no i see it different the dao fork was no consensus of "almost all users" the voting was done in a rush not all useres could join or wanted to join becouse you had to send eth to vote and simple ethereum holders not invested in the dao didnt find out that fast. and there were lots of no´s about it. but as i recall lots of the VIP´s were invested in the dao and thats why the hardfork was important.ETC suporters were called suporter of thiefs becouse they said comunity cant rollback the chain to bail out bad investment. and now you say the damage is not done to a lot of people so no hardfork? a year ago the eth suporters said a thief is a thief and cant get away with it . but never mind i just wanted to know how eth suporters see it a year later.
Well, look at the differences in value....How much has the value of eth increased since the DAO fork? And, yes, the DAO contract code was exploited if you remember right....that was a major part of the argument. I was invested in the DAO, but I was against a fork because of the very questions we're facing today....It worked out for Ethereum ---> That observation can be deduced from the levels of support for the two separate chains, right? However, the original fork decision is still throwing shade on the governance of the network and that was predicted during the first fork debate.
hmm breaking down what you say is, since the shady goverance dealing with the dao the interest of big players was turned to ethereum? and now ethereum gets used to tokenice fiat.
dont get me wrong i thought and think vitalik had a amazing idea, thats why i invested in the crwodsale. but
is this ethereum still what vitalik visioned back then ?
I don't see why the adoption of a crypto by nations and/or banks ought to be seen as some kind of trojan horse...
Look at Bitcoin. Bitcoin is out there since 2009 and the reason why it's still the crypto with the most important market cap is because it managed to be adopted by people (of course) but also by entreprises, cities, banks, etc... The best example of that being the
now defunct R3 consortium.
Adoption by the majority is the only way to develop a stable nevertheless dynamic crypto ecosystem. And regular people don't want to invest in some bizarre thing where you can loose all your money within a day or two just because of a sloppy code or because a whale decided to sell out. Therefore crypto will need at some point to be endorse by institutions people think are legit (states, big companies, banks, etc...).
The question is: will this endorsement mean that states and big companies will control the blockchains or will the nodes remain distributed enough to preserve the independance of the blockchain?
(Note that the actual situation in Bitcoin - where some chinese mining farms got a really huge power - is not better IMHO than a scenario where a state or a bank get the same role).