Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

fork.ethstats.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#51

Post by zenogais »

dnautics wrote: post #23
alexbock wrote: post #6

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…

Disclaimer: I don't really have much of a stake in ethereum, although I made some money off of it during the craziness last month (I cashed out when early warnings about the DAO hit hn, and bough back in when it was at the bottom, and cashed out again) > I'm not sure how anyone could have any confidence in this system after that. I think the situation is the opposite. After the DAO there were broad calls criticising…

So the interesting thing here is the "majority assent" phrase. All the polls I saw included Really this shows that a small group of people plus a core team already leaning in one direction are probably enough to fork the network.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#52

Post by searine »

markkat wrote: post #26

I am surprised how so many seem to think this is a bad thing. Ethereum is very nascent, and this was how the community wanted to fix this issue. It was not just about returning DTH, it was about the implications of the allocation of the DTH in the hands of one individual when Ethereum moves to PoS. Obviously the HF isn't ideal, but not forking was potentially much worse. This settles the issue, and allows people to g…

From the sound of your post, the Currency of Ethereum must be undefined acronyms.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#53

Post by dnautics »

zenogais wrote: post #51
dnautics wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I don't really have much of a stake in ethereum, although I made some money off of it during the craziness last month (I cashed out when early warnings about the DAO hit hn, and bough back in when it was at the bottom, and cashed out again) > I'm not sure how anyone could have any confidence in this system after that. I think the situation is the opposite. After the DAO there were broad calls criticising…

So the interesting thing here is the "majority assent" phrase. All the polls I saw included Really this shows that a small group of people plus a core team already leaning in one direction are probably enough to fork the network.

that's fine. Those figures just say that many people are ok with whatever. Ultimately: If you don't like it, then you can leave. And if you aren't paying attention, then, well, you obviously don't care enough about that asset.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#54

Post by rsync »

zanny wrote: post #45
api wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's funny is that the message in Bitcoin's genesis block is about this. The idea of doing something better than current financial systems gained traction after the US Fed hard forked the dollar to fix the housing bubble crash. (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 eco…

Except "learning" in Etherium's case would have been to abandon the currency due to its insecurity, probably fork the code, and just start over from block 0 again. The fact that didn't happen meant most people didn't want it to happen. If people did want a reset to compensate for the insecurity in the DAO it would have happened.

"Except "learning" in Etherium's case would have been to abandon the currency due to its insecurity, probably fork the code, and just start over from block 0 again."

Aren't you confusing Etherium with The Dao ? Yes, the dao needed to be abandoned due to its insecurity, but my understanding is that the Etherium base itself was not at fault.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#55

Post by pavel_lishin »

tankenmate wrote: post #50
themgt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem is you've replaced code-is-contract with an insider-run Politburo who decides to put referenda up to a vote with their preferred choice set as default and propagandized to the community from the top-down. I have long thought anarchist digital currency is bound to fail because of the need for a political superstructure able to make some decisions. The problem is now you've thrown out 3000 years of poli…

I think you might be misunderstanding authority. Authority doesn't come from lording it over people, or making the best decisions. Authority comes from submission; as long as someone submits to you you have authority over them, likewise anything you submit to has authority over you. The submissive person in the relationship has all the power; they are the one who gets to say "stop". In this case the various arguments…

> The submissive person in the relationship has all the power; they are the one who gets to say "stop".

Maybe when you're into BDSM. You're right that authority comes from submission, but people submit to power. A gun, a hostage, a 51% voting majority.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#56

Post by drcode »

empath75 wrote: post #2

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?

> I think this represents a failure of the currency

Yes, this proves ethereum is a failure- Everyone reading this thread might as well just send their now-worthless ether to my wallet at 0x6B4a61a3Fdc2596427A25F79D7b3b78e164da308.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#57

Post by smitherfield »

eggie wrote: post #11
seibelj wrote: post #8

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.

> 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.

Nobody's enough of a sucker to be the counterparty to an ETH short.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#58

Post by Twirrim »

markkat wrote: post #44
nxzero wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ETH miners haven't enforced anything. Do you really believe that they're not playing both forks as an option until it's clear what's going to happen?

If you look at the OP's link: http://fork.ethstats.net/ you can see that the miners have indeed enforced the hard fork chain.

I have no idea what that page is showing. It's a bunch of figures with no context shoved under three headers.

Is block number the last block number to be processed under the chain? Is it a monotonically increasing number? Is the block hex string meaningful in the context of showing me what's going on (the site seems unable to show me any data related to the non-fork block so who knows.)

What does the difficulty percentage and total difficulty entries mean? How do they relate to each other? The linked reddit post doesn't shed light on it. I am guessing from bits of conversations on that reddit post that "fork" = new client, fork; "non-fork" = new client, no fork; and "legacy" = old client, no fork?

Maybe it's reflecting the difficulty of me figuring out what is going on the page? :)

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#59

Post by jude- »

rsync wrote: post #54
zanny wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except "learning" in Etherium's case would have been to abandon the currency due to its insecurity, probably fork the code, and just start over from block 0 again. The fact that didn't happen meant most people didn't want it to happen. If people did want a reset to compensate for the insecurity in the DAO it would have happened.

"Except "learning" in Etherium's case would have been to abandon the currency due to its insecurity, probably fork the code, and just start over from block 0 again." Aren't you confusing Etherium with The Dao ? Yes, the dao needed to be abandoned due to its insecurity, but my understanding is that the Etherium base itself was not at fault.

Sure, the EVM may be fine, but the biggest flaws lie in the design of Solidity. Solidity makes it very easy to introduce reentrancy bugs like the one that led the DAO to be exploited. As long as Solidity remains the de facto smart contract programming language, I don't expect overall security of smart contracts to improve much.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#60

Post by drdeca »

tankenmate wrote: post #50
themgt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem is you've replaced code-is-contract with an insider-run Politburo who decides to put referenda up to a vote with their preferred choice set as default and propagandized to the community from the top-down. I have long thought anarchist digital currency is bound to fail because of the need for a political superstructure able to make some decisions. The problem is now you've thrown out 3000 years of poli…

I think you might be misunderstanding authority. Authority doesn't come from lording it over people, or making the best decisions. Authority comes from submission; as long as someone submits to you you have authority over them, likewise anything you submit to has authority over you. The submissive person in the relationship has all the power; they are the one who gets to say "stop". In this case the various arguments…

> Authority comes from submission;

I don't think I quite agree with this, but I agree with something similar I suppose : Power comes from submission. (sorta)

I believe that one can be under an authority which one does not choose to submit to. (relating more to how people should act than how they do act, compared to power)

But, perhaps this is just using words differently without necessarily much disagreement about the actual things.

By your comment I am reminded of a dialogue "How to quit smoking" on self-control, which argues that self-control is more due to obedience than it is to "willpower". This dialogue seems to make sense to me. (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/13)

Regarding your last paragraph: I don't know that I know how that last bit is applicable. In order to not have the fork happen, the difference would be people not running the fork code, or alternatively running some slightly different code that handles the fact that some people are running the fork but is otherwise basically unchanged. This code already exists. As such, I'm not sure what you are really saying by this paragraph, other than, basically "suck it up"?

Post reply on HN