> Agreed; very little is truly absolutely immutable
Dissonance leads to conflicted statements. Parsing conflicted statements often leads to dissonance. Tread carefully.
The only absolute truth is that I exist. That fact, while I'm observing it, is immutable. The cost of this immutability is my life, or my life's suffering in aggregate. The fact my life will end at some point means that, when viewed in aggregate, all existences are mutable at some point.
Which means that nothing is permanent, which means your statement is in conflict. Conflicted statements may be parsed and proved wrong. It is my opinion your thoughts here are valuable and should not be proved wrong until explored fully.
As long as the cost of changing the blockchain is higher than the return on changing it, the chain remains immutable. It may turn mutable someday, but that doesn't mean it's not immutable right now. Anyone arguing contrary to these evident facts is practicing/exploiting inefficiencies in the system.
>As long as the cost of changing the blockchain is higher than the return on changing it, the chain remains immutable
I'm sorry, but that is not a logically correct statement; it's a statement of rational behaviour - I give you that, but there is no bar to an irrational actor altering the blockchain purely out of spite or caprice - possibly incurring mortal harm in the process.
>It may turn mutable someday, but that doesn't mean it's not immutable right now.
Again - this is not a logically correct statement.
> > As long as the cost of changing the blockchain is higher than the return on changing it, the chain remains immutable
> I'm sorry, but that is not a logically correct statement
I'd love to see a logical argument presenting how a hypothetical irrational actor can alter a blockchain of significant value without either a hypothetical attack vector or a few billion years compute time.
"China" is an aggregate of consensus and cannot act "alone" as an irrational actor. If they colluded to change a transaction, there would be a net split and everyone would know. Again, I'm standing by the cost analysis of acting as an irrational actor indicating those actors will not act unless the aggregate itself is irrational, which is a rare and separate issue as that being discussed.
Dissonance leads to conflicted statements. Parsing conflicted statements often leads to dissonance. Tread carefully.
The only absolute truth is that I exist. That fact, while I'm observing it, is immutable. The cost of this immutability is my life, or my life's suffering in aggregate. The fact my life will end at some point means that, when viewed in aggregate, all existences are mutable at some point.
Which means that nothing is permanent, which means your statement is in conflict. Conflicted statements may be parsed and proved wrong. It is my opinion your thoughts here are valuable and should not be proved wrong until explored fully.
As long as the cost of changing the blockchain is higher than the return on changing it, the chain remains immutable. It may turn mutable someday, but that doesn't mean it's not immutable right now. Anyone arguing contrary to these evident facts is practicing/exploiting inefficiencies in the system.