Topic: bter hacked and lost 50m nxt - page 14. (Read 25507 times)

I got sucked back in.

Thing is I don't know if everyone doesn't see this as problem because of differing values and/or goals, or because they just haven't thought it through. I store gold or cash under my matress it's usually going to be there later. It won't disappear because I unknowingly bought it off some guy who hacked an exchange. That's just one scenario I can bring clearly to mind but I'm sure there's a many more.

Also one of the selling points of crypto evangelists has always been there's no chargebacks as compared to credit cards, or outright seizures like PayPal or banks in Cyprus.

What you're not realising is that every fork is a separate HISTORY. And like you ask, history can't be changed because of it is cryptographically secured and guaranteed. That's the invention of the blockchain. But I can still copy the history book and start doing my own additions to it on my own version of it. Nothing prevents me from copying a history book, then keep writing it and make my own version of it. It's the nature of data. You copy it, and then you make what you want with it. You are essentially asking to stop file sharing. How is that working out for the lawmakers? There is no way to prevent people from going somewhere else and doing their own thing.

That's fine that you think it's a flaw. But being able to save the system from exploits like 184 billion BTC one automatically implies the other.

I think it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to figure out a way to invent the system you want. But you never know. There could be some neo-Satoshi out there inventing it now.

When these forks happen it is an alternate reality, a new coin.

To this day I refer to Vericoin as Vericoin2, because that's what it is.

The real Vercoin had a boatload of it stolen off of Mintpal

The real Nxt had 5% stolen off of Bter.

The issue is getting to a point where HISTORY can't be changed. I don't think that is impossible at all.

This is a classic example of an unsolvable problem.


You will have to live with blockchains people can fork or roll back. What the blockchain brought to the table is that you could not modify it to your liking, but there is no way to prevent people from what is basically choosing to go use another alt-coin. Unless you want to try to dictatorially force people to use one and only given blockchain, you'll have to accept this and stop yelling at what is essentially a cloud.

it cost a very small fee to be a delegate and the users can vote on delegates that don't misbehave. so basically it prevents the rich 50%+ from rollbacks like ppc/nxt pos.

Delegated Proof of Stake - Let's Talk Bitcoin Episode 129
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdBpoRLmrbA&list=WL#t=726

No, you are comparing something, and then jumping to a whole different subject, and then acting like these unrealated things prove an outrageous conclusion.

That was a break in the system. The system broke. It had to be fixed.

That was not voting to change a legitimate transaction. Meaning one that was made without the system breaking down.

Taking the system, and changing it, when the system did not break, is a centralized decision.

Bter was robbed of Nxt. Bter should pay the price. People that trusted that central source, including me and my Nxt, should pay the price.

Why? Because that is what happened, that's why. When there can be a vote made to alter the system, to go back in time and erase something, that calls into question many things about that system.

The system should not have the ability to be altered after the fact. It's a ledger, and we HAVE TO FIND a way for that ledger not to be able to be altered.

That is what we need to do next. This is where we are as a community. We are not doing as good as we think, and we are getting worse.

This is a classic example of a flaw that needs to be addressed.

And for you goofs, that think this is an advantage, please log off now, as you are the beginning of the fork we are trying not to go down here, for gods sakes. smh

This is a good quote!

I'll try to remember to link to this when this issue inevitably comes up again.

Then what you are asking for is impossible. At some point, coders make choices on what they implement that has an impact on the protocol and the network. Furthermore, it is practically impossible to pretend that you can prevent people from arbitrarily choosing to point their clients to another blockchain. Forks will happen because of bugs, developer intervention, and even because a user has decided to make his own personal fork for whatever reason. There's always a game going on about how many people are going to join a given fork.

The only truely "decentralised" system is the universe. You can not roll back anything, time passes and the laws of physics take care of executing themselves with no possible changes on the "blockchain". No coin that is decentralised in that sense can exist. Cryptocoins are simulations of a universe, but humans are one level on top of it, and the protocol can not reach out and prevent somebody from fiddling with the controls. It would be like sort of Skynet world playing God with its own creators.

+1 LMAO!!!

What would you have done when someone created the 184 billion BTC out of thin air? If we couldn't roll that back BTC would be dead.

It's almost like anything other than this would actually be centralised. Because it would imply controlling the software to prevent change.

Thanks for the posts people. Even those I disagree with have helped my understanding. I've got to get out of the ANN pages once in a while. I forgot sensible discussion can take place on bitcointalk.

Later.

Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even close

Yes, in NXT if the 100 people forge with >50% can.

How does Bitshares enforce individuality? What stops sock puppets? That's interesting I hadn't heard that before.

it depends on the hackers identity...

question: so if the people who own 51% of nxt decides to rollback they can just do it right?
what if only like 100 people own 51% of nxt. those 100 people can just rollback and no one can stop them?

bitshares x dpos helps solve this problem because 51% of users would have to agree on a rollback not just the richest 51%.

with btc and other pow coins i think you need like 80%+ of users/nodes to agree.

Correct. It is distributed and decentralized governance, what the majority decides goes. This happens constantly whether it's moving to a new client or upgrading to a new protocol. That is the design.

Here it is in code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2474

I hope it's not an insurmountable problem. If it is maybe we have to choose between lesser of two evils. Have our finances dominated by governments, central banks, and tyrannies of majorities, or dominated by a majority of miners/stakers/forgers with developers having a lot of pull.

This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization