says there was a bug with these transactions, everyone agrees If everyone agrees, then you've lost. It's not a magic woodoo to make you the invincible king of the world, it's just a way to make control more distributed, nothing more. If the FakeBlockchainCorp succeeds in convincing the majority of bitcoin miners that your bitcoin should be taken from you - it will be taken from you.