3 ms·
>Each one of your posts has exponentially more tangents Is this not what you were asking for though? I'm addressing all the concerns about these random web3 an
by only_human 4y ago
>Each one of your posts has exponentially more tangents
Is this not what you were asking for though? I'm addressing all the concerns about these random web3 and defi projects, yes they're tangents but so is the whole conversation as it relates to the original article. None of that fundamentally changes the game, crypto is still a big fraud.
>Forking is a user activated decision. If an honest majority users of the chain wanted to point to a new ENS contract to resolve names to addresses, they could come to that consensus regardless of the will of core devs or root multisig owners.
Ok, with DNS you could also just do this by spinning up some new DNS root servers and trying to get everyone to use that. People have already tried to do this multiple times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
Again you're not saying anything new here. None of this changes just because someone decided to write the name resolution code in ethereum solidity instead of C++.
>If an honest majority of users would like GoDaddy to stop censoring X.com domain, or PayPal to stop blocking funds, they cannot fork the centralized private protocol.
I'm sorry what? This whole sentence makes no sense. DNS is an open protocol, and Paypal isn't a protocol. No you can't convince Paypal to do business with someone they don't want to do business with (unless you force them legally) but the same is also true of the big crypto companies like Binance. If they decide some customer is bad for business they can just block their wallet and force them to go somewhere else. It's the same exact thing. Also I should remind you, Paypal is now literally a crypto company that offers crypto services.
>If a dishonest actor manages to push an unwanted change in DAI contracts to block a user’s funds, the honest majority could easily reject the change by following the old protocol.
How would they do this when their tokens are already gone because the original smart contract was looted? This isn't a theoretical, this stuff happens constantly all the time, another big one just happened last week: https://www.investopedia.com/mango-markets-got-hacked-6750070 https://www.investopedia.com/mango-markets-got-hacked-675007...