Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority • Hacker News Board

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#131

Post by PeterisP » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:51 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #124

PeterisP wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, this represents a success for the currency - it represents a failure of the concept "the code is the final word on the contract", which the Ethereum community judged as incompatible with a good future of their currency and threw out this concept. Apparently when considering "Who would commit to building anything in an environment like that?" in practice, then an environment where the code is the fina…

But that approach was what made Ethereum unique. If it is abandoned, then why should anyone use it, rather than the more popular and better established alternatives?

The concept of smart code-enforced contracts is valid, interesting and useful for practical applications even if (and IMHO especially if) there is some non-technical override possible above them.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#132

Post by lajarre » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 9:55 AM UTC

tankenmate wrote: post #14

echelon wrote: post #7

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…

> the 51% can take control of the chain

This argument seems fallacious and off-the-point in this context.

Isn't the goal of a contract to precisely bypass the 51% control thing (a distributed consensus rule, needed for mining), by defining its own explicit rules?

> Democracy; it sucks, but it sucks less than everything else

More profoundly, isn't the essence of such systems to go beyond democracy, and allow for new governance paradigms?

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#133

Post by cannonball » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 10:26 AM UTC

This is history revisionism as code.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#134

Post by npongratz » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

nicksdjohnson wrote: post #129

npongratz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be fun to know how many Ethereum developers lost their ETH in the Gatecoin robbery versus how many stood to lose in the DAO exploit.

Every single Ethereum dev I know - and pretty nearly everyone else in the community - owns far more ETH than they do DAO, if they own any DAO at all. So this 'explanation', which I see over and over again, just doesn't scan: The financially rational thing for anyone in that position to do is to maximise the value of the ether they have, not to try and rescue a proportionally small amount held in DAO tokens. Disclaime…

Effectively breaking the immutability of a blockchain's history might be financially rational[0], but it appears unprincipled to do so after leadership spent a couple years extolling the virtues of "code is law" and "code is contract."

I'd like to learn what principles are now now guiding the development team, since "code is contract" has apparently been abandoned. After this episode, it appears (from the outside) that it will be more financially beneficial for any project using the Ethereum blockchain to aggressively pursue investment from core developers and 15% of the token holders than to ensure the correctness of their code. In my view, this fatally undermines the value proposition of both said hypothetical project and Ethereum itself.

For many people, "perception is reality." I know that media often unfairly frames their reporting, and in this case everything I've seen reported has been the seemingly arbitrary and seemingly self-serving nature of Ethereum development. I would be happy to be shown what I've read is wrong and that the philosophical foundation of Ethereum development is sound, consistent, and impartial.

[0] Certainly for a subset and the short term, arguable for all and the long term.

Re: Ethereum hard fork successful with mining majority

#135

Post by baby » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

arisAlexis wrote: post #130

baby wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is 100% against everything the crypto world is all about That statement came out of nowhere :D care to expand?

Not sure why I nee to expand.Crypto is about immutability and decentralization. If you see no reason for that I see no reason to explain. the hard fork was for getting money back.

> Crypto is about immutability and decentralization

if crypto was about immutability, then we wouldn't have things like homomorphic encryption would we :)?

Decentralization? A hard fork is something that only happens because of decentralization. If your system was centralized you would never have seen a hard fork.