The point is that if you go against consensus, the very mechanism that is used to sign blocks and secure the transactions within then what's the point of doing it when the mechanism is fully capable of simply repeating it once again, besides to nullify all transactions since the hf. I'm not saying that consensus means we can steal or murder, because consensus isn't above property rights. Holding those who stole accountable seems like the best solution, the problem is that there's no real way to do it but it's not outside the realm of possibility to hold the witnesses accountable in whichever jurisdiction they are in over the implicit function they agreed to by seeking to be a witness and secure the network and all that it entailed. There's nothing "interpretive" about the theft, and consensus is never above the function it is designed and intended to accomplish, after all, private property rights is all crypto is concerned with.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: