> IMO, what happened with Ethereum was not exactly the correct economic perspective. More like the ethereum devs went on to support the Ethereum and ditched the

> IMO, what happened with Ethereum was not exactly the correct economic perspective. More like the ethereum devs went on to support the Ethereum and ditched the coin. Bitcoin Cash/Gold on the other hand seems fine. I agree with this, actually. The hard fork showed that ETH would be forcibly redistributed if the result of correct VM behavior was not what the maintainers had in mind. So the ETH hard fork fits into the very typical pattern in human institutions of excessive centralization resulting in corrupt behavior. Most of the early adopters of ETH who lost money due to the DAO attack were essentially the political allies of the maintainers, who in turn held great sway with miners. We've recently learned that ETH mining is far more centralized than BTC. The ETH hard fork was a nice wakeup call that even for supposedly enlightened proponents of decentralization and distributed consensus, when there is real money on the line pretty much any excuse will be acceptable for why the "theft" had to be unwound via a hard fork. Ironically, in order for market incentives to work properly in a smart contract system, finding exploitable cases of correct (or incorrect) behavior of the VM should result in profit, or else there is simply no market incentive for the system to be secure and to behave in a predictable manner. In order for Ethereum to have passed the institutional test imposed on it by the DAO hack, it would have had to deal with the difficult issue of victims of the attack claiming "theft" and would have had to allow the difficult lesson to be learned. Now that we know that Ethereum was a toy when the DAO hack occurred, when will it stop being a toy? Is the current fork real? Anyway, apologies for the hyperbole, I just wanted to make the above point.