Topic: ETH hardfork incoming. - page 9. (Read 18991 times)

20th July....  Oh the banks are too far in now to cop out.  They were the ones that voted up the fork,  well you can't let just the miners decide about the future of the banking system can you?  Moreover: only about 6 months left of mining before PoS anyway.

So what is the definite date of the hard fork? Have they decalred it already? This might be good or bad for the platform. If they do hard fork they should hope that banks and companies will still be interested in using the platform.

Kraken has some warnings about this which is worth noting for any user of their platform.

The old chain will live.
https://github.com/ethereumclassic/README

Sentiments are fud and bearish, hmmm maybe hardfork will do the opposite and price will increase instead

Real time count of the ongoing fork - no fork vote -> http://carbonvote.com/

The Foundation members want to make some money out of Ethereum initially. But they did not realise they could have made so much. It was more than $1b.

Foundation is dysfunctional. It lacks governance, it's full of factions. But the scheme behind this theft is probably more complex. Of course a certain faction could be a part of it. But following some trails, logs, public stances, Mircea, letters, timings, suggests that this was usual speculators game. There are many lies in truths in lies and so on, but ultimately all shows normal crypto world dirty tricks. Dressed in big words often.
Ethereum can be blamed for utter irresponsibility (especially certain people there) and inability to identify whom should they bribe first. Not for collusion per se. We live here in a very corrupted but funny world.

I think the hacker stole by deception and that is certainly theft.

My problem isn't collusion per se, but collusion at the behest of the Foundation.  I don't think anybody believes their motives are as pure as the driven snow. 

Ethereum  is just an experiment, although quite expensive experiment. I saw the soft fork soft ware was withdrawn due to a bug. It is possible to create a soft fork which has no obvious bug? Is that limited by the Ethereum built in structure?

If they hardfork eth then it's over for them.  No way.

Colluding with the miners is not a problem. Some people think it is fine for the "hacker" to take away the money from the DAO by exploiting a bug in the system. It is also fine for miners to get the money back by not exploiting a bug. That is all the 51% attack does. It is in the design of any block chain.

Normally a chain that matters should only be forked if it is defunct or very close to being defunct - in such circumstances you get an easy consensus on forking it.

One shouldn't expect a consensus for a fork on a chain that isn't defunct.

That's the nature of the thing. The consensus-algo protects the chain from hostile takeovers. It's a feature, not a bug that the chain is hard to change. If no change is necessary, why would you change it?

That's what I think is going to happen. American regulators don't listen to ideological arguments (except for the ones that squarw with their own ideology) but they do listen to practical/technological arguments. One of the big reasons why they've been kept at bay from the crypto-only sphere, over and above the small-scale nature of this space, is the fact that a blockchain rollback is very messy with Bitcoin's chains of tx outputs.

If the Ethereum folks can show the wold that a "surgical" excision is possible with a blockchain-altering hard fork, that infeasibility argument becomes dubious for the Ethereum system and its likesake.

One doesn't even have to read past the first three sentences to know that this guy is clearly talking his book.  He owns DAO and also has a couple of other Ethereum-supported projects. 

It's a well-written piece.  He makes some strong arguments.  He does a good job refuting some of the counter-arguments to a hard fork.  But I think his fundamental argument that it would be MORE valuable is completely unsupported.  Truth is, nobody knows the impact of the loss of trust caused by the sloppy work upfront and the efficacy of the attacks that inhibit the soft fork.  What will the next attack be?  Where will it come from?  Will they roll everything back AGAIN to thwart it? 

His argument that it somehow IMPROVES mainstream perception of Ethereum is, well, not actually an argument.  It's an anecdote followed by an opinion.  I happen to have the opposite opinion. 

Finally, he doesn't address my main concern, which is the precedent of colluding with miners to do the bidding of the Foundation.  This is NOT GOOD for a lot of reasons.  One of those reasons is the precedent it sets of collusion.  What happens if a government wants to intervene and threaten the miners to fork because they THINK there is a homeland security issue?  What happens if they want to roll back just because they feel people aren't paying capital gains taxes?  What happens if MegaCorp sees that they could easily afford the required bribes to do whatever it is that THEY want?  ETH is roughly a billion in market cap.  Apple has $160 billion on hand an Microsoft has $85 billion. 

ETH isn't too big to fail.  On the contrary, it's too small to save. 

Yes sir. See the current dillemma with bitcoin classic/core. Two completely different block chains, hence the collective butthurt of the community as we struggle to pick a side. With that being said, really doesn't matter. The Chinese farms dictate which we will adopt. We lost our early lead on mining and are subsequently at the beck of those that currently control it.

Quote from this article  https://blog.colony.io/why-a-post-hard-fork-ethereum-will-be-more-valuable-abc35bbf6e98#.2jfczxeho



(Maybe I misunderstood what immutability of a blockchain means , so please correct me if wrong.)

Doesn't forking an existing blockchain actually create a "new" blockchain with similar past and different future?
The "old" one still exists with unchanged parameters/fundamentals and with enough support from miners it can be kept alive.

So there could be 2 different blockchains running in parallel. Ethereum and NewEthereum.

Can you change a blockchain without effectively creating a new one?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "Peoples/miners choice (on which blockchain to support) is not immutable"?

For anyone still wondering . . .

 

"Geth 1.4.9 is a reversal release to undo the code changes that went into the 1.4.8 "DAO Wars" soft-fork release, as the soft-fork was deemed too vulnerable to DOS attacks, opening up the entire Ethereum network to resource abuse by malicious users."

When are we going to get the soft fork?

Yes, it's good for the future of Ethereum and acceptable in early stages. Then Factom can anchor into Ethereum and we can all go on with our merry lives.