On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:44 AM Conner Fromknecht wrote: > I don't normally post here, but I'm sorry, if you don't see those two as > equal, then I think you have misunderstood the *entire* value proposition > of cryptocurrencies. > > The state of any cryptocurrency should entirely (and only) be defined by > its ledger. If the state of the system can be altered outside of the rules > governing its ledger, then the system isn't secure. This is true of any blockchain: you can always change the rules with the consent of the participants. > It doesn't matter whether the people making those changes are the ones > that are leading the project or not. An "irregular state change" is a fancy > term for a bailout. > > I'm sure I speak for more than myself in saying that an "irregular state > change" is equivalent to modifying the underlying ledger. Let's not let > semantics keep us from recognizing what actually took place. > It's not; modifying the ledger would rewrite history, erasing the record of the original transactions. That's a fundamentally different operation, both technically and semantically. > -Conner > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 14:14 Nick Johnson via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:27 PM Tao Effect wrote: >> >>> Nick, >>> >>> Please don't spread misinformation. Whatever you think of the DAO hard >>> fork, it's a simple fact that the Ethereum ledger was not edited. >>> >>> >>> This sort of email is unhelpful to this conversation, and it certainly >>> doesn't help with the perception that Ethereum is nothing but a bunch of >>> hypocritical Bankers 2.0. >>> >> >> >>> >>> Everyone knows you didn't edit Ethereum Classic, but the the hard fork, >>> which was re-branded as Ethereum, was edited. >>> >> >> That's not what I was suggesting. My point is that the ledger was never >> edited. An 'irregular state change' was added at a specific block height, >> but the ledger remains inviolate. >> >> I'm sure I don't have to explain the difference between the ledger and >> the state to you, or why it's significant that the ledger wasn't (and can't >> be, practically) modified. >> >> -Nick >> >> >>> - Greg >>> >>> -- >>> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with >>> the NSA. >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:25 AM, Nick Johnson wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:02 AM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev >>>> wrote: >>>> > I believe the severity of replay attacks is going unvoiced and is not >>>> > understood within the bitcoin community because of their lack of >>>> experience >>>> > with them. >>>> >>>> Please don't insult our community-- the issues with replay were >>>> pointed out by us to Ethereum in advance and were cited specifically >>>> in prior hardfork discussions long before Ethereum started editing >>>> their ledger for the economic benefit of its centralized >>>> administrators. >>> >>> >>> Please don't spread misinformation. Whatever you think of the DAO hard >>> fork, it's a simple fact that the Ethereum ledger was not edited. >>> >>> -Nick Johnson >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >