You are too optimistic. It could happen but the ETH foundation will not give up without a fight. I am sure they will try to destroy ETC and prevent the original coin from taking over. Remember they have lots of ETC too.
The ETH foundation stated that they would do what ever the community wanted.
If over the next few weeks it's demonstrated that ETC is the most popular chain why wouldn't they support it? They have equal amounts of ETH/ETC (not including DAO refund), on one chain they had their DAO ETH returned to them, they continue the facade of a neutral stance on the fork and maintain the principle/purposes of using a blockchain (instead of a centralized server). It sounds like a satisfactory solution for them.
Let's think about it: They bail out themselves with a hard-fork. Than the other chain, ETC, wins. And they announce they will support it and leave ETH? Or do they say they support both? And do they sell their holdings before the announcement or after?
The last question is the most important one. Their holdings on ETH will become worthless over time if they support ETC. No doubt about that.
If you think about it, it's a pretty unsolvable problem. If they should cash out to support ETC they are done and most likely that would not end well regarding legal consequences. If they announce it without cashing out - they will lose more than they've bailed out.
I see no way here. And besides that: The loss of credibility is already hard but would be tremendous.
What would be the legal consequences? To my knowledge there is no binding contract that state ETH developers should develop on ETH for life. Or are you saying that there will be no legal consequences for the developers for as long as ETH is increasing in price? That's not how law works although market crashes usually brings one thing or the other to light.
Just theDAO could be a case for the SEC. That's not my opinion it's said here:
"However, based upon the structure of The DAO, it is foreseeable that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would view its tokens purchased by investors as a security or investment contract, subject to its jurisdiction.
The voting system implemented for The DAO is likewise problematic due to its mixed incentives and propensity to depress the value of ETH and its own tokens. Because investment in The DAO is laden with risk and seems to implicate SEC jurisdiction, The DAO may attract regulatory attention.
(...)
The sale of DAO tokens by The DAO in exchange for ETH carries all of the hallmarks of an investment contract or security, and under this analysis, the SEC could assume jurisdiction over The DAO. The DAO presents novel legal issues, both with respect to its ability to interact with the legal system, and as to the potential regulatory ramifications of investing in a new novel structure."http://www.coindesk.com/the-law-of-the-dao/We have add to this that a lot of the funds came from Ethereum-members.
And if we think about a scenario that there was...
1. TheDAO
2. A hack (and some believe it could have been an insider)
3. A hard fork to bail-out
...it's already interesting.
If then those who bailed themselves out dump their ETH, including premine, to join ETC - not sure how that would look. I'm not a lawyer, but this game already created some collateral damage (Investors and most likely also exchanges). To dump on their Investors to leave ETH and join ETC would lead into a lot of lawsuits. But that won't happen because they won't quiet ETH to get over to ETC.
And well if ETC becomes larger by useful metrics it's not 'unsolvable' at all. I think Vitalik would step down in that case or continue on ETH but for the rest I am not sure if ETC community would allow a "ETC Foundation" despite all the opportunists that have come about these last couple days of ETC.
The loss of credibility I agree with you on but it could be a non issue given that I doubt many ETH developers and contributors would be well received by ETC community since they lost credibility by HF. If it's above ETH new contributors will be found and new structures will be set. Seems likely it could become similar to Bitcoins development process. Some attack that process but evidently it is better than ETH approach.
Yes, we agree here. It's possible but not very likely that ETH-Dev's go to ETC. Maybe one or two but not sure. Not VB or the foundation.
And under the line, I believe that both have not that much chance in longterm. For the next weeks or months it will be a race between both and it will be about hashrate and the markets. But if we speak about business, customers - I don't believe that Ethereum will be used widely.
