>>12858333>What for? Contributing to an energy and hardware crisis this crypto shitshow caused?He's arguably the only one able to largely mitigate such impact, by trying to make the second-largest platform totally proof-of-stake-based
>>12857228>>guys, what about Bitcoin TWO, except we can revert transactions if they hurt peoples feelings or if people get scammedBitcoin can do this too. It's a cultural, not a technological, thing. If you have a majority vote where 1 CPU = 1 vote, you dictate what happens.
Satoshi or Gavin could've tried to do this at any time and would probably have had a decent chance of succeeding. As for if they actually would have? Dunno. It could still happen in the future, too
I personally disagree with their decision to rewrite the blockchain due to a buggy contract, but it's not an indictment of the technology. There are plenty of other valid indictments of the technology.
