Plz, as if it doesn't pertain to the topic or my initial query is a non query. The argument is that if consensus is above immutability then going against consensus to uphold immutability is shady as fuck. Case and point immutability can be used to empower or to exploit/take advantage of people, same with consensus, if ETH would have agreed to some unconscionable act it would violate the principles of integrity and good will which are above consensus and underpin most every community, except maybe ETC where 51% attacks are "consensus".
So your argument is that communities should always agree and accept majority rule no matter the circumstances? Forking is a key part of decentralization. All blockchains have come to consensus at the moment. I know this because there aren't any forks happening presently.
I'm not even bullish on ETC and here you are bashing it and pretending like I'm anti-consensus. The OP is about Bitcoin. Bitcoin came to overwhelming consensus that rolling back the blockchain for a small hack is a laughable notion.
There is no argument to be had here,
but that hasn't stopped you from looking for one.
So your argument is that communities should always agree and accept majority rule no matter the circumstances?
How did you get that from what I said, that communities should always accept majority rule no matter the circumstances?
Case and point immutability can be used to empower or to exploit/take advantage of people, same with consensus, if ETH would have agreed to some unconscionable act it would violate the principles of integrity and good willwhich are above consensus and underpin most every community
I'm not even bullish on ETC and here you are bashing it and pretending like I'm anti-consensus.
How did you invent this? Where did you concoct the idea that I was attacking you in any way or Bashing ETC? You think that pointing out the fact that anyone can 51% attack the ETC network for about the cost of a bitcoin is bashing it and why are you getting defensive over the fact that by your own logic if consensus precedes immutability then ETC went against the consensus that formed?
If immutability is used to exploit then it's worth shit, same with consensus, after all these things are here to empower people not to be the tools of exploitation.
Immutability is an adjective that means unchangeable and in the case of the DOA hack it was all about which takes precedence, immutability or consensus and numerous articles have been written directly about immutability Vs consensus in regards to the DOA hack. So yes, if consensus is above, if it includes, if it precedes immutability then when a super-majority consensus forms and says we roll back then saying that you can't because immutability is dubious at best since immutability is now used to exploit/abuse.
Plz, as if it doesn't pertain to the topic or my initial query is a non query. The argument is that if consensus is above immutability then going against consensus to uphold immutability is shady as fuck. Case and point immutability can be used to empower or to exploit/take advantage of people, same with consensus, if ETH would have agreed to some unconscionable act it would violate the principles of integrity and good will which are above consensus and underpin most every community, except maybe ETC where 51% attacks are "consensus".
So your argument is that communities should always agree and accept majority rule no matter the circumstances? Forking is a key part of decentralization. All blockchains have come to consensus at the moment. I know this because there aren't any forks happening presently.
I'm not even bullish on ETC and here you are bashing it and pretending like I'm anti-consensus. The OP is about Bitcoin. Bitcoin came to overwhelming consensus that rolling back the blockchain for a small hack is a laughable notion.
There is no argument to be had here,
but that hasn't stopped you from looking for one.
So your argument is that communities should always agree and accept majority rule no matter the circumstances?
How did you get that from what I said, that communities should always accept majority rule no matter the circumstances?
I'm not even bullish on ETC and here you are bashing it and pretending like I'm anti-consensus.
How did you invent this? Where did you concoct the idea that I was attacking you in any way or Bashing ETC? You think that pointing out the fact that anyone can 51% attack the ETC network for about the cost of a bitcoin is bashing it and why are you getting defensive over the fact that by your own logic if consensus precedes immutability then ETC went against the consensus that formed?
If immutability is used to exploit then it's worth shit, same with consensus, after all these things are here to empower people not to be the tools of exploitation.
Posted using Partiko Android
Consensus doesn't precede immutability. Consensus determines immutability. You are trying to pose an argument that doesn't exist:
Consensus vs Immutability
It's like asking:
Where fiat is to consensus as USD is to immutability.
Where countries is to consensus as China is to immutability.
Which takes precedence? Language or Spanish?
One contains the other.
Immutability is an adjective that means unchangeable and in the case of the DOA hack it was all about which takes precedence, immutability or consensus and numerous articles have been written directly about immutability Vs consensus in regards to the DOA hack. So yes, if consensus is above, if it includes, if it precedes immutability then when a super-majority consensus forms and says we roll back then saying that you can't because immutability is dubious at best since immutability is now used to exploit/abuse.
Posted using Partiko Android
#lastword
Agree to disagree = I don't have anything meaningful to back up my position with so I'll rather argue from silence
Posted using Partiko Android