You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: oooohhhhhhh. :X Wait is this fucking true?
I wasn’t trash talking I was making legit statement about ability in response to arguments against eos. Give me control of 51% hashpower if any chain and I’ll freeze all accounts to prove point.
Sigwit is basically implemented using this same power.
Are you sure this is not a false equivalence? I can kind of see your point being an argument based on principles. If the miners did collude they could freeze your wallet. Or at least they could slow it down dramatically and make transactions a heck of a lot more expensive.
But its not part of the core design of ETH to be this way either. But I guess that is kind of irrelevant. What does it matter if it was the core design if its still possible? Thing is though, this seems pretty unlikely to actually happen. But yeah I guess it is actually true, it COULD happen.
It's interesting how a lot of people are rallying against the EOS constitution (which I know very little about, other than it exists and sounds reasonable on the surface) and how it enable some form of community / decentralized governance. I don't know if there's anything that will ever be 'perfectly decentralized' while also reliable, useful, and secure.
I feel like the transparency behind the EOS constitution, and making it a bit more robust (requiring block producers to validate / discuss) seems like a reasonable compromise. I believe Noam Chomsky spoke of anarchist systems as (I'm paraphrasing) "no harmful, or unjustifiable governance / authority". It's inevitable that, to interact with communities and societies, there needs to be SOME form of governance. Trying to control it and take it back is only reasonable.