5 ms·

The second most popular (i.e. valuable) cryptocurrency (ETH) is a fork of Ethereum, while the original (now called ETC) is practically dead.

Dylan16807 6y ago
I would disagree with calling "ethereum" the fork. But even accepting that premise, it's still an example where exactly one version gets to live, and the one made by a group of average people is the one that died. There is effectively no forking allowed, and implementing a fork of bitcoin is just a slipshod alternative to BIPs.
- frankenst1 6y ago
  If you redefine 'forks' to refer to the minority chains you are of course correct that "popularity contests don't think much of forks", but this would be a) tautological and b) not the correct use of a well-defined technical term. ETC is not a fork and it wasn't 'made' by anyone. It is just the original, unaltered transaction history of Ethereum. ETH was 'made' by introducing a hard-fork and altering parts of Ethereum's transaction history, diverging from prior consensus rules.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > tautological It's not tautological to say that you get 100% or 0%. You can't effectively split the population. It almost happened with ethereum, and has never really come close with bitcoin. It's also not tautological to say "The thing called 'bitcoin' at the time has always been the winner. The thing called 'ethereum' at the time has always been the winner." > not the correct use of a well-defined technical term If you want to be really technical, every single update is a fork, and every single time two blocks are mined at the same time it's a fork. I would rather go with what people were actually calling 'bitcoin' or 'ethereum' the day after any forking of the chain. I don't think it's reasonable to say that we're on a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of bitcoin or ethereum. > ETC is not a fork and it wasn't 'made' by anyone. It is just the original, unaltered transaction history of Ethereum. ETH was 'made' by introducing a hard-fork and altering parts of Ethereum's transaction history, diverging from prior consensus rules. All the blocks after the divergence point were made by someone. The original transaction history is part of both. And I would say that using consensus to change the consensus rules is part of the consensus rules.
    - frankenst1 6y ago
      > It's not tautological to say that you get 100% or 0%. I was referring to your argument that "popularity contests don't think much of unpopular (i.e. minority) forks". > The thing called 'ethereum' at the time has always been the winner. The thing called 'Ethereum' at the time is now called ETC, and it lost. > every single update is a fork, and every single time two blocks are mined at the same time it's a fork. Only updates which change consensus are considered forks. Two blocks mined at the same time is not a fork (because consensus rules have not been changed), but a temporary chain split. Forks can sometimes cause permanent splits though (ETH, Bitcoin alts) when both sides retain hashrate to mine/support it.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > I was referring to your argument that "popularity contests don't think much of unpopular (i.e. minority) forks". So am I, but you're interpreting my words wrong. I wasn't saying that "in the realm of blockchain forking, the less popular one will be less popular", which would be a tautology. I was saying that "in the realm of blockchain forking, the less popular one will get demolished". > The thing called 'Ethereum' at the time is now called ETC, and it lost. Right before the fork, they were both called Ethereum. Right after the fork, ETH was called Ethereum. And it won. "at the time" and "the day after" are supposed to be roughly synonyms in my comment there. And you didn't address the issue of how validation logic has changed many other times on coins, with the original continuing to mine for a while before sputtering out and dying. Is "Bitcoin" dead? Nobody is running the original logic anymore.
        frankenst1 6y ago
        > I was saying that "in the realm of blockchain forking, the less popular one will get demolished". Sorry I still find myself reading your words the same way. If you can only determine if a fork was "demolished" by rating its popularity (i.e. market value or hashrate), you are back to the tautology: "The most popular fork wins" seems to be your argument. But "winning" here means having higher market cap/more hashrate. And being more popular also means having higher market cap/more hashrate. Let's say a fresh fork happens causing a chain split. Both chains have 50% market cap and hashrate. How do you measure "popularity" at this point so that your prediction of "the most popular fork wins" is actually helpful? ETH forking away from ETC was a very controversial topic at the time. > And you didn't address the issue of how validation logic has changed many other times on coins, with the original continuing to mine for a while before sputtering out and dying. This is exactly what we are discussing with ETC. ETH changed consensus and the original (ETC) continues to mine for a while before sputtering out (it is not dead... yet). > Is "Bitcoin" dead? Nobody is running the original logic anymore. Not sure what this is supposed to support? There are still Bitcoin Qt 0.8.x nodes on the network which are ~10 years old.

Dylan16807 6y ago

I would disagree with calling "ethereum" the fork. But even accepting that premise, it's still an example where exactly one version gets to live, and the one made by a group of average people is the one that died. There is effectively no forking allowed, and implementing a fork of bitcoin is just a slipshod alternative to BIPs.

frankenst1 6y ago
If you redefine 'forks' to refer to the minority chains you are of course correct that "popularity contests don't think much of forks", but this would be a) tautological and b) not the correct use of a well-defined technical term. ETC is not a fork and it wasn't 'made' by anyone. It is just the original, unaltered transaction history of Ethereum. ETH was 'made' by introducing a hard-fork and altering parts of Ethereum's transaction history, diverging from prior consensus rules.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > tautological It's not tautological to say that you get 100% or 0%. You can't effectively split the population. It almost happened with ethereum, and has never really come close with bitcoin. It's also not tautological to say "The thing called 'bitcoin' at the time has always been the winner. The thing called 'ethereum' at the time has always been the winner." > not the correct use of a well-defined technical term If you want to be really technical, every single update is a fork, and every single time two blocks are mined at the same time it's a fork. I would rather go with what people were actually calling 'bitcoin' or 'ethereum' the day after any forking of the chain. I don't think it's reasonable to say that we're on a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of a fork of bitcoin or ethereum. > ETC is not a fork and it wasn't 'made' by anyone. It is just the original, unaltered transaction history of Ethereum. ETH was 'made' by introducing a hard-fork and altering parts of Ethereum's transaction history, diverging from prior consensus rules. All the blocks after the divergence point were made by someone. The original transaction history is part of both. And I would say that using consensus to change the consensus rules is part of the consensus rules.
  - frankenst1 6y ago
    > It's not tautological to say that you get 100% or 0%. I was referring to your argument that "popularity contests don't think much of unpopular (i.e. minority) forks". > The thing called 'ethereum' at the time has always been the winner. The thing called 'Ethereum' at the time is now called ETC, and it lost. > every single update is a fork, and every single time two blocks are mined at the same time it's a fork. Only updates which change consensus are considered forks. Two blocks mined at the same time is not a fork (because consensus rules have not been changed), but a temporary chain split. Forks can sometimes cause permanent splits though (ETH, Bitcoin alts) when both sides retain hashrate to mine/support it.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      > I was referring to your argument that "popularity contests don't think much of unpopular (i.e. minority) forks". So am I, but you're interpreting my words wrong. I wasn't saying that "in the realm of blockchain forking, the less popular one will be less popular", which would be a tautology. I was saying that "in the realm of blockchain forking, the less popular one will get demolished". > The thing called 'Ethereum' at the time is now called ETC, and it lost. Right before the fork, they were both called Ethereum. Right after the fork, ETH was called Ethereum. And it won. "at the time" and "the day after" are supposed to be roughly synonyms in my comment there. And you didn't address the issue of how validation logic has changed many other times on coins, with the original continuing to mine for a while before sputtering out and dying. Is "Bitcoin" dead? Nobody is running the original logic anymore.
      - frankenst1 6y ago
        > I was saying that "in the realm of blockchain forking, the less popular one will get demolished". Sorry I still find myself reading your words the same way. If you can only determine if a fork was "demolished" by rating its popularity (i.e. market value or hashrate), you are back to the tautology: "The most popular fork wins" seems to be your argument. But "winning" here means having higher market cap/more hashrate. And being more popular also means having higher market cap/more hashrate. Let's say a fresh fork happens causing a chain split. Both chains have 50% market cap and hashrate. How do you measure "popularity" at this point so that your prediction of "the most popular fork wins" is actually helpful? ETH forking away from ETC was a very controversial topic at the time. > And you didn't address the issue of how validation logic has changed many other times on coins, with the original continuing to mine for a while before sputtering out and dying. This is exactly what we are discussing with ETC. ETH changed consensus and the original (ETC) continues to mine for a while before sputtering out (it is not dead... yet). > Is "Bitcoin" dead? Nobody is running the original logic anymore. Not sure what this is supposed to support? There are still Bitcoin Qt 0.8.x nodes on the network which are ~10 years old.