Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2019, 03:47:22 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Is the attack "51%" legal?  (Read 200 times)
squatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 955


STOP SNITCHIN'


View Profile
July 03, 2018, 09:59:27 PM
 #21

If it's decentralized, there can be no enforceable terms. So, the only thing we have is the code itself. I don't see how the DAO hack could be illegal on that basis according to most common law systems.

Ethereum has a big single point of failure called Vitalik Buterin. It's also not even decentralized. The mining is even worse than Bitcoin, and the nodes is definitely WORSE than Bitcoin at such insane level of growth rate.

I recognize that Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation have significant influence over consensus forks, but that doesn't equate to a "single point of failure." I also recognize that ETH pool mining is highly centralized, but given the state of Bitmain and its proxies, I'm not sure I can agree regarding mining centralization in Bitcoin.

In any case, the Ethereum protocol is properly described as decentralized. It's just a description of how validation works in the protocol. I have no interest in engaging in a pissing contest between BTC and ETH with regard to "degree of centralization." I don't care about that.

There was never an alignment to fork. The fact that Ethereum Classic was created and still exists shows that it was a failed hardfork. A successful fork doesn't generate an altcoin, if there is consensus the legacy chain dies.

As a starting point, we should assume that consensus never exists beyond the protocol one has opted into (by running a node).

Actual consensus to incompatibly fork is logically impossible; that requires 100% of users to not only upgrade, but to agree absent coercion. That's why I oppose any miner-backed hard fork "upgrades" in Bitcoin: if backed by hashpower, they are coercive and therefore unethical.

As such, I'm not of the belief that a "successful" hard fork requires 100% of users to upgrade. There's nothing wrong with communities splitting, and that's exactly what should happen sometimes. The fact that some level of hash power and user base remained on the Classic chain casts doubt on your idea that Vitalik Buterin is the ultimate arbiter as well.

Vitalik and friends lost a lot of money and they recovered it via hardfork. Ethereum is a joke. No "code is law", not a safe store of value, doesn't even scale to be an usable token for common payments. I still don't see why ETH is worth what it is other than it's ability to generate ICO's and Vitalik having big connections like Putin, certain banking groups etc, to keep it in the news.

Okay. I guess Ethereum really gets your goat, huh? Cheesy

Anyway, I don't have a dog in this race. I have no reason to have strong opinions or argue about this crap. If Ethereum only exists as an example of what not to do with Bitcoin, then perhaps it even provides some value to Bitcoin development...

1576165642
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576165642

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1576165642
Reply with quote  #2

1576165642
Report to moderator
1576165642
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576165642

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1576165642
Reply with quote  #2

1576165642
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1211


View Profile
July 04, 2018, 06:19:49 PM
 #22

Quote from: squatter link=topic=4432008.msg41460040#msg41460040  definitely WORSE than Bitcoin at such insane level of growth rate.[/quote

As such, I'm not of the belief that a "successful" hard fork requires 100% of users to upgrade. There's nothing wrong with communities splitting, and that's exactly what should happen sometimes. The fact that some level of hash power and user base remained on the Classic chain casts doubt on your idea that Vitalik Buterin is the ultimate arbiter as well.

Maybe I went overboard saying that Vitalik Buterin is a single point of failure, but I claim that if Vitalik Buterin said that "code is law", would have avoided rolling back the blockchain to recover DAO funds and said that the legacy chain is the real ETH, the balance would have lean towards that and we would see the opposite of what we see today: ETH being the legacy chain with the ETH token, majority of hashrate and support and the DAO fork renamed into god knows what and supported by some minority. That is how much weight I give Vitalik in the project. He is capable of tilting the balance when there is indecision in whatever side he supports, and this is an huge liability for a so called decentralized project.

Then there's this:





Good luck with that.
yesyes18
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 12


View Profile
July 06, 2018, 06:40:19 PM
 #23

Is the attack "51%" legal? In which countries is such an attack pursued by law?
The thing is that I was wondering if there will be any consequences for mining pools (other than loss of reputation) that will make the Attack "51%"?
To me I see 51% attack as a fraudulent activity in blockchain, and hence it can be categorized as illegally. It think because the regulations on crypto are still evolving, they might get regulations for that as well.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!