The 51% attack on the Ethereum Classic (ETC) has made people on Twitter “discussing” about the decentralization concept.
The recent 51% attack that happened to the Ethereum Classic (ETC) network just hours ago has sparked a debate on the Twitter-verse, particularly about the decentralization concept.
A user with the name CryptoTesla made a statement that if a network can’t be 51% attacked, it is not decentralized.
His statement was triggered by the comments of other users on Coinbase’s announcement about the attack.
One of them, which appeared to be a die-hard XRP supporter said, “Phew! Glad I’m all in XRP. Did I mention XRP is immune to double-spend attacks?”, which then responded by a user named Kramer that said, “All centralized databases are immune. The point is being decentralized. Yes shitcoins can be 51% attacked.”
This “conversation” was behind CryptoTesla’s aforementioned statement that managed to grab Litecoin’s founder, Charlie Lee’s attention, among his many comments on the recent 51% attack incident.
Lee said that CryptoTesla’s statement is thought-provoking.
He added that a decentralized cryptocurrency must be susceptible to 51% attack. However, instead of agreeing to CryptoTesla’s statement, he went on saying, “If a crypto can’t be 51% attacked, it is permissioned and centralized.”
This is a thought-provoking observation. 🤔
By definition, a decentralized cryptocurrency must be susceptible to 51% attacks whether by hashrate, stake, and/or other permissionlessly-acquirable resources.
If a crypto can’t be 51% attacked, it is permissioned and centralized. https://t.co/LRCVj5F0O1
— Charlie Lee [LTC⚡] (@SatoshiLite) January 8, 2019
His comments received various comments, with most of them disapproving his opinion, although there are some that agree, such as user Giratina that considers it make sense.