Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)CO
ConnecticutKen @lemmy.world
Posts 0
Comments 9
POV: It's January 19th
  • They're owned by a Chinese company so the Chinese govt has this information. I'm not saying it's a good reason to ban it, or that there isn't another secret reason, or that American companies don't gather the same information. This was the problem all along - China receiving vast amounts of information about Americans. Actually the US was probably worried about China spreading their viewpoints, now that I think more about it. IDK

  • None. Suffer.
  • It works more like loaning money and then receiving interest, except you are loaning crypto to the network and then you get it back, plus some, after a certain period of time

  • None. Suffer.
  • This would just create a fork in the blockchain where 51% of the network doesn't match the correct state of the blockchain that the 49% have. The 49% would effectively stop working because they could never validate the transactions that the 51% takeover has falsely created. The node operators of the 49% of the network would need to reach consensus for how to deal with the problem, but essentially they would just adopt code that ignores the 51% data, so they could continue to process blocks of transactions. Without manual intervention the 49% would be frozen. The 51% is just fake, they haven't really changed anything because every real node operator would know it's false data.

  • None. Suffer.
  • Is it easier to establish a source of trust? With blockchain trust lies in the protocol and in the node operators who make decisions about how to operate their nodes. Running a node isn't extremely difficult. Running a financial institution is difficult.