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

The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

ethereumclassic.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

#61

Post by jabgrabdthrow »

cjslep wrote: post #7

I look forward to reading the response where the Ethereum (non Classic) community writes their Constitution where they declare how to govern future forking. Ha ha only serious. Edit: Seems people don't know HHOS: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html

The answer is that any time there's a proposed fork the one that changes less rules is called "Classic" and the other picks the new name. If there's a truly ambiguous split, one side tactically cedes the name, like "Classic" did with "Ethereum".

Ideally the system would have splits as a first class feature and we could have some kind of versioning system where the more splits a system had the longer its "name" or effective address

Re: The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

#62

Post by jabgrabdthrow »

jnpn wrote: post #36
wyager wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a $50MM exploit Calling it an exploit seems politically charged. There wasn't an exploit in the Ethereum software itself, which behaved exactly as intended. Instead, someone wrote a shitty, poorly-designed contract that had a loophole in it. Someone took advantage of that loophole and make a bunch of money off of it. To me, "exploit" has connotations of breaking the ethereum system somehow, which was not the case.…

exploit: "a software tool designed to take advantage of a flaw in a computer system" The exploit was on a poorly written smart contract, not ethereum itself, correct -- I never said otherwise. >the judgement of the Ethereum devs to have ultimate control and veto power over anything This is the misinformation I'm talking about. The Ethereum devs had neither control nor veto power. That's simply not how hard forking wo…

The "vote" is ETC. Your examples make me happy you are not an authority figure and also makes me want to donate to the NRA

Re: The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

#63

Post by jabgrabdthrow »

jnpn wrote: post #28
jasonlingx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this is the original blockchain?

The original blockchain was deprecated on 3/14. Neither ETH nor ETC are using it. http://ethdocs.org/en/latest/introduction/the-homestead-rele...

> The original blockchain was deprecated on 3/14.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Ethereum used to be a protocol but now it is an interest group. You said it best, just study the facts.

Re: The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

#64

Post by jabgrabdthrow »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #38
avz wrote: post #10

It is very refreshing to see people stand up for principles against narrow self-interest of a political group or authority.

It's principles either way. The principle of binding contracts vs. the principle of agreements performing as intended.

What happens when V.B. has too many hard fork decisions to make, or even delegate to his Foundation Lieutenants?

I bet you non-ironically have uttered "just this once" too

Re: The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

#65

Post by Dylan16807 »

jabgrabdthrow wrote: post #64
Dylan16807 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's principles either way. The principle of binding contracts vs. the principle of agreements performing as intended.

What happens when V.B. has too many hard fork decisions to make, or even delegate to his Foundation Lieutenants? I bet you non-ironically have uttered "just this once" too

"Just this once" would be the stupidest idea in the world, preserving neither principle.

I don't even know who VB is. I only care about this from a technological perspective. But presumably such a drastic action would not be happening often, if you have to get most of the network to vote.

Was there something that gives a ruling council the ability to override miners? If not I think you're being unreasonable in the way you're criticizing.

Re: The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

#66

Post by jonathankoren »

NhanH wrote: post #15
jonathankoren wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short ETH.

They could still do that without splitting into ETC. In fact, without splitting into ETC, it's even easier to stay in the sideline and yell into the sky that fundamentally, the technical aspect of ETH is shit. By splitting into ETC, they gave up a lot of arguments against ETH, leaving themselves with only the ideological argument.

ETH and ETC aren't the only games in town. You can still short it wrt other currencies.

Re: The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

#67

Post by pyskell »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #65
jabgrabdthrow wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when V.B. has too many hard fork decisions to make, or even delegate to his Foundation Lieutenants? I bet you non-ironically have uttered "just this once" too

"Just this once" would be the stupidest idea in the world, preserving neither principle. I don't even know who VB is. I only care about this from a technological perspective. But presumably such a drastic action would not be happening often, if you have to get most of the network to vote. Was there something that gives a ruling council the ability to override miners? If not I think you're being unreasonable in the wa…

Due to the nature of mining on Ethereum (and most cryptocurrencies) you do not need the consent of many.

Miners work in pools, and it's up to the pool operators to make decisions for a hard fork. In the case of Ethereum it took about 4 or 5 mining pools to reach majority (over 51% of network hashing power).

A great deal of miners simply leave their mining rigs running and didn't make a decision either way. Miners largely do not care about any cryptocurrency. They will, understandably, mine whatever is most profitable.

Miners also depend heavily on ping times and the total mining power of their pools. With 15 second block times every millisecond counts to make sure you're the first with the right block and get your reward. There was really no time for anti-fork mining pools to get setup well and it takes months for a pool to amass an attractive amount of miner hashing power.

Overall the vote was about 5% for the fork, 1% against, and 94% abstaining. Ideally it would take a true 51% to change the network.

Re: The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

#68

Post by pyskell »

Animats wrote: post #16

One amusing consequence of the "fork" is that it demonstrates that there are few Etherium contracts outstanding that matter. Otherwise, the people on opposite sides of the contract would be having big disputes over where their contract ended up. Did anybody other than the DAO crowd actually use that feature for anything big enough or long term enough to matter?

DigixDAO has and decided to stay only on the ETH chain. It's still no where near as large as The DAO though.

Ethereum is still new, and something large and valuable like a DAO should take a long while to develop and test.

Re: The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

#69

Post by AroundTheBlock_ »

wyager wrote: post #60
jnpn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

exploit: "a software tool designed to take advantage of a flaw in a computer system" The exploit was on a poorly written smart contract, not ethereum itself, correct -- I never said otherwise. >the judgement of the Ethereum devs to have ultimate control and veto power over anything This is the misinformation I'm talking about. The Ethereum devs had neither control nor veto power. That's simply not how hard forking wo…

The "vote" was opt-out of the hard fork, and most people are not involved enough to opt out. Effectively, the devs just decided for everyone else.

That is incorrect. The Mist browser forces you to select a choice upon startup. There was no default. Mist is the most popular client.

Re: The Ethereum Classic Declaration of Independence

#70

Post by NhanH »

jonathankoren wrote: post #66
NhanH wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could still do that without splitting into ETC. In fact, without splitting into ETC, it's even easier to stay in the sideline and yell into the sky that fundamentally, the technical aspect of ETH is shit. By splitting into ETC, they gave up a lot of arguments against ETH, leaving themselves with only the ideological argument.

ETH and ETC aren't the only games in town. You can still short it wrt other currencies.

No one disputes that. What you said is true, and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand (splitting into ETC would allow more profit when shorting ETH -- considering that shorting ETH is something you can already do).
Post reply on HN