/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12165543
The problem with this though is that they're actually right, and it is people like you who are the dumbest in the space.
They're right, they've been right all along, and they'll probably continue to be right, having proven absolutely resilient to the most focused and continuous attack campaign in the ecosystem.

>>11937722
>>11937586
Ah, well, that makes more sense then.
Regardless, the post you originally replied to makes it quite clear why lightning / liquid / offchain scaling with an artificially limited first layer in general is a model doomed to fail. Also pic related.

>>11890462
Given that unquestionable fact, you need to construct a mechanism for security out of that territory, not the assumption that the miner's self interest and the chain's interest is aligned. And that is exactly what those checkpoints do, they mean that mining is demoted from the roles of actually deciding which ruleset to use going forward, and assigned instead to simply enforcing that ruleset in the short term over the ledger.
From your own narrative, this was already correct as soon as BCHBTC split happened because the reason for that split broke nakamoto consensus, as miners were prepared to let BTC die entirely because it was less profitable than BCH, but now even from the perspective of people who believed that BCH was unequivocally correct to fork from BTC and it was the developers who required sanction, we now have a case where the ongoing hashrate based on market conditions is inadequate to defend against an irrational actor signaling for an idiotic ruleset which they demonstrably can't fucking handle.
So, if hashpower as a final judicator is broken, and developers as a final judicator is also broken, and all the individual pieces of the system as a final judicator is broken, the only way to assemble an actually robust system from those broken pieces is not to rely on any single one of them. And that is exactly what happens when you add checkpointing. Hashpower still matters, code issued for nodes still matters, market price still matters, all of it matters. No single piece of the puzzle holds primacy anymore. And what's more this indicates that the ABC devs are not dogmatic about doing what works. They understand the goal of the project; tamper and censorproof peer to peer electronic cash for the entire world, and they will do whatever is necessary to accomplish that goal.

>>11874860
>>11874937
>>11874944
What you're not getting with all your criticisms is that --they made it that way--
http://archive.is/CaYTZ

>>11865830

>>11806661
> let's give them control of the production layer and the tx processing nodes on the consumer layer and let them operate them in private, what could possibly go wrong?
My god you coretards are so fucking stupid, are you literally the stupidest people in crypto? I think you just may be.

>>11804920
No, if they did they never would've needed to change it to subvert the actual original intention.
They have done that now though, and indeed that is what BTC presently does.

Is this for real?