Topic: [ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning - page 811. (Read 2006403 times)

Are you being sarcastic?
It's giving me the shits and I've never even held any.

I'm just speculating here and of course we can say: ETC started because of idealism.

But it's not idealism that strengthened it. It's capitalism. And it's possible that the replay attacks forced exchanges to open up markets for ETC.

And that could be the major-point. Without markets there would not be much value, or if it would be traded just on a small exchange. It would be called "shitcoin" etc.

But Poloniex gave ETC credibility and a big market. Suddenly it was beneficial to mine it and it was a nice gamble to buy it - but it turned out to be beneficial as well. I did not - always too carefully ;-)

And now there are ppl who are invested and if people are invested they care. And if they care about the project they're invested in they begin to speak negative about the competitor. It's a very complex dynamic. And replay attacks most likely played a role, maybe the most important one.

Sure, this can happen to any cryptocurrency anytime there is a fork. It really hasn't ever been an issue because most developers know better than to mess with transactions, you want to fork to fix a bug cool, I don't see people revolting and trying to overturn that. But forking to save your or your investors financially? No way, look at Vericoin they did the same thing and miners, traders and everyone but the devs and a few die hard pretty much walked away. This is a valuable lesson for crypto. It seems like eth devs never considered the current situation possible, whether the money went to their head resulting in straight up arrogance or they thought eth was too big for this to occur who knows. It's pretty clear that alot of eth supporters and the devs don't understand that this can't happen. If the blockchain has someone altering it then it totally loses integrity and we all may as well pack up and go home.

The theory about replay attacks is not mine. I've read it in an article. But an interesting conclusion is very simple:

If they could have prevented it:

1. they did not because they believe it wouldn't be necessary

2. they did not because they believed it would even be advantageous

Both conclusions would be wrong. So, it's still possible that they did not because it would have been hard to prevent it or would have opened the door for other problems and time was running out. But in all scenarios it's correct to say that one "rush-out" lead into more mistakes and the need to rush out more and to make more mistakes and so on.

And this could lead into the next fail:

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/07/31/51pool-attack-plans-51-network-attack-ethereum-classic/

It's said, and I agree:

"If this ever were to be the case – and the Ethereum community would better hope it won’t be – 51Pool will attempt to 51% attack ETC as many times as necessary.

(...)

It is evident for everyone to see this is not an effort representing the entire Ethereum community. Unfortunately, every single supporter will be caught in the crossfire of repercussions that will undoubtedly follow these attacks, if they are ever executed. The Ethereum developers can prevent all of this mess from happening if they wanted to. It will be interesting to see if they decide to intervene or not."


It's another situation for the team without a good choice. If they step in to prevent that, it would look even more as if control too much. But if the attack should happen there are only two scenarios and while only one would be bad for ETC, both would be bad for ETH. At least in short-term. And if ETC should be able to defend an attack it would even strengthen ETC and weaken ETH.

What I believe is: At least a lot of Bitcoiners never really liked Ethereum. So it's possible that ETC is also used to damage ETH. And to prepare such an attack needs too much time, so it's possible and maybe even likely that there are already miners in line to defend ETC, but not visible yet.

Under the line it's a gamble and not a smart one. And it's right what is stated in the article: The pool doesn't represent the community or the team. But of course the public won't differ much.  

i was told it is basic blockchain technology knowledge that in a hardfork it is always the risk that there is then a second chain. even more if the consensus is not all the way down to the basis.
but what do i know

That's a great theory and all but the thing is there was no intention to create etc when they forked and did the rollback that corrupted the blockchain. They hardforked to bail out their big holders and assumed the shorter fork would just go away and be a non issue. People who value what the blockchain stands for and recognize the importance of not tampering with transactions for any reason decided to keep the shorter chain alive. Eventually it became etc, but it was never something the bailout foundation thought about, created or planned for. Sorry not going to give them credit for creating etc. Facts are facts, you may be able to rollback reality at some point but not right now.

Spot on as always in your speculation.  As for what comes in the future the only certainty is uncertainty.

That is indeed an interesting question. One theory is: They hoped the replay attacks would hurt ETC but not ETH. Somebody would move ETH and also move ETC unintentionally while the ETH-team believed, ETC would be and stay worthless and die soon after the Hard fork. They didn't anticipate that exchanges would list it as reaction on the replay attacks and that ppl would buy it and miners would mine it.

So, if the theory should be right that ETH-folks believed that not to prevent replay attacks would damage ETC, it was a really bad strategy. But totally in line with some of their moves before, from DAO until the rushed out HF and their intentions to do both.

The more I think about it all the more I believe that ETH won't need more bad news regarding the tech to be doomed. It is as if they are willing to do everything to damage all credibility of the project and of the team and to bring themselves into a position without any choice to make a good decision.

And ETC - if it survives it will most likely become Ethereum again, while ETH will be called ETHF.

pumpy what i wonder is all this genius devs
why didnt they do the fork without that replay attack option ?
and why dont they help now little people how lose there coins ? arnt they interested in little people ? i mean the coin holders? to buy and sell the coin ?
doesnt a coin stay alive becouse of that people ?
did this ethereum innovaton people mention how to fix the bugs and desaster after this fork ?

yes replay attack.
the fork wasnt proper done , thats what i heard.
sorry for your loss

Probably. But if you care about your coins you should read about replay BEFORE moving said coins.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4vgx60/ethereum_innovation_is_unreal_hugely_positive/?st=irau93x3&sh=47692acd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URlQgpaHX-M
Published on 26 Jul 2016

ConsenSys hosted a 24 hour internal hackathon for our Summer 2016 interns. The goal was to build and pitch a decentralized application built on top of the Ethereum blockchain. With no limitations on what they could build, the teams of three demonstrated their creativity and knowledge!

OK.. thanks guys... will check that later...
Buy can I send the coin back to same address and recieve also both ETH and ETC?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/4uo5iz/the_nobrains_trick_to_separate_your_eth_and_etc/

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15715049

https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/26/onward_from_the_hard_fork/

How can I stop replay attack?

replay attack from same address

I have geth v1.4.7 (opposed fork)

then I sent to ETC address...

my geth v1.4.10 (support fork different machine)

also moved...

why is that? Did I just lost my ETH?

So this is the beginning of the end to ETH rise and now fall 

To buy ETC    ,back to 300k