3 ms·
I've recently read that the blockchain was not rewritten or unrolled. It was actually executed forward through an "irregular state change". In other words, it m
by bouncycastle 5y ago
I've recently read that the blockchain was not rewritten or unrolled. It was actually executed forward through an "irregular state change". In other words, it made a new transaction instead of erasing or modifying old transactions, and that was done with consensus of all those who ran the ETH client. Those who didn't agree went to ETC, but the market chose ETH in the end.
- SilasX 5y agoRegardless of how you word it, it amounts to the same thing: the protocol and signed, validated history say this happened, now we act like they did not, which is a violation of blockchain integrity.
- bouncycastle 5y agoNo, that's not what happened. No history was changed, and nothing was re-validated as you suggest. There was no "violation of blockchain integrity". The only thing that happened was that the upgraded version executed what's known as an "irregular state-change" which moved the ETH from TheDAO's smart contract to a new secure contract. So, it wasn't a roll-back, but a roll-forward, and the change was mined using PoW in accordance with all the blockchain block selection rules.
- SilasX 5y agoThe hackers ("hackers") made valid transactions. The hard fork reversed those transactions. No matter what fancy spin you put on it, that was absolutely a violation of the blockchain's integrity, as it violated the principle that accepted transactions can't be reversed after the fact, even if you call it an "irregular state-change" that just keeps things secure. You can absolutely defend the position that this was best for the ETH ecosystem. But it was absolutely a reneging on the blockchain rules.