4 ms·

But as the article notes this was actually a hard fork off the chain known up to that time at Ethereum. It’s really just semantics that the old chain became kno

But as the article notes this was actually a hard fork off the chain known up to that time at Ethereum. It’s really just semantics that the old chain became known as Ethereum Classic and the hard-forked chain maintained the name of “Ethereum” due to the active developers and most of the community choosing to use the hard fork. The payment was still never actually reversed on Ethereum Classic. And that blockchain exists to this day. Sure, the amount of the not-actually-reversed transaction has lost value in $ at mark-to-market but it’s still the same amount of ether on the same blockchain as it’s always been. In that sense a better term is that the payment was rejected by the community, or routed around, rather than reversed IMO.

mLuby 5y ago
That Ethereum Classic never reversed is true but largely meaningless; what matters, as you say, is that "the not-actually-reversed transaction has lost value in $ at mark-to-market." That loss in value represents the reversal. If that hadn't happened, the original and fork could be double-spent.
- opportune 5y ago
  The difference in value of ETH classic and ETH grew over time though. It hasn’t always been so stark. I don’t care enough about the specifics of the “bad” txs to check when/if the funds were sent out of the receiving wallets but they might have recovered the same or similar amount of value in $. Anyway, I just find this a really bad example in general because it’s 1 an exceptional case, most other hard forks haven’t been done just for transactions 2 it required almost the entire community to choose to follow the hard fork (which is the only thing that actually destroys value). Yes, it does show that you can do something like a payment reversal in crypto but it’s very hard and unlikely. In this case the exception proves the rule

mLuby 5y ago

That Ethereum Classic never reversed is true but largely meaningless; what matters, as you say, is that "the not-actually-reversed transaction has lost value in $ at mark-to-market." That loss in value represents the reversal. If that hadn't happened, the original and fork could be double-spent.

opportune 5y ago
The difference in value of ETH classic and ETH grew over time though. It hasn’t always been so stark. I don’t care enough about the specifics of the “bad” txs to check when/if the funds were sent out of the receiving wallets but they might have recovered the same or similar amount of value in $. Anyway, I just find this a really bad example in general because it’s 1 an exceptional case, most other hard forks haven’t been done just for transactions 2 it required almost the entire community to choose to follow the hard fork (which is the only thing that actually destroys value). Yes, it does show that you can do something like a payment reversal in crypto but it’s very hard and unlikely. In this case the exception proves the rule