• Fisk400@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because the second the rule becomes inconvenient there will be a fork or some kind of bullshit that removes the rule. This has already been done a couple of times when money got stolen from big investors. The thefts followed the rules set up on the blockchain and nothing in those transactions were different from a normal transaction but humans looked at them and said that they weren’t valid and did whatever technical bullshit they needed to do to reverse them.

    • TitanLaGrange@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      whatever technical bullshit they needed to do to reverse them

      Apparently ultimately this involves hitting the person hiding the encryption keys with a $4 wrench until they provide the keys.

    • mihor@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree, forks can be made but in reality nobody cares, 99.999% still follow the ‘main’ repo. Sometimes shit like that happens (looking at you, Buterik!), but that kinda misses the point that the validation is not implemented optimally.

      • Fisk400@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hope you are aware that you went from “this can’t be broken” to “I trust that people wouldn’t break it” to “sometimes they do break it but it’s not that often” in a very short comment.

        • mihor@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, the nuance is in the number of people who confirm the change, they must be 50% +1.

          • Fisk400@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            So if 50%+1 of people decide that they don’t want to pay artists they can just stop doing that. Sounds iron clad to me.

            • mihor@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s simply the way real decentralization works, I’m afraid.

              • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, that’s the way the blockchain works. It’s one way to do decentralisation, a very bad way based on property and absent of trust.

                A much better way to do decentralisation is what you are currently participating in. Federation is based on trust and building communities, not cold maths dictating who owns a bunch of imaginary bullshit.

              • Fisk400@feddit.nu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s what I am fucking saying! You cant design around greedy fucks. Also this whole discussion I participated in the delusion that those 50% were individual people. We both know that they are not because there is nothing to identify individuals so the system is entirely decided by wealth so it isn’t even decentralized. It’s all just a scam that regularly collapses by design because that is how the rich people extract real money from it.