Quote from: Chris001 on August 15, 2014, 07:46:58 PM

Quote from: Este Nuno on August 15, 2014, 07:26:01 PM

Quote from: Chris001 on August 15, 2014, 07:22:48 PM

Quote from: coinsolidation on August 15, 2014, 07:12:21 PM

Quote from: Este Nuno on August 15, 2014, 07:07:52 PM

This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology.

Correct. It is distributed and decentralized governance, what the majority decides goes. This happens constantly whether it's moving to a new client or upgrading to a new protocol. That is the design.

Here it is in code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2474

Code:

// Reject block.nVersion=1 blocks when 95% (75% on testnet) of the network has upgraded:
if (block.nVersion < 2 &&
CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, Params().RejectBlockOutdatedMajority()))
{
return state.Invalid(error("AcceptBlock() : rejected nVersion=1 block"),
REJECT_OBSOLETE, "bad-version");
}

Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even close

What would you have done when someone created the 184 billion BTC out of thin air? If we couldn't roll that back BTC would be dead.

It's almost like anything other than this would actually be centralised. Because it would imply controlling the software to prevent change.

No, you are comparing something, and then jumping to a whole different subject, and then acting like these unrealated things prove an outrageous conclusion.

That was a break in the system. The system broke. It had to be fixed.

That was not voting to change a legitimate transaction. Meaning one that was made without the system breaking down.

Taking the system, and changing it, when the system did not break, is a centralized decision.

Bter was robbed of Nxt. Bter should pay the price. People that trusted that central source, including me and my Nxt, should pay the price.

Why? Because that is what happened, that's why. When there can be a vote made to alter the system, to go back in time and erase something, that calls into question many things about that system.

The system should not have the ability to be altered after the fact. It's a ledger, and we HAVE TO FIND a way for that ledger not to be able to be altered.

That is what we need to do next. This is where we are as a community. We are not doing as good as we think, and we are getting worse.

This is a classic example of a flaw that needs to be addressed.

And for you goofs, that think this is an advantage, please log off now, as you are the beginning of the fork we are trying not to go down here, for gods sakes. smh

That's fine that you think it's a flaw. But being able to save the system from exploits like 184 billion BTC one automatically implies the other.

I think it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to figure out a way to invent the system you want. But you never know. There could be some neo-Satoshi out there inventing it now.