A double spend attack which is mistakenly called a 51% attack is what every blockchain seeks to prevent to maintain the integrity of it's ledger. Tampering with account balances was never considered a defense to such an attack, what is worse is the suggestion that a blockchain can survive these attacks if they only happen once in awhile.
What makes u even think? I dont understand why people think vitalik makes such decisions. Its not like he will have control over stakeholders just like he does not have control over miners.
If he does not have control over stake holders, there will be a solution. "We" just edit their balances and go on. But seriously now, if you want to continue looking the other way, it's fine. If that statement does not concern you, it should.
You don't understand what vitalik was taking about. The 'tampering of balances' you refer to is staked Ether. If you are a validator acting malisciously the Casper contract will take your money. Plain and simple. That is how POS works.
what is worse is the suggestion that a blockchain can survive these attacks if they only happen once in awhile.
This is false and not what vitalik was talking about.
The Ethereum top man just admitted that he has no problem erasing someone's Ether account. He will be the judge and executioner. If this capability exists, it's a matter of time until censorship is implemented on the ethereum blockchain. Perhaps this explains the huge industry support of late, most of which are known for enjoying positions of power and monopoly.
And the Russian government find this interesting, because? That government loves censorship and control. So what benefits do they see? And is that something to worry about? One of the best tools government has today to control people is to take away there money.
They obviously see the economic benefits cryptocurrency can bring to their country.
This has nothing to do with censorship and control. I do not think it is anything to worry about. I have not seen anything troubling in Russia or China.
A double spend attack which is mistakenly called a 51% attack is what every blockchain seeks to prevent to maintain the integrity of it's ledger. Tampering with account balances was never considered a defense to such an attack, what is worse is the suggestion that a blockchain can survive these attacks if they only happen once in awhile.
What makes u even think? I dont understand why people think vitalik makes such decisions. Its not like he will have control over stakeholders just like he does not have control over miners.
If he does not have control over stake holders, there will be a solution. "We" just edit their balances and go on. But seriously now, if you want to continue looking the other way, it's fine. If that statement does not concern you, it should.
u don't just edit anything without consensus. And yes as long as decisions are driven by consensus it is within the design of the system.
Again i would love to understand your concern. But please be reasonable and state your issue, without being drama and propaganda type claims.
I like that you are bringing some reason to this post. Earned my follow.
You don't understand what vitalik was taking about. The 'tampering of balances' you refer to is staked Ether. If you are a validator acting malisciously the Casper contract will take your money. Plain and simple. That is how POS works.
This is false and not what vitalik was talking about.
The Ethereum top man just admitted that he has no problem erasing someone's Ether account. He will be the judge and executioner. If this capability exists, it's a matter of time until censorship is implemented on the ethereum blockchain. Perhaps this explains the huge industry support of late, most of which are known for enjoying positions of power and monopoly.
No he is referring to the Casper contract. When there is an attacker on the network, their staked funds will be deleted.
And the Russian government find this interesting, because? That government loves censorship and control. So what benefits do they see? And is that something to worry about? One of the best tools government has today to control people is to take away there money.
They obviously see the economic benefits cryptocurrency can bring to their country.
This has nothing to do with censorship and control. I do not think it is anything to worry about. I have not seen anything troubling in Russia or China.