11–20 of 135 posts
Someone probably has another exploit queued up, so they can immediately create the need for another fork. Ethereum contracts have a giant target on them for security researchers who want to earn money.
This is true, but the fork suggests the only way to do this will be by shorting the currency rather than trading the ETH earned from exploits.
What's happening: the block number of the hard fork is much bigger than the block number of the non-fork. This means that most of the mining power is being devoted to the hard fork chain since it is longer. The non-fork can't keep up, so the fork is considered a success.
Note that this says more about the defaults in software than about any Ethereum user's opinion. (The miners may or may not be more informed, but note that Ethereum is only valuable if users are willing to exchange things of value for Ethereum, i.e. a hard fork requires changes in wallet software.)
Which are the users you are referring to? Because all kinds of _actual_ users have shown that a clear majority is in favor of the hard fork: - ETH holders voted on http://carbonvote.com/ with 87% pro-fork. 5.5% of the total ETH supply participated in the vote. - ETH miners clearly voted pro-fork on the major pools, e.g. https://dwarfpool.com/eth/voting . In nearly all cases > 80% of the hash power was pro-fork. - ETH…
In the voting on the pools, 80% of people didn't even vote.
Therefore it is simply the fact that the fork was the default choice (and is the default in all the wallets), that is the deciding factor of this 'vote'
By the way, "> 80% of the hash power was pro-fork." is demonstrably false. only 15% of the hashing power was pro fork, 85% of miners didnt vote at all.
Looking in from the outside as someone with no involvement with Ethereum, I really don't understand how the people behind it can justify using their privileged position as developers and community leaders to try to undo this. They spent a lot of time talking about how "the code is the contract"... until they stood to be negatively impacted on a personal level by allowing the literal meaning of the code to stand. I'm…
Prior to this fork, I had interest in Ethereum. I don't want to touch it now, out of both mistrust and the feeling that the developers are lacking in ethics. It really feels like a pyramid scheme if they're not willing to let the technology stand on its own. It's really a shame. Maybe some other group will fork the Ethereum code into a new cryptocurrency that can't have the blockchain forked as easily.
You think it is a bad thing that this has happened; I think it is a good thing. Now everyone is aware that the 51% can take control of the chain; you can't pretend any more that the code is the final arbiter, because it isn't. Black and white is a myth; it's a human construct that is made from mathematics and many shades of grey.
Democracy; it sucks, but it sucks less than everything else.
Looking in from the outside as someone with no involvement with Ethereum, I really don't understand how the people behind it can justify using their privileged position as developers and community leaders to try to undo this. They spent a lot of time talking about how "the code is the contract"... until they stood to be negatively impacted on a personal level by allowing the literal meaning of the code to stand. I'm…
Looking in from the outside as someone with no involvement with Ethereum, I really don't understand how the people behind it can justify using their privileged position as developers and community leaders to try to undo this. They spent a lot of time talking about how "the code is the contract"... until they stood to be negatively impacted on a personal level by allowing the literal meaning of the code to stand. I'm…
(The degree of manipulation in 2008 to reflate the banking system resembles a hard fork.)
Money is a signaling mechanism. It carries information. If you invalidate mistakes, you keep the economic system from learning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prior to this fork, I had interest in Ethereum. I don't want to touch it now, out of both mistrust and the feeling that the developers are lacking in ethics. It really feels like a pyramid scheme if they're not willing to let the technology stand on its own. It's really a shame. Maybe some other group will fork the Ethereum code into a new cryptocurrency that can't have the blockchain forked as easily.
Ethereum is a human construct; written by humans, directed by humans, and facilitated by humans (no skynet has come along to do mining). Ipso facto, it is fallible just like humans. You think it is a bad thing that this has happened; I think it is a good thing. Now everyone is aware that the 51% can take control of the chain; you can't pretend any more that the code is the final arbiter, because it isn't. Black and w…
To me, I think this represents a failure of the currency. Either the code is the final word on the contract or not. This process seems to give a cartel of people the power to revoke transactions on a whim. Who would commit to building anything in an environment like that?
To me, I think this represents a failure of the currency. Either the code is the final word on the contract or not. This process seems to give a cartel of people the power to revoke transactions on a whim. Who would commit to building anything in an environment like that?
Of course that cartel has a better track record than this new one, so I also see it as a failure of the currency.
Someone probably has another exploit queued up, so they can immediately create the need for another fork. Ethereum contracts have a giant target on them for security researchers who want to earn money.