can't they just say "we don't support that network" ?
you can't "obligate" an exchange to support your fork
RE: Dear Blurt Community & Followers
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Dear Blurt Community & Followers
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Yeah in the case of crypto you can’t liken it to a bank, but the airdropped funds would have been earned by virtue of user funds so ethically they should make them available to users or else they should burn them. If they are unresponsive the conmunity can burn them via HF
IF they move the funds THEN they must give them back to the original owners
IF they never move the funds THEN they are not obligated to do anything
Yeah but once they move the funds it’s too late there is nothing we can do, the funds can also be used for voting on consensus which could be a risk, their keys could get compromised if they close down due to bear market conditions or regulation and suddenly you have a blackhat with keys to large sums of blurt to mess with consensus.
the courts are responsible for enforcing the law
you are not responsible for enforcing the law
the scenario you describe "blackhat with keys" could happen at any moment
regardless of what happens with these unclaimed exchange tokens
that's why it is important to maintain neutrality and focus on stability
In this case code is law and consensus witnesses are the enforcers. This is a community matter and governance can act in the interests of the community, those who don’t agree with governance decisions can support a different fork.
ok, either that
or continue to engage in conversations on the topic
The exchange burn idea currently has alot of support
any word on which witnesses are the least enthusiastic ?
it is dangerously authoritarian to use the network itself to enforce moral opinion
targeting specific accounts because they "should" do something or "shouldn't" do something is the wet dream of central banks everywhere
Bitcoin is the neutral network, dpos is 100% governance driven, on dpos governance is law. They are not the same.
what is your personally preferred definition of "governance"
Governance = trusted set of witnesses acting in the best interests of the Blurt blockchain and its community.
do you think that perhaps, at some point, the function of the witnesses could be stabilized and the consensus increased to maybe 200 ?
you know, once the bugs are all worked out ?
or do you think "governance" will need to "actively manage" "the community" forever ?
Dpos maintains its fast block speed by cycling signing over a limited witness set, this could increase over time but we barely have more than 30 witnesses so once there are consistently 50 stable witnesses the consensus set could be increased to 30 with 20 backups and scale up proportionately. This would involve some code changes but the more you scale the slower the tx finality throughput becomes.
of course, it's not ready to be set-in-stone yet
i'm talking about "the goal" longer term
can you imagine it becoming a stable and neutral network with a larger consensus ?
what would be the difference in speed between 20 and 200 ?
would the difference be less than a second ?
would the difference be less than a couple of seconds ?
i'm not sure "transaction-speed" is the primary appeal of blurt
imagine if we cut off people's phone service if they said things we dislike ?
imagine if we cut off people's water service if they did things we dislike ?
crypto must be a neutral network