Topic: [ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning - page 816. (Read 2006403 times)

I think the idea is that many (perhaps most) of pre-fork ETH bagholders were invested in the DAO thus they will trust ETH (i.e. the chain that bailed them out). This includes ETH devs and many other entities that build stuff around ETH. However as the time goes on and new people enter the scene this might become less important.

Another aspect of the bailout is that it didn't (and couldn't) restore the status quo to what it was before the DAO collapse. ETH exchange rate has dropped significantly and hasn't recovered after the fork, which basically means that the bailout was paid for by everyone and it didn't quite live up to the "law and order" expectations. Again, as the time goes on the futility of the fork might become better understood.

I hope developers realize that not only can they get forked, now eth miners have no morals and will 51% attack them. Eth has no morals

There is an interesting "paradox" and it could turn out as very bad for ETH:

If ETC should survive, ETC will copy everything what will be developed for ETH. At least that's the plan:

At the initial stage, maintaining 100 percent compatibility with Ethereum is a high priority for us. This also means that we don't really need to do much development, we simply fork the code from the Ethereum repository and update accordingly. But, of course, if current Ethereum developers want to join us — now or in the future — they are more than welcome to do so. We are aiming for the same thing here: building a better future for humankind, where smart contract platforms provide a mechanism for social and economic cooperation on a truly global scale.
https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@ghostyeti/interview-with-arvicco-developer-of-ethereum-classic


What's interesting about that situation is: The Ethereum-team would do the development, but ETC could become the project to trust!

If it survives potential problems because of the DAO-hack etc.

--> ETC will be more Ethereum than Ethereum. Because it will be the same tech on the original chain and without a bail-out-decision to secure funds of friends.


What I mean becomes clear if you read this:

More and more companies are openly showing their support for Ethereum Classic. To the majority of enterprises in the cryptocurrency world, supporting ETC may not make much sense. But Stampery feels there is a good reason to support the pre-hard fork Ethereum initiative. After all, the company wants to let anyone create verifiable records of their data.
http://themerkle.com/stampery-drops-forked-ethereum-blockchain-support-due-to-censorship-concerns/


Why Stampery supports Ethereum Classic

(...)

For transactions to be final and unmodifiable, blockchains need to be immune to third party interference. This promise was completely broken by Ethereum. Hard forks should only happen when a catastrophic bug puts in danger the core values of the technology. In this case the consensus mechanism worked just fine. The blockchain was modified simply because a group of people lost too much money and they decided to bail themselves out.

This is completely unacceptable for Stampery because it creates a dangerous precedent. A powerful government might now decide to push for a hard fork that changes blocks in which we anchored data. They could claim “national interest” for doing so. Or a “too big too fail” corporation could force a fork because it wants to wipe all proof of some questionable process recorded on the blockchain. Because of this we prefer to anchor our data to a blockchain in which hard forks happen only when a protocol-level bug needs to be fixed.

(...)https://medium.com/@Stampery/why-stampery-supports-ethereum-classic-4c86ec7cca17#.2ufi5ptwm



The problem for Ethereum could become:


- Why should companies trust ETH instead of ETC if ETC will be technically the same as ETH?

- Why shouldn't they use ETC if it's the same as ETH if they can trust ETC more than ETH?

- Why should anybody trust the original team and not the original chain?




And if there should be a tendency for such a situation: At least some Ethereum-Dev's would leave ETH and join ETC --> ETC would become stronger and Ethereum weaker. In the end it could be ETC which will become the real Ethereum again, and in fact it always was the original.

In fact the Ethereum-team abandoned the original chain! Why? Because of their bad job with TheDAO! Because of the high funding of theDAO! And what was theDAO about? Speculation, but I believe it was to fund Ethereum-guys - slock.it and so on. I never believed in theDAO because for me it looked too shady. But, just my personal opinion.


Under the line I'm not sure how good the chances are that ETC will survive, but if, I expect it to become stronger than ETH and ETH to die. And I'm not joking here. And I'm not saying it because I'm against ETH or for ETC - no Investment.
 


Btw: I'm mainly in Factom. And Factom also announced in march:

Factom Plans To Anchor Into Ethereum Blockchain
http://themerkle.com/factom-plans-to-anchor-into-ethereum-blockchain/

And I don't know what they'll decide but it doesn't make much sense to secure a system into a blockchain if it's immutability is a question of submissive decisions with a focus on bailing out Investors. I mean: If the DAO would have been funded just with $10 Mio and not with team-money, would there be two chains now? Never.

And yesterday Factom announced a partnership with smartcontract.com, and on their site:

Ethereum Smart Oracles
Give your Ethereum smart contracts access to external resources like data feeds, your internal systems, additional blockchains and traditional banks/payment networks.
https://smartcontract.com

And it's not about Factom what will happen with data they'll provide to Ethereum, but they can provide it to all Smart Contract projects, ETC included. What I want to say with that: There is no reason to ignore ETC out of perspective of other companies. They won't feel loyal to Ethereum because they like Vitalik and his team.


There is some possibility that in future ppl will say that the original team abandoned the original Ethereum while ETC will be Ethereum.
Because there are not that many reasons to trust the original team which injured the original chain because of own interest as a result of bad code before. It's like a step-by-step but lastly total damage of credibility.

I have a new article - asking if the DAO hacker was actually a good guy (i.e. white hat) or not?

https://steemit.com/steemit/@thecryptofiend/is-the-dao-hacker-a-white-hat

I used to think not originally but whilst I don't agree with the actions I think they (hacker) might have done it for what they perceived to be the greater good.

Aslong you will not move your coins there are safe without splitt normally

imagine both coins survive..
will one always be ahead with development ? and the otherone will just copy ,if its a good feature and its tested on  chain A?

we might see debats like: how long till we will also do pos ?
or will the coins separet in total different directions ?

If it's a balance from before the fork you should split it otherwise you risk losing ETH or ETC.

This isn't really an "attack", i.e. someone else can't just take your ETH or ETC. But you need to be careful with your transactions. If you send ETH your ETC will move as well, and vice-versa. Splitting and using different addresses on each chain is the only way to avoid this.

Hi

Are my eth in mist wallet safe from replay attak when i do not split them?

I don't see a problem. First, not writing here doesn't mean that he does not read from time to time, but: If we are honest about this Forum and also this thread it's very often just superficial bullshit.

The Ethereum-team is not the only team that is very inactive here. The same is true for a lot of other projects. It's like "the more professional a team is the less they post on BCT". Serious project-teams see this forum more as a snakepit - a mix of short-term-focused hypers and trolls.

I like this forum, but if I would be a professional I would hate it. And even I'm sometimes disappointed that it's (nearly) always just about the price and "one-line-comments". Deeper discussions about the context are very rare and ppl doesn't seem to be overly interested.

There are better discussions on reddit - but I don't like Reddit as platform. ;-)

Maybe he should broaden his horizons a bit, it pays to have an ear to the ground in every corner.
One can become isolated from the grass roots quite quickly.  You soon become like the people you have around you. 

Most of all serious Dev's don't use this forum, at least not much.
So, it's not a sign at all. He is active: https://www.reddit.com/user/vbuterin

That's something I really like about him. He is very communicative. Also on twitter: https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin?lang=eng

My concern is ... where is Vitalik ? last login was a month ago Last Active:    June 30, 2016, 03:12:02 AM
from my exp this is not a good sign..

I would like to take the time to thank the OP for this fantastic new coin.  I mine and collect cryptocoins.  I actively mine 7 different coins at the moment and control the keys to around 12 different cryptocoin wallets, inc, ETH and the new original ETC as well as many others.

@OP Thanks bud, I have had a wonderful time mining and collecting your coins.  You are good at computing but your game theory sucks!  You had the opportunity to finish your degree until Peter Thiel tempted you to drop out of university for a measly sum of $100,000.  

I had to drop out of university in the final year of my BSc (Hons) because both the cost of tuition fees and transport costs forced me into Bankruptcy.   I would have loved to have had my Honors Degree and Bachelor of Science.  I was only 9 months away from passing with First Class Honors.

Well what's done is done. I'm a miner now and my game theory is better than yours.  I have had so many sh*ts and giggles over ethereum.  The entertainment value has been priceless but boy you are dumb!  

But what times do we live in where money has become more important than wisdom, knowledge, education and enlightenment?

You are half Russian and you let capitalism own you! You are young. I am old.  But here is a message from this mad old woman... remember this; all the money you make... it will never buy back your soul.  Get your ass back to school, you need to work harder on that Game Theory of  yours, knowledge is not wisdom.

It's too simple to say "There is No one that speaks for a decentralized blockchain". It's true that nobody can say "It's mine!". But it's also true that it's natural for humans that in all "human systems" (sharing same interests) there are some kind of leaders and a majority that wants exactly that.

So, I agree it's not precise from me to say "Doubtful that ETC would be that stupid." as if ETC would be like a company. I should have said "the Developer-team behind ETC" - that's what I've meant. People who are more active, more skilled, with plans beyond the usual traders/users. And there is something like a Core-Team behind ETC. I have no doubt about that. There are people with more influence and with plans and who act strategic.


It's the same in all projects that are not dead or dying. You won't find any decentralized blockchain-project without "leaders". The human factor always involves some centralizing aspects.

And regarding my questions and speculations there would be a huge difference if just one guy writes an open letter to hand over funds to build some kind of "ETC-foundation", whatever his intentions might be, or if it comes from a group that is really active for ETC - Developers, Miners etc..

The first scenario wouldn't mean much and could be forgotten. The other scenario would have some effect because other steps would follow. And we'll find out. I have no doubt about that.

And just by the way: Ethereum is one of the best examples for a technical decentralized project, that is very centralized regarding the human factor.

yes,now you can exchang freely of the two coins!

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4v2ug3/zksnarks_zero_knowledge_proofs_now_possible_via/
[–]vbuterinJust some guy 33 points 10 hours ago

Basically you will be able to use this to verify arbitrary (computable) claims about information, eg. statements of the form F(x) = y for a known F and y (though x can be private). This can compete with interactive verification as a tool for cheaply verifying expensive computations and serve similar use cases (though sometimes the interactive verification approach is still much more efficient), but the zero-knowledge component also allows for powerful privacy-preserving protocols on top of Ethereum. Examples include:

    Cryptographic mixers - essentially, the ZK-SNARK verification enforces the rule that if you put one coin in you can take one coin and only one coin out, but the input-output mapping is completely hidden.
    Hawk - essentially, smart contracts with encrypted state, where the full power of the blockchain is still used to verify that state transitions are correct because anyone updating the state needs to include a ZK-SNARK proving that the change from the old encrypted state to the new encrypted state is a valid state transition (proving all of this without revealing what the decrypted old or new states, or the decrypted transaction data, is!).

Its real...ive waited a long time for this  
WOW ONLY ON ETH  

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4v2x4g/another_set_of_presentation_slides_proof_of_stake/
Another set of presentation slides: Proof of Stake
submitted 10 hours ago by vbuterin
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1LpqtiZLdBb5DsAS0xgCDsrvbGLhuhVkVUjUhuJGfYGg/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.p

 

Free coins, you decide what to do with them.

Bittrex now shoes me an ETC wallet with the same balance as my Eth wallet (on the exchange).  If I trade my ETC, will I basically be trading my Eth away?  Or did I just gain free coins that I can dump for a small profit??

Classic is not Ethereum because of:
a) Ether holders voted decidedly for the hard fork (and, by proxy, against Classic). True, only about 5.5% of the total supply of ether was used to vote, but that is no reason to deem the it invalid because the vote was well advertised and anyone who wanted to vote did so. For instance, I did not participate because the side I was supporting had already been winning by a huge margin.
b) Miners voted in support of the hard fork, e.g. https://dwarfpool.com/eth/voting. Again, low turnout does not mean inconsequential results for the same reasons as in point a)
c.i) The Foundation has recently announced that they will be supporting the non-Classic chain
Seeing the results of various metrics, including carbonvote, dapp and ecosystem infrastructure adoption, this means that we will focus our resources and attention on the chain which is now called ETH (ie. the fork chain)
c.ii) Ethcore (disclaimer: I actually work with these guys) has been pro-fork from the start and that position still has not changed, even despite Gavin’s recent, either misexpressed or largely misunderstood, tweet

c.iii) DApps, blockchain explorers and toolkit devs are sticking to the forked (ETH) chain as well, e.g.