Topic: [INFO] Νέα άρθρα για το Bitcoin - page 16. (Read 94555 times)

Δεν είπα ότι υπάρχει είπα εαν το αποφασίσουν,ενα hard fork για το block-size θέλει το πολυ 30 max γραμμές κώδικα δεν τίθεται θέμα ασφαλείας εαν οι προγραμματιστές ειναι έμπειροι

δεν υπάρχει τέτοια απόφαση και όλο αυτό βασίζετε σε ψέμα. Η απόφαση τους παραμένει στο χρονοδιάγραμμα που έχουν δώσει οι core developer. Ετσι και αλλιώς δεν υπάρχει πλέον κανείς να υποστηρίξει με ασφάλεια ένα hard fork που δεν είναι και ότι ποιο εύκολο υπάρχει στον χώρο του crypto.

ψέμα είναι αυτό. Αν θέλεις ψάξτο αλλά τα περισσότερα στοιχεία που αναφέρει το άρθρο βασίζονται απλά σε φήμες και ψέματα.

I'm sure you've heard some of the ridiculous Silicon Valley techno utopian fantasies that float around from time to time. Our favorite is the "tech island" concept that gets proposed every few years. It usually comes from a group of techies whose heads get too big as they start spouting off the benefits of a sovereign island with no rules and regulations. Just innovation.

They completely disregard the benefits of the institutional structures our society has built thus far. They take the concept of disruption and stretch it, claiming that everything that's been created in the past is wrong and needs to be redone.

But this makes no sense. There's usually a reason certain systems are in place and have been in place for a number years. While having the disruption mentality may give you fresh eyes to find solutions to old problems, taking it too far becomes harmful to the process. You become the obnoxious intern fresh out of college lecturing 30 year veterans on how to do their jobs. Sure you can make suggestions for improvement, but in reality you don't know shit compared to them and you need to learn.

This is where a giant debate erupted among the Ethereum community. Returning the stolen money to investors would require a manual change to Ethereum's underlying technology. This is a huge deal because it would require human intervention. Which would defeat the whole purpose of a completely autonomous system right? It would ruin the system's sanctity and fly in the face of the principles it was built on. This made the decision a polarizing one. It's ironic because the community is now stuck in political battle, just the kind they hate and created cryptocurrencies to avoid.

It's stupid to think that we can avoid all intervention in a system we created ourselves. There are always inherent human biases that go into the construction of anything. In that sense, nothing we create can be "perfect" and free of human touch. This fact will almost always cause the need for a human to step into a system at some point down the line.

Part two of this unavoidable human intervention concept is the legal side of the DAO robbery. Who's responsible for the stolen funds? Should the developers of the DAO be held accountable? They're the ones that made the crappy code with the holes in it, right? But wait a minute… they were just developers! The system was completely run by machines! The goal was no executives remember?

Ha… good luck telling that to investors

We have contacted the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) to raise awareness of the developments in Ethereum and specifically concepts like the DAO. While we generally support the innovations in cryptography and cybercurrency, the current "wild-west" environment presents dangerous pitfalls for potential investors, as the DAO attack has shown. As such, regulation is required to protect investors in the United States and abroad. We are currently in contact with investigators at the SEC, the ESC (European Securities Committee) and the MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) to explore this matte

@chek2fire, τι έχει γίνει με αυτό το ΒΙP75 και το χαμό που έχει φέρει?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4qdqr0/peter_todd_recommends_boycotting_bip75_due_to/