Topic: [ANN] [ETC] Ethereum Classic: Immutable Smart Contracts - page 245. (Read 821107 times)

The price of the ETC is quite high at present. The reason for that is that the DAO hacker has not sold any.

 History of Hardforks in Bitcoin

LOL this is all despair for ETH not be replaced by ETC? I'm sure, are spending a lot of resources to hold the price of the ETC, but caution, it can all be in vain.

nice trolling there, where's your resume on bitcoin?  

8th August 2010 - 92 billion BTC into existence

On 8th August 2010 bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik wrote what could be mildly described as the biggest understatement since Apollo 13 told Houston: “We’ve had a problem here.”. “The ‘value out’ in this block is quite strange,” he wrote on bitcointalk.org, referring to a block that had somehow contained 92 billion BTC, which is precisely 91,979,000,000 more bitcoin than is ever supposed to exist. CVE-2010-5139 (CVE meaning ‘common vulnerability and exposures’) was frighteningly simple and exploited to the point of farce by an unknown attacker. In technical language, the bug is known as a number overflow error.So instead of the system counting up 98, 99, 100, 101, for example, it broke at 99 and went to zero (or -100) instead of 100. In layman’s terms, someone found a way to flood the code and create a ridiculously large amount of bitcoin in the process.

The fix was the bitcoin equivalent of dying in a video game and restarting from the last save point. The community simply hit ‘undo’, jumping back to the point in the blockchain before the hack occurred and starting anew from there; all of the transactions made after the bug was exploited – but before the fix was implemented – were effectively cancelled.

How serious was it? Bitcoin’s lead developer Wladimir Van Der Laan is pretty blunt about it, telling me: “It was the worst problem ever.”

Source1: http://www.coindesk.com/9-biggest-screwups-bitcoin-history/
Source2: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/strange-block-74638-822

11/12 March 2013 - Chain Fork Information
What happened: A bitcoin miner running version 0.8.0 created a large block (at height 225,430) that is incompatible with earlier versions of Bitcoin. The result was a block chain fork, with miners, merchants and users running the new version of bitcoin accepting, and building on, that block, and miners, merchants and users running older versions of bitcoin rejecting it and creating their own block chain.

What is being done:Large mining pools running version 0.8.0 were asked to switch back to version 0.7, to create a single block chain compatible with all bitcoin software.

What will be done
The core developers have investigated what caused the old versions to reject the new blocks, and have released a 0.8.1 version that avoids creating blocks that are incompatible with older versions. A full post-mortem document has been published.

Source1: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork
Source2: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/3668/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork/
I also found this list: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures

or he knows nothing about crypto and about the history of btc

http://hackingdistributed.com/egs/

Cryptocurrencies

I have worked hard to improve cryptocurrencies overall. For Bitcoin:

    My group built the The Falcon relay network, which aids decentralization
    My group developed Covenants to deter Bitcoin thefts;
    We invented Bitcoin-NG to sidestep the maximum block size debate and improve scalability by multiple orders of magnitude
    We introduced the first metrics for measuring decentralization and placing the blocksize debate on a scientific footing
    Ittay Eyal and I co-authored the Selfish Mining paper, which showed that some commonly held folk theorems about Bitcoin were false, and that the network was definitely at risk from any miner larger than 33%, possibly even smaller ones. We also provided a fix against this attack against miners smaller than 25%.
    I served as an expert witness in the U.S. lawsuit on behalf of the people who lost money at Mt. Gox.
    I was one of the main people to push back on GHash at the first coin summit to get them to back down from 51% of the hash power.
    Ittay Eyal and I have proposed 2P-PoW , a practical non-outsourcable puzzle scheme that can limit the size of open mining pools, while allowing individual miners to reduce their variance.
    I played a behind the scenes role in introducing set difference techniques that led to xthin blocks and other similar tricks.
    I have also spoken to regulators to convince them of the value of a light touch when it comes to this nascent area.

lol you should tell cornell they hired a moron

https://twitter.com/el33th4xor

rofl

All coins including bitcoin already have done hard forks by tech problems.

ETH is the onlyone that did it to cancel a legit negotiation in a smart contract to benefit their friends on a bad business.

Only a moron dont notice the difference.

Smart contracts still immutables on ETC.

Why price keep down

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ethereum-classic-hardforks-successfully/

Nonetheless, ETC developers seem to have reached an overall consensus on both forks, but, how such consensus was reached is not clear as despite the apparent controversy, there have been no attempts to gauge the overall opinion of ETC users, with no vote or poll. Instead, it seems the decision was solely made by ETC developers.

This isn’t the first time ETC developers have made a significant decision in a fairly centralized manner. They have apparently agreed to remove Ethereum’s difficulty bomb, fundamentally changing the network’s rules and roadmap, without any public discussion, community guided decision making or ETC holder’s vote.

ETC’s governance method for development decisions, therefore, appears to be centralized. As such, in combination with a centrally decided technical violation of the immutability principles, ETC’s promises of immutability and decentralization have not been reflected  in practice.

But ETC suprnova says, "Pool down as we're trying to resync to the ETC network"

    Pool Hash: 0.00 MH/s
    Pool Workers: 0
    Net Hash: n/a MH/s

Polo market seems a bit negative on things?
.

Yes,

at block 2 500 000 (in about 5 hours)