3 ms·
1. No one was forced to run the new client that backed out the DAO 2. The existing network with the stolen funds and the DAO lived on as Ethereum Classic There
by ascendantlogic 8y ago
1. No one was forced to run the new client that backed out the DAO
2. The existing network with the stolen funds and the DAO lived on as Ethereum Classic
There was no central entity mandating that everyone was required to run the "new" network. It was entirely up to miners and people running nodes to decide which network they supported. Further the decision to back out the DAO hack was done via vote so that's another important part of decentralization called consensus.
- xorcist 8y ago> There was no central entity mandating that everyone was required to run the "new" network Is the choice to run a less valuable network really a choice? Remember that the foundation people gave themselves most of the coins that will ever exist before the network was even started, even if a lot was sold long before there was a word for ICOs. Only ~ 20% or so of the supply will ever be mined. It is not economically rational to differ in consensus rules from the foundation.
- dagaci 8y ago> Is the choice to run a less valuable network really a choice? Well yes it is, although people take Ethereum quite seriously the code-base led Vitalik has quite a distance to go before it completes the roadmap delivered some years ago. So it is fair for the foundation to patch hacks as well as provide other upgrades. It you want to continue to use the hackable version because you believe that code should never change and be immutable and never change then that is also a choice.
- woah 8y agoWhat? Of course it’s a choice. And if the majority of people had made that choice, it would be the more valuable chain.
- pavel_lishin 8y agoYes. People literally voted with their wallets.