>Miners can absolutely interfere with the expected function of the network, because it's entirely them who determine what the expected function is in the first place
Like I said, the coordination required to interfere with the expected function is implausible and/or prohibitively expensive. You have given no reason to think this isn't true. There's a common argument that goes like: "X can easily happen, all we need is for everyone to do Y". Call this the fallacy of implausible coordination. "We can break the two-party system, we just all need to vote third party". Your comment reads like this.
>Both bitcoin (in 2013) and ethereum (in 2016) have reverted transactions that the miners didn't agree with
I'm aware of the DAO hack and transaction reversal for ethereum, but what exactly are you referring to for bitcoin? In the case of ethereum, they reversed the transaction because the miners did agree with it. But technically, the transaction wasn't reversed, the network was forked. The original network still operates as ethereum classic. If you get enough people together you can change the past on your alternate chain. But that is not an example of a transaction being reversed.
And please, keep any further replies to focused arguments and free of ranting.
It’s a is ref to https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawi... however I don’t think that’s really in the same class to the Eth chain split. It was a db bug, it got fixed, “infra” bugs. Eth was a forced onchain state fix. “Business logic bugs”.
It is disingenuous to point to the 2013 incident and say this proves a lack-of-decentralization myth.
Like I said, the coordination required to interfere with the expected function is implausible and/or prohibitively expensive. You have given no reason to think this isn't true. There's a common argument that goes like: "X can easily happen, all we need is for everyone to do Y". Call this the fallacy of implausible coordination. "We can break the two-party system, we just all need to vote third party". Your comment reads like this.
>Both bitcoin (in 2013) and ethereum (in 2016) have reverted transactions that the miners didn't agree with
I'm aware of the DAO hack and transaction reversal for ethereum, but what exactly are you referring to for bitcoin? In the case of ethereum, they reversed the transaction because the miners did agree with it. But technically, the transaction wasn't reversed, the network was forked. The original network still operates as ethereum classic. If you get enough people together you can change the past on your alternate chain. But that is not an example of a transaction being reversed.
And please, keep any further replies to focused arguments and free of ranting.