The Daily Steem: Is There a Moral Duty to Rollback a Hack?
I'm under the impression that this particular perspective stands in direct conflict with certain principles upheld by many in the crypto-verse.
But I do believe that there is a subtle moral question in the debate of immutability that needs to be addressed.
Let us assume that malicious behavior is well defined, and distinguishable from expected interaction in a particular system.
That is to say malicious behavior is readily identifiable.
Let us also assume that it is possible to hardfork a particular blockchain to effectively erase a particular hack.
Consider a scenario where an entity within a wider crypto-economy has suffered a hack, that has sufficiently impacted the wider crypto-economy.
A decision not to hardfork after a hack has occurred, would mean a deliberate decision not to reverse the hack and to not to make whole the non-malicious actors in the system that suffered from it.
This would be a decision to value blockchain immutability more dearly than the direct losses suffered by non-malicious actor.
Of course, this loss suffered by non-malicious actors, is a gain for a malicious actor.
This raises certain questions in regards to the moral implications of allowing malicious behavior to be rewarded.
Is blockchain immutability a tenet that should be valued over all?
Upon what basis should blockchain immutability be valued so dearly?
Should moral trade-off always favour blockchain immutability?
Perhaps more importantly:
Is there no place for morality in programmable governance?
I, personally, have begun to wonder if we are entering a new governmental paradigm, where actions are restricted only to the extent of what can possibly be done - a system in which morality has no place.
More precisely, it would seem to me that to consistently uphold the principle of immutability, would be to endorse such a system of governance.
I upvoted You
https://steemit.com/steem/@dan/draft-steem-constitution
Thanks for that link.
But it seems to fortify my last point. The moral cost of not rolling back is assumed to uphold immutability.
In my understanding the draft takes a balanced approach.
The blockchain will not be rolled back, however, its interpretation may change.
In case of an actual bug (i. e. the implementation does not match its intent), remedy is possible.
Immutability is a high good, but it's not the only one. It may have to be sacrificed for higher goods. The if/what/when must be decided on a case by case basis.
Hi! This post has a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 12.7 and reading ease of 39%. This puts the writing level on par with academic journals.