Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tsimionescu 1718 days ago
Yes, much better to give such control to an algorithm and protocol written and controlled by a handful of engineers and mining pool owners.

And make no mistake: in a state that allows or encourages financial institutions to discriminate, you will eventually be discriminated against with Bitcoin as well. The state may not have caught up to the technology yet, but social problems can't be fixed with technology.
2 comments
kybernetikos 1718 days ago
> social problems can't be fixed with technology.

Do you think that 'social problems can't be caused by technology'? Because if social problems can be caused by technology then surely they can solve them too.

link
tsimionescu 1718 days ago
Yes, I also think social problems can't be caused by technology. Technology is neutral - if we're using it to do harm, it's harmful. If we're using it to help, it helps.

Note that this is not 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Guns do kill people, so they must be regulated. The gun violence problem in the USA is not the fault of guns, it's the fault of the way US society chooses to regulate access to guns.

link
CryptoPunk 1717 days ago
The protocol is publicly defined, and immutable. There is no need to trust any engineers, or give them any control, just as you don't need to trust the developers of open source software in order to trust the software.

And it is much harder for a state to ban a blockchain, than impose laws on centralized financial intermediaries that lead to rampant banking discrimination. The former will cost far more, in economic resources and political capital, to enforce.

link
tsimionescu 1717 days ago
The protocol is not immutable, and there have been several changes to it in the early days, and several proposed changes that keep being discussed (such as the famous block size limit change). If the people developing the software and the major mining groups agree on a change, who will stop them?
link
CryptoPunk 1717 days ago
It is extremely hard to organize a protocol change that succeeds in tampering with existing smart contacts, let alone eliminates the permissionless/neutrality guarantees of a public blockchain with significant adoption.

For a public blockchain with as large a userbase as Ethereum, a protocol change that nullifies its neutrality and permissionless-ness would be nearly impossible for any group to push through.

It's absolutely incomparable to traditional banks, with respect to the degree of resistance to interference from governments.

link