An article in the New York Times titled “Downside of Bitcoin: A Ledger That Can’t Be Corrected” has riled the crypto-community. The editorial, authored by Accenture’s Richard Lumb, claims Bitcoin’s immutability could “severely limit” its capabilities.
Immutability Could Be The Downfall of Bitcoin?
The Accenture associate believes blockchains should be able to be corrected. Lumb says Bitcoin’s permanence may have legal issues if it clashes with new privacy laws, such as the “right to be forgotten.” Funnily enough, the writer claims the impossibility to resolve human error and “mischief” is a problem.
It’s important to note there is mischief and corruption within the current banking industry, such as the recent Wells Fargo scandal. Lumb explains that Accenture’s clientele, which includes several legacy banks, wonders how the “right to be forgotten” law will apply to blockchain technology. Lumb states in his editorial:
Little wonder that Accenture clients are asking how they will defend the “right to be forgotten” rules using blockchain technology that always remembers. Blockchain’s immutability could eventually run at odds with existing regulations, too. For example, the United States Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation S-P all require personal financial data to be easily redacted.
Lumb also praises the reversal of the DAO exploit in the Ethereum ecosystem. Ethereum’s decision to bifurcate the code was a good idea, he says, and the Foundation had shown leadership. When it comes to Blockchain “purists,” Lumb says they are often too pragmatic when it comes to immutability.
The New York Times editorial was upvoted by many on the r/ethereum subreddit, maintaining a front page place for 24 hours. The story was also hot news on Bitcoin social media pages as well, with community members calling the writer a sophist.
Bitcoin community members felt it was the same old central banking attitude that consists of bolstering inflation, private fraudulent activities, and fractional reserve banking. The main takeaway from Lumb’s opinion is: Bitcoin’s immutability is too much for the current banking cartel to work with. The author’s centralized viewpoint can be summed up entirely with this quote:
At Accenture, we’re working with leading academics on a prototype that would enable blockchains to be amended or redacted where necessary — under responsible governance models potentially developed in cooperation with regulators.
Centralization Proponents Constantly Defend The Failures of the Past
What Lumb fails to understand is the Honey Badger and its proponents don’t really care about the age-old adages of centralized finance. The Bitcoin network is 100% voluntary and not meant to be a peer-to-peer network solely created for legacy financial institutions. If private transaction methods are necessary to an individual or entity, then Bitcoin users must use privacy techniques to conceal their operations. Otherwise, they have consented to everything being open.
Centralist ideologies within finance circles will always reveal themselves. The fact is, financial incumbents of today are threatened by the open network that is public by its very nature. In Lumb’s opinion Bitcoin’s immutability needs to be challenged in order for achievements to be accomplished rather than merely show blockchain’s potential.
Unfortunately, the Accenture executive doesn’t realize Bitcoin has achieved many things, including acceptance by millions of users. This popularity is due to its immutable transparent foundations not found in any traditional financial framework found today. Yet centralization proponents will keep trying to convince the public otherwise.