Conversation
Notices
-
Yes, it does. The team (and momentum) behind a project can effectively censor transactions, like the ethereum ppl did, and like the bitcoin ppl did after that bug where someone made like a billion bitcoins or something.
-
And the important point is that this is a slippery slope and if you accept the fact that power/slippery slopes inevitably lead to that power being abused (the argument pro-bitcoin ppl make against centralized banks), then you have to accept that inevitably the people behind a crypto currency will start using their ability to hard fork in less and less "fair" ways than they already have.
And the idea that normies using bitcoin would protest and use some sort of "bitcoin classic 2.0" when the developers start censoring politically incorrect people is insane.
Also
> and like the bitcoin ppl did after that bug where someone made like a billion bitcoins or something.
What was this called?
-
@KitlerIs6 @meowski @bot @Moon @ademan I mean, Bitcoin and Ethereum aren't very comparable for a number of reasons.
Ethereum is constructed so that it is extremely difficult to run a node (which determine consensus), and the voting power attributed to each node depends on how much money you have. So major exchanges end up having most of the voting power.
Whereas with Bitcoin, you can run a node on a shitty laptop, so there's currently over 45k nodes live (which is why they keep transactions slow). And you have consensus/control divided up between miners, nodes, and devs, rather than just having all the power with a single entity (e.g., devs).
And you're talking about the 2010 inflation bug, which occurred extremely early in Bitcoin's history, on the first blockchain to ever exist. It was a perfectly reasonable move when it was a small project controlled by a couple people, rather than the globally distributed network it is now.
bot :kiwi_dumbbell:
KitlerIs6"
Parker Banks
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the