Twitter | Search | |
Erik Voorhees
People should refrain from saying a coin is “centralized” or “decentralized.” Centralization is by definition a spectrum, and various coins exist along this spectrum, often moving up or down it over time.
Reply Retweet Like More
Attila Aros Mar 13
Replying to @ErikVoorhees
People should refrain saying "I'm hungry" or "I'm not hungry". Hunger is by definition a spectrum and various human states exist along this spectrum, often moving up or down it over time.
Reply Retweet Like
Erik Voorhees Mar 13
Replying to @AttilaAros
Hunger is subjective to a single individual. "Centralization" is not... it's subjective to a group (or perhaps objective if we get better at measuring it). My suggestion was how we as a community can better discuss the topic without false dichotomies.
Reply Retweet Like
Attila Aros Mar 13
Replying to @ErikVoorhees
Every message is intended to persuade the reader in some way. Your message is to divert people from the fact (and it is a fact) that you allow people to trade securities that are in a common (ie: centralized) enterprises. Btw: all states are subjective only to individuals
Reply Retweet Like
Erik Voorhees Mar 13
Replying to @AttilaAros
What security am I allowing to be traded?
Reply Retweet Like
Attila Aros Mar 14
Replying to @ErikVoorhees
All of the centralized coins are securities by definition. That's why it matters whether something is "centralized" or "decentralized". 1. An investment of money 2. In a common enterprise 3. With an expectation of profit largely from the efforts others Point 2. "Centralized"
Reply Retweet Like
Plust de Tran Mar 13
Replying to @ErikVoorhees
3 things matter in crypto: 1. Can it be deleted or changed? 2. Can a third party identify me? 3. Is it highly reliable across time and space? Everything else is just marketing BS.
Reply Retweet Like
Erik Voorhees Mar 13
Replying to @BillBloggs10
None of those have binary answers, either.
Reply Retweet Like
Plust de Tran Mar 13
Replying to @ErikVoorhees
Yes, they do, but centralization/decentralization is a state of being that is intended to serve a purpose. A 99.999% decentralized crypto that doesn’t effect censorship resistance and trustlessness is functionally invalid.
Reply Retweet Like
CZ Binance Mar 12
Replying to @ErikVoorhees
echo this, 100%.
Reply Retweet Like
Almighty Mar 12
two CENTRALIZED entities giving eachother credit on a spectrum of nonsense..
Reply Retweet Like
Bruce Fenton Mar 13
Replying to @ErikVoorhees
People should also be aware that being centralized alone does not make a token or coin a security under US law. Something can be centralized and still not fall under the definition of a security.
Reply Retweet Like
Jay 4.669 [ #yesBTC|RightToChoose #noGuns|BCH ] Mar 13
there is nothing moral or immoral to the definition of security. a security can be a scam, a non-security can be a scam. Having said that, the SEC will never call a decentralized blockchain, a security, since there's nothing they can do about it, anyways.
Reply Retweet Like
cryptooling Mar 12
Replying to @ErikVoorhees
Doesn't matter if it's on a spectrum. We need to be vocal about centralised garbage.
Reply Retweet Like
Liberty.Crypto. Mar 12
Replying to @ErikVoorhees
Reply Retweet Like
Liberty.Crypto. Mar 12
Handsome. ❤️ Machine
Reply Retweet Like
Catfish Mar 12
Do it!
Reply Retweet Like
Liberty.Crypto. Mar 12
💪❤️🎩
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel "not giving away GoldmanTokens" Goldman Mar 12
Replying to @ErikVoorhees
Often it's a spectrum, but sometimes centrallization actually is binary; i.e., closed source codebase, permissioned "consensus" control to a single entity, etc.
Reply Retweet Like
xeroc Mar 13
Replying to @DZack23 @ErikVoorhees
Actually, there is decentralization of coin issuance, and then there is decentralization of the blockchain. Anyone calling am ERC20 coin decentralized, misses the power the 'issuer' has over it.
Reply Retweet Like
Daniel "not giving away GoldmanTokens" Goldman Mar 13
Replying to @xer0c @ErikVoorhees
there are different issuance models for erc20s
Reply Retweet Like
xeroc Mar 14
Replying to @DZack23 @ErikVoorhees
`s/has over it/might have over it/`
Reply Retweet Like