When you create a currency you are proposing a contract to the users who adopt it. They should understand the rules of the currency before they decide to join and use it.
I want to create/join/use a currency supported by an immutable blockchain, that under no circumstance will allow any kind of roll back in transaction history.
So if Duniter introduces a feature that allows for account freezing or transaction roll-backs then it needs to be optional (as one of the rules of the currency).
Of course anyone is always free to hard-fork a chain, but then they will need to convince people to stop using one currency and start using another, with different rules. That’s OK.
On the subject of Ethereum, they broke their promise of immutable transactions. As an early adopter of ETH I lost all confidence in the project when they hard-forked. How can you trust a currency that can selectively freeze accounts or reverse transactions? It’s no better than Paypal.
I agree too. That’s why having a really small pool of entities allowed to mine is bad for a supposely P2P blockchain. And why I’m really happy to see such a nice distribution of computers since the release of version 0.4
Well, people can change their mind, and you can still use ETC. They did not lie to you (well, maybe the developers), but community has made the choice to refute the initial statement of immunablity.
But finally, there is no such thing as absolute guarantee, and that’s more particularly true when talking about human behaviors. Because:
You never know
We (developers) do not decide, we only write rules
Users apply the rules
It seems 3 good reasons to not promise to you, or to any other human being, born or to be born, anything!
Oui, pour moi aussi c’est un objectif (à garder en tête), et non pas un pré-requis pour démarrer. C’est d’ailleurs ce que je lui ai répondu.
En restant éveillé sur ces points, commes les algos, peut-etre aussi qu’on trouvera assez vite une alternative (il en existe peut-etre déjà).
Of course they can. Duniter is great because it allows those people to easily create a new currency to match their changed minds.
Technically we can make some guarantees as long as some pre-conditions hold true.
When talking about human behaviours you are right, but I would even argue in that case that the only constant (guarantee) is change. I’m not against change, as long as we make changes going forward, not retrospectively change what already happened (the immutability of historical events).
This means we have to be careful, because if we make a mistake that costs us (especially financially) we will not be in a position to erase that mistake (to the detriment of others).
