(This is a rhetorical question.)
EDIT: Why the downvotes? It's not okay to discuss the fact that in the possibility of human error (assuming this is one, and not a very wild —yet successful— bet on a laundering attempt), the incapacity to cancel transaction may be a problem?
(Of course, that rollback also demonstrated that Ethereum is a centralised coin with a controlling entity, and that 'code is law' is just a lie, but that's another story)
"This guy who we all hate now owns $100MM in ETH? Now he doesn't."
At best a cabal of miners could censor you by refusing to include your transactions into blocks, and refusing to mine on top of any block that includes your transaction. But only while they maintain a majority of hashing power.
But that's exactly what we were talking about: hard forks that change how the protocol works. The parent comment that you responded to is correct in that theoretically a majority of miners could fork Ethereum to steal $100M from a single person.
In the event of a contested hard fork both chains would continue to live, because some miners would mine chain A, and some miners would mine chain B. Yes, miners who mine the old chain would not accept blocks from miners who mine the new chain, you are correct about that, but the same statement holds true in reverse: miners who run the new chain would not accept blocks from miners who mine the old chain.
If a majority of miners decided to steal $100M by forking the chain, they absolutely could do that, even if the majority of users would support the old chain. In that event the tokens (which used to be worth $100M) would now exist on both chains, and it would be up to the market to decide how much the tokens are worth on each chain.
Nope, I was very clear that in this context there is more than one network, so expressions like your "by definition the network has rejected invalid blocks" doesn't make sense. Network A rejects blocks by network B, and network B rejects blocks by network A. There is more than one network. You don't need to look further than Ethereum Classic to see that this can happen in practice. The "minority chain" doesn't just disappear magically.
The original implication was you don't want to piss miners off otherwise they can unilaterally decide to take your money away. That is false.
I think it's not impossible to imagine miners and nodes voting to hard-fork a coin because some genocidal villain, Mr LiterallyHitler, had a large amount of wealth wrapped up in it.
If you are retreating your argument to that goal post, then we are in agreement: pissing off miners will not result in miners stealing your money. Your original argument was stronger, however. You were asserting that a minority-supported fork would not be able to steal money, which is not true.
It is a common misconception that miners, because they are the ones who produce new blocks, have power over the network and set the rules. That is not the case. Miners determine the order and inclusion of __valid__ transactions. Deleting your money would require a fork. Even if a majority of miners mined their own fork but didn't get users/nodes on board they would be wasting their time on what is essentially an altcoin that they alone care about. The network would ignore them and your $100M has not been deleted because it still exists on the chain everyone actually cares about.
There are only so many different ways I can state the above idea (going-on 4 times in this thread alone). If you still disagree, then I'm sorry I wasn't able to explain it any better. I'm going to politely decline from responding any further to this thread because I think we are just wasting each others' time.
[1]
"I guess you'd better hope you're never on the wrong side, politically, from a majority of ETH miners."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28678451
[2]
Let’s not mention what Satoshi did in 2010 with the 184 billion BTC hack though ;)
If the downvotes were inappropriate, other users will usually correct them (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), but off-topic, guidelines-breaking complaints like the one you added don't get garbage-collected when that happens, so they linger on, adding noise to the thread.
How much of this economic weight is real, at least in the case of Tether, is another story. I suspect we'll find out in the next few years as regulation ramps up.
There isn’t anything to “fork” in USD since it isn’t a blockchain, but different USD settlement layers get out of sync and have to be manually reconciled. If you instead tried to “fork”/replicate USD in that situation, you’d probably be thrown in jail for life. I personally prefer the blockchain way of expressing my option through code and seeing if anyone wants to follow me and not having to ask for permission.
Quiet, now. We don't want people to know about systemic risks to crypto.
Now, Ethereum has another way to fix this: forbid transactions that use a gas fee MUCH MUCH larger than the current average one.
If it's not included yet you need to send another transaction with the same nonce that sends yourself 0 ether but with a higher gas price asap, this is not a guarantee however because the miner would probably still go with the transaction that is more profitable for them and because the fee was so high it got included in under 1 minute.
So once this transaction landed in the (public?) mempool it was gg.
Here's an example of traditional finance screwing someone over for making an obvious mistake. Where's this ability to reverse transactions when you need it? https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/a-fascinating-...
You're assuming there's some benevolent God who can arbitrate who's right and who's wrong. In reality, people get screwed by bad payment reversal decisions all the time and there's no objective way to decide in every case.
Literally nobody assumes this. Please don't invent strawmen.
The point is, even with all the failings of the courts, different interpretations of language, and every other flaw, it's still better than having no recourse at all.
> There's fraud where people buy an item online, then claim they never received it and get their payment refunded while keeping the item.
And of course, the blockchain solves none of this. It just makes rectifying the problem far more difficult.
If you just call the boss of reversals and say "sorry I made a terrible mistake, please reverse the payment", how can he trust that you're not the fraudster yourself? Even in the case in this article, how can any 3rd party truly know that it was a mistake and not just someone pretending it was a mistake so they can get it back?
Blockchain solves the problem of chargeback fraud. It's one specific class of fraud but it's solved by that technology even if other classes of fraud are created.
> And of course, the blockchain solves none of this. It just makes rectifying the problem far more difficult.
Web3 stores would use an escrow service for physical goods where the buyer's money goes into the escrow contract and gets released to the seller when the buyer receives the item. In the case of a dispute it would summon a Kleros jury of say 30 jurors who would look at the presented evidence and come to consensus on an outcome. A lot of these problems have already been solved in a decentralized way but it's still early days so higher complexity projects take a while to come to fruition.
Also:
> There's fraud where people buy an item online, then claim they never received it and get their payment refunded while keeping the item.
A blockchain can't solve that kind of problems. And it never will. It is not because something is written on a blockchain that it is true, except for cryptocurrencies because that is how they define truth. But as soon as you have something happen in the real-world (in your example, an item sent in exchange for a payment), then a blockchain is useless, or at least, it is not any more useful than any type of ledger.
A blockchain can solve "didn't receive the item" fraud because the merchant has the payment before they send the item and can refuse to refund it. Of course it creates a new kind of risk for the buyer, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Your example is a good one: that particular case was carefully scrutinized by the court and the judge decided that the outcome was reasonable, mainly because the creditors who received the money were owed the money. If the outcome was obviously unreasonable, e.g. Citibank had simply sent $1B to some random address, of course the judge would have reversed it.
It still exists, and note that the case did reach a court. It just happens that the beneficieries were also owed that money, and that allowed them to win the subsequent lawsuit:
https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2021/02/24/how-the-litig...
As long as you understand that I don't see the problem. I use cash a lot myself. Of course, we basically did invent the entire banking system to get away from the many downsides of literally lugging bags of gold around, like theft and loss without recourse.
Meanwhile in this case the miner gave back the money so maybe the tech isn't the issue?
If they are lucky, they may be able to reach out to the miner and get a portion returned. Probably just tough luck though.
in limited cases you can perform another operation which makes the preceding operation illegal.
in normal cases, not being able to cancel is the entire point of the technology.
Your post is basically this, but less humorous so people are upset. https://xkcd.com/538/
So to answer your question, how you revert this transaction is to buy $5 wrench and go have a conversation with the miner.