Quote from: Hibryda on July 02, 2016, 03:01:10 PM

My colleague posted here my article and frankly I never expected such moderate reaction.

I don't care much about the precedent - I wrote about it in the first part of this article here. But frankly speaking I agree with your further arguments about that this mechanism can be further exploited in malicious ways. But, as it's known from the beginning and since nothing has happened I can safely assume that setting this precedent only uncovers this to the crowd, not to bad guys up there.

I don't think that ETH is likely to disappear. It has some interesting features worth consideration. But I agree that it's still very flawed system. Full of irresponsible decisions in terms of structure and governance. We'll see what will happen in the future.

Wow! Welcome!

I think I understand your point about the precedent. You're right...there probably isn't any MORE reason now than there was before for any government or corporation to fork/roll back/control the blockchain. And I'm sure that Apple with $160 billion in cash or Microsoft with $85 billion in cash have recognized that they COULD easily do whatever they want to do.

I still have some concern about how the Foundation has taken the lead on it, though. What happens if VB gets busted with a yacht full of hookers and cocaine? Would the DEA be able to put enough pressure on him PERSONALLY to get him to get the miners to collude? Maybe that wouldn't have nefarious purposes...but what if his parents/girlfriend/boyfriend/CHILD got kidnapped? Would kidnappers pressure him to exercise his leadership in a truly nefarious way? You could ask for $1 million to return a person. Or you could make 20x that by shorting and forcing one man to exercise a power he has that he probably shouldn't have.

Satoshi NEVER had that individual cult-of-personality or power. Maybe that's why he/she has been anonymous the whole time.