Hacker News Reader

It’s the main branch of the canonical repo on Github, obviously, and there is an automatic test to verify the ledger.

But now you have to decide who to trust as committers and they have to decide which pull requests to commit first. This might not scale as well as we hope. Transaction latency might be a little high.

View on HN

If defi hacks can be conceivably clawed back under legal threat, I don’t see why a legal structure like a foundation can’t be relied upon to onboard new administrators of the Git repo.

We could use something like multi-signature Git commits [1] to enforce repo integrity. Clients could cross-check the signatures against an approved list published by foundation members. Anyone who co-signs an unapproved fork of the foundation’s repo could have their shares in the foundation slashed.

Post a ledger containing $JPEG balances to the Git repo, and require prospective foundation members obtain N JPEGs to apply for membership.

The ledger would operate at a snail’s pace, but “blockchains don’t scale”. We’d just need someone to design the “L2” of Git.

[1]: https://github.com/hashbang/git-signatures

That means you are trusting GitHub not to transfer the repo to someone else.

You are correct, if you trust a third party, a blockchain is not needed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com