qnmaster

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by qnmaster 6y ago

   Every time it's been done, it's clearly an attempt by the developers to profit. Why else would one duplicate something, hardly change it, but attempt to pass it off as the original thing?
2. 2.▲
   by qnmaster 6y ago

   >weren't those forks of the ledger due to technological disagreements That's their PR message, not their goal. They were pretty clearly social attacks trying to coopt the name.
3. 3.▲
   by qnmaster 6y ago

   This is a rabbit hole, but the TL;DR is that it's very resilient against precisely these types of attacks.
4. 4.▲
   by qnmaster 8y ago

   There's a lot of bullshit, but it would be a huge mistake to assume that there's nothing significant there. Check out the Bitcoin whitepaper for a technical primer.
5. 5.▲
   by qnmaster 8y ago

   It's not an end-all for supply chains, but that doesn't make it useless. It still prevents forgery of old records. If someone signs something, they can't later go back and change it or claim they didn't.
6. 6.▲
   by qnmaster 8y ago

   >as opposed to authorities signing current state That's what it solves. It removes the need for trust and dependence in a central authority. There's no central actor to hack, or that can abuse the system, or be compelled to cen
7. 7.▲
   by qnmaster 8y ago

   >Is that the point of mining? To make inserting hordes of cheap lying nodes impossible? That's called a Sybil attack, and yes that's one of the reasons. Mining also makes creating blocks have a real world energy cost. So rewrit
8. 8.▲
   by qnmaster 10y ago

   Except it does work.