gila

joined 1 year ago
[–] gila@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago

You were supposed to have the eureka moment where you realise that's not a thing, oh well.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm pointing out that the DAO hack transactions are not muted on ETC, they still exist as transactions in a validated block on that chain. Whether its state of mutability exists in binary or on a spectrum, ETC is shown to be immutable using your criteria, further showing that it's not as simple as "crypto isn't really immutable". Different chains, even directly originating from the same project, have different characteristics with respect to mutability. It's not to say that ETH is worse and/or better than ETC, or that either of them are good, it's just what's been observed as a matter of record, contrary to your depiction

[–] gila@lemm.ee -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

You've almost put all the pieces together. A decentralised linked list is ... ? oh wait

[–] gila@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Then I guess you misunderstand that the hard fork resulting from the DAO hack was the result of consensus of the network participants, not a unilateral action taken by the Ethereum foundation. Indeed, the protocol facilitated that's the only way it could happen.

The historic source code is still hosted, if you think ETH devs have the ability to 'edit whatever they want' then you should be able to point to the lines of code where that ability is afforded to them. Or someone should, 8 years should have been enough time to have a flick through.

Your anti-ETH comment came across as an anti-ETC comment to me, that's why I responded. I stand with you in disagreement with the 2016 hard fork. Mostly because many people would lose money anyway, and did. ETH corrected 50+%.

ETC is literally the original chain, sans Ethereum foundation's branding (which is why your reference to it confused me). Founding members left and continued to support ETC, and went on to found other foundations with a basis in academic rigor, which formed the fundamental basis of the ideological disagreement between participants.

You said this showed ETH/ETC devs have a 'kill switch in their back pocket', but the part of Ethereum that was 'killed' is alive and much larger than it was in 2016.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 28 points 9 months ago (7 children)

This makes me sad. I had so much fun growing up learning about compression and encoding, ripping, tagging, spectral analysis. Listening to 24/96 vinyl FLACs on my parents old stereo with my pinky up. Hanging out with a bunch of 40-year olds on IRC. Good times, man

[–] gila@lemm.ee -3 points 9 months ago

Bitcoin is open-source software, a network of nodes running Bitcoin core, the source code for which you can find here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

Morals are a consequence of free will, which Bitcoin does not have. There are valid moralistic concerns about Bitcoin, but they are related to the impact of Bitcoin, rather than whether it is a moral system.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

It depends on whether you're interacting with the blockchain directly, or via a custodial solution more appropriate for end consumers. Same like how you don't get a refund if you operate a western union branch and fuck up the wire.

[–] gila@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Who do you think controls ETC? IOHK? It's an open-source project.

It had some 51% attacks a few years ago, is that what you are referring to?

I'm honestly just curious what you mean

view more: ‹ prev next ›