4 ms·
Are you referring to the time someone stole a bunch of money without violating the terms of a smart contract and most of a community moved to a fork where the t
by SuoDuanDao 5y ago
Are you referring to the time someone stole a bunch of money without violating the terms of a smart contract and most of a community moved to a fork where the theft was reversed?
If so, I remember it quite vividly - not sure how it supports your claim though. Ethereum classic is still around, and a decent number of purists still use it. I don't share their convictions, but I'm glad they have the option.
- pavlov 5y ago”… stole a bunch of money without violating the terms of a smart contract” — so, didn’t steal the money? Or are you admitting a smart contract isn’t any kind of contract at all? Glad “the community” stepped up to prevent smart contracts from being credible. Though I’m not sure why this community is a preferable regulator to the ones we have for actual money. Since cryptoinvestments are also bound by real-world law, you now have two regulators: the real one and the “community” that transfers cryptomoney to itself when it wants.
- SuoDuanDao 5y agoThey used the contract in a way no one who wrote or entered into it intended. When a contract isn't serving the people bound to it there's typically the option to rewrite it when all parties agree. The only party that disagreed was the Eth classic community, and they still have a coin and codebase with contracts credible by your unusually high standards. The only thing they lost was investor sentiment. If those standards prove to be advantageous for a group to operate under, they'll gain ground over time. That's the beauty of crypto - people can decide the protocols and community they prefer in real time, and vote with their money accordingly.