4 ms·

> So not only immutability was a complete lie in 2016 with the nonsense of 'Code is law' now with the Merge happening to proof-of-stake, unsurprisingly, central

> So not only immutability was a complete lie in 2016 with the nonsense of 'Code is law' now with the Merge happening to proof-of-stake, unsurprisingly, centralization and big money ultimately wins. This topic is like the "but Hillary's emails" of Ethereum. Something like 60%+ of Ethereum users at the time lost money in the DAO hack, so yea they created a social fork. It wasn't because of "big money" or centralization, pretty much everyone wanted to fork. That's how forks work, and as you mentioned, ETC is still around if you want to follow that fork.

rvz 4y ago
> Something like 60%+ of Ethereum users at the time lost money in the DAO hack, so yea they created a social fork. It wasn't because of "big money" or centralization, pretty much everyone wanted to fork. Nope. It is certainly the DAO investors that lost money who wanted the fork more than anyone else; hence, the ones with big money involved that boosted and influenced that decision to do an urgent hard fork and I don't think the folks promoting the 'decentralization', 'immutability', 'Code is Law' agreed with that, so about this 'pretty much everyone' fallacy; Let's go back into 2016, when it happened. We even have folks who believe that the hack is 'working as intended' [0]. > "Ethereum worked exactly as intended. I don’t believe software should be updated when it works exactly as intended. You assume the risks of your investment. If you don’t understand your investment, you assume unknown risk. Anything else is a bailout by a central authority, i.e. the antithesis of the crypto world..." There are many other projects that lose money over smart contract hacks every day and there is no mutability or reversibility for those investors. This is the point that the author in this post is making against the 'Code is law' nonsense. Apparently, it applies to retail who won't get the reversibility treatment but it doesn't apply to lots of large investors losing their money in a failed experiment, boosted by the Ethereum Foundation. Once that goes south, the fork that is boosted by big money and the Ethereum foundation always wins. > That's how forks work, and as you mentioned, ETC is still around if you want to follow that fork. I follow neither ETH or ETC. I am only waiting for more regulatory clarity looming onto the cryptocurrency industry. But I thank you for confirming the centralization of Ethereum and how catastrophic errors and persistent issues in Ethereum are "working as intended". [0] https://www.coindesk.com/learn/2016/06/25/understanding-the-dao-attack/ https://www.coindesk.com/learn/2016/06/25/understanding-the-...
- yunohn 4y ago
  > If you don’t understand your investment, you assume unknown risk. I will never understand crypto diehards who make these statements. I would love to meet one in real life, who has never written any buggy code or made a mistake before - pretty sure it never resulted in the loss of their life savings!

rvz 4y ago

> Something like 60%+ of Ethereum users at the time lost money in the DAO hack, so yea they created a social fork. It wasn't because of "big money" or centralization, pretty much everyone wanted to fork. Nope. It is certainly the DAO investors that lost money who wanted the fork more than anyone else; hence, the ones with big money involved that boosted and influenced that decision to do an urgent hard fork and I don't think the folks promoting the 'decentralization', 'immutability', 'Code is Law' agreed with that, so about this 'pretty much everyone' fallacy; Let's go back into 2016, when it happened. We even have folks who believe that the hack is 'working as intended' [0]. > "Ethereum worked exactly as intended. I don’t believe software should be updated when it works exactly as intended. You assume the risks of your investment. If you don’t understand your investment, you assume unknown risk. Anything else is a bailout by a central authority, i.e. the antithesis of the crypto world..." There are many other projects that lose money over smart contract hacks every day and there is no mutability or reversibility for those investors. This is the point that the author in this post is making against the 'Code is law' nonsense. Apparently, it applies to retail who won't get the reversibility treatment but it doesn't apply to lots of large investors losing their money in a failed experiment, boosted by the Ethereum Foundation. Once that goes south, the fork that is boosted by big money and the Ethereum foundation always wins. > That's how forks work, and as you mentioned, ETC is still around if you want to follow that fork. I follow neither ETH or ETC. I am only waiting for more regulatory clarity looming onto the cryptocurrency industry. But I thank you for confirming the centralization of Ethereum and how catastrophic errors and persistent issues in Ethereum are "working as intended". [0] https://www.coindesk.com/learn/2016/06/25/understanding-the-dao-attack/ https://www.coindesk.com/learn/2016/06/25/understanding-the-...

yunohn 4y ago
> If you don’t understand your investment, you assume unknown risk. I will never understand crypto diehards who make these statements. I would love to meet one in real life, who has never written any buggy code or made a mistake before - pretty sure it never resulted in the loss of their life savings!