@angela_walch Extremely hard, quickly asymptotically approaching economically infeasible. :-)
@angela_walch IDK, it’s much more convenient to fit “immutable” into a tweet than it is “provably thermodynamically expensive to revert.”
@gubatron @docbtc But yeah, from some perspectives mutability is a feature. From others immutability is a feature.
@gubatron @docbtc Goes back to @aantonop’s first point: nothing is perfectly immutable. The question is what system costs most to mutate.
@gubatron @docbtc If consensus is federated then it should also be trivial cost to change the implementation.
@wsculley @philfrancis77 You want to understand @lightning Network?
https://t.co/OI8qXZ4ADG
https://t.co/3JfGR2Qjrm
@wsculley @philfrancis77 @aantonop It seems reasonably possible, though we’ll just have to wait and see…
@wsculley @philfrancis77 @aantonop Decentralization is a continuum, not a boolean. I wrote about mining here: https://t.co/k0k3QIP9Ot
@wsculley @philfrancis77 @aantonop To my knowledge, all long-range attacks are theoretical. I’m not aware of any ever being carried out.
@twobitidiot It really depends upon how much you value immutability and censorship resistance. Avg person may not care, but @wikileaks does.
@wsculley @philfrancis77 @aantonop The result is that long-range mining attacks that rewrite history are much cheaper in PoS.
@mzdr0 @paul_btc @ofnumbers @ArthurB @aantonop’s definition is great; now we just need consensus upon it. Perhaps a Twitter poll?
@paul_btc @ofnumbers @ArthurB @aantonop “Immutability” is a trigger word since people define it differently - nothing is 100% immutable :-)
@ofnumbers @ArthurB @aantonop You mean because given sufficient hashing power and time, a chain can be rewritten?
@ofnumbers @ArthurB It sounds like you’re talking about tamper evidence. Recommend watching @aantonop describe difference in his talk.
@ArthurB @aantonop Not if they are censoring transactions that they are legally allowed (or even obligated) to censor.
Bitcoin Unlimited is accepting proposals to fund projects that research and improve Bitcoin scaling. https://t.co/mO7VZrhwfi
@ArthurB That’s tamper evidence. @aantonop is referring to cost for miners to collude against users.
@stanmarion @aantonop Recommend watching https://t.co/z7N64ZV0sa - it becomes prohibitively expensive to maintain a long-term rewrite.
“Distributed ledgers run by banking consortiums via federated consensus have a cost of 0 to rewrite history. Not immutable.” -@aantonop
Our ancestors said “it’s as good as written in stone.”
Our grandchildren will say “it’s as good as written in the blockchain.”
- @aantonop
@stanmarion @aantonop We’re talking long-term past, not short term. It quickly become uneconomical to change past the further back you go.
“Proof of work is also Proof of Stake. But Proof of Stake is not Proof of Work. With PoW, miners are staking energy (money.)” -@aantonop
“Understand difference between changing the past vs the future. If you have majority hashrate, you can decide future - not past.” -@aantonop
“Blockchains are only inherently tamper-evident. In order to be tamper-proof they need proof of work.” -@aantonop https://t.co/z7N64ZV0sa