You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
If so they are again grossly abusing the term "community". Most communities (as a group of people who actually regularly communicate with each other) aren't much restrained when it comes to censoring transactions in their favor against those of people outside their community.
Bitcoin both (a) makes it very difficult to censor (requiring a risky and expensive fork among disparate miner and node stakeholders), and (b) backs that up with a strong ideology of immutability. XRP AFAIK falls far short on both these counts.
![Hectortilla [Jan/3➞₿🔑∎]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/915630542422511616/ncqlLeBu_normal.jpg)
Yes, and I think the Ethereum DAO hardfork (ETH censoring the DAO hacker, ETC choosing not to) highlights that censorship is at its core a concern resolved by ideology & coordination and not technology.
Arguably the BTC community has the strongest immutability preference, but I would really be interested to hear how far reaching you think this should be. Specifically, I think this poll question (rescuing a >1M BTC Liquid federation) is a good litmus test.https://twitter.com/ercwl/status/1051861849422143488?s=19 …
If the Liquid sidechain is somehow broken and new blocks are not signed for a period of time (4 weeks i think), then the timelock expires and BTC is restored.
Yes, but the poll is about the case where there's a bug preventing that.
If Liquid holds more funds than would otherwise be held in an exchange it does weaken the security of bitcoin. It is an attempt to improve custody, but it remains custodial. But if an exchange, or a group of exchanges (Liquid) bust we cannot sacrifice secure money to save it.
However it wouldn’t surprise anyone if a major exchange hack resulted in a hardfork. But smart money would continue to bet on the secure chain as it did SW2X and Bcash. The problem with Eth is that it’s composed of people already betting against the most secure money.
Care to expand on how you think it falls short on both? The only main advantage i see PoW having is you could make assumption on the integrity of a *single* copy of the chain. With XRP you need multiple. Though reality is on a distributed system you would always have multiple.
From my understanding censorship is easier on Bitcoin as the miner assembling the block at the time has complete freedom to exclude txns (cf empty blocks). Not possible with consensus on XRP.
censorship is easier on XRP because there is a small number of UNL nodes that can collude or be controlled. In Bitcoin only one miner can chose to mine empty blocks at his expense. While the tx would just go in the next block if another miner mines it.
But muh new narrative. "Miners destroyed the earth"pic.twitter.com/UoPLkFNG1o
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
