5 ms·
Your critique is valid but outdated. This happened way back in 2010. Satoshi disappeared a long time ago now. There are still influential people, but none with
by hyghjiyhu 1y ago
Your critique is valid but outdated. This happened way back in 2010. Satoshi disappeared a long time ago now.
There are still influential people, but none with the authority of Satoshi himself.
- joshstrange 1y agoSee also, the DAO hack.
- jowea 1y agoYeah that's a great example. I think sometimes people take "code is law" too seriously, when it is clear to me the code is just a deterministic way to form a consensus that works 99% of the time and the other 1% you get forking.
- whatsupdog 1y agoWhat Ethereum did after DAO was way more sinister. At least with the Bitcoin "roll-back" there were no transactions reversed. The miners just got together and started mining from a previous point in the Blockchain, and eventually the new chain had more work done and was validly accepted by even outdated nodes. Ethereum just went ahead and added this to their protocol: "ummm this transaction stands reversed, you don't need to verify signature for this particular transaction". This blot will stay in the protocol for ever.
- wslh 1y agoBitcoin (et al) is/are not fully decentralized in the sense that a core development team actively maintains and proposes changes, even minimal ones. While it's true that major updates require broad consensus and may be rejected by nodes if controversial, we should acknowledge that certain points of centralization exist, particularly around development and decision making. These often overlooked aspects now carry more financial consequences, especially as Bitcoin becomes more intertwined with regulated financial instruments and political power. For example, now, many L2s around Bitcoin are fully depending , and influencing on a future change: enabling again the OP_CAT opcode [1]. [1] https://github.com/sCrypt-Inc/awesome-op-cat https://github.com/sCrypt-Inc/awesome-op-cat