4 ms·

- Ethereum has no "owners". ENS is fully decentralized. There is no "they" to fork anything. - There is no need to have exchanges involved in that. - ENS has

- Ethereum has no "owners". ENS is fully decentralized. There is no "they" to fork anything. - There is no need to have exchanges involved in that. - ENS has a token, but is not required for people who just want to buy a domain (they use ETH) Quit the senseless FUD

judge2020 4y ago
> There is no "they" to fork anything. What? ENS is BSD licensed. Anyone can ‘fork’ it at any time.
- detaro 4y ago
  That's clearly not what forking means in this context. You can't make the existing "instance" run different code, and it's users don't have to care if you run your own modified copy.
- T0Bi 4y ago
  > What? ENS is BSD licensed. Anyone can ‘fork’ it at any time. Forking a blockchain and forking a repository are completely different things. The comment was talking about the former.
- jkepler 4y ago
  If a project is actually decentralized, you can't simply fork the code to fork the community. In truly decentralized systems, the consensus rules define whether one is into the system or not. The big problem here is that most of the systems in crypto are really startups run by a small group of founders. Very few of these projects are really decentralized.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
> Ethereum has no "owners". ENS is fully decentralized. There is no "they" to fork anything. I think “They” once forked Ethereum to prevent DAO losses.
- rglullis 4y ago
  No. The "They" that did the fork only managed to do it because there was a majority consensus agreement to switch to the forked chain. If the majority refused to follow, there forked chain would have died or become a thing for the minority. Just like EthPOW vs ETH POS. Seriously, why is it that every discussion about crypto has the same bullshit talking points? Do you guys have a list of "standard basic list of BS arguments that I will throw at the discussion just to see it sticks"? Is it ignorance? Is it malice?
  - jkepler 4y ago
    Don't attribute to malice what could simply be ignorance. Right now, people need to pit in some serious time (upwards of 100 hours minimum) learning about true decentralized open technologies like bitcoin, so I think uninformed ignorance is far more likely than malice in almost all cases... unless the uninformed person stands to profit from his or her ignorance. I'm not sure Ethereum is anywhere near as decentralized and bitcoin, because the Ethereum foundation and the large stakeholders (now that they have the miners the boot) appear to wield a huge amount of power.
    - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
      You are right. The most likely reason almost all of hackernews wants to do nothing but make fun of crypto and the people involved is they just don't understand it. If only they invested the 100+ hours learning it like we did then maybe they would understand its value. I mean thats the only option - either its uninformed ignorance (which we think) or actual malice. There can't be a third option.
  - latexr 4y ago
    > The "They" that did the fork only managed to do it because there was a majority consensus agreement to switch to the forked chain. A majority you may not agree with. So you’re still at the mercy of external entities, contradicting your original point. > Seriously, why is it that every discussion about crypto has the same bullshit talking points? Because proponents keep repeating the same debunked invalid talking points. Like saying anything they disagree with is FUD. That expression has become the Godwin’s law of blockchain discussions: it doesn’t advance the conversation, it’s just shorthand for “I angrily disagree with you”.
ajross 4y ago
> There is no "they" to fork anything. They literally forked it just last month!
- rglullis 4y ago
  Who is "they" here?
  - ajross 4y ago
    The "they" you denied existed, of course. Look, the frame of your argument here is "the blockchain won't ever unilaterally make decisions you don't like like a big centralized tech company". And they do, and have, multiple times in the past. And lots of people didn't like that, in each case.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      No. You are talking about three different groups and you calling both by the same "they": - One "they" is the Ethereum developers making new developments and proposing changes to the "main" blockchain. - The other "they" is the thousands of people who are developing and using applications that can be used by the most people, and care (mostly) about having one blockchain where they can reach the most people. - The third "they" are the ones running the nodes and making sure that the network is functional. What I am saying is that none of these groups can unilaterally decide the course of the blockchain. Your confusion does not make my statement wrong.
      - ajross 4y ago
        You're splitting hairs. Sure, your carefully constructed "microtheys" don't have the power you fear. But someone does[1]. And they act. And have. [1] As currently constructed, it (probably) requires a 51% attack by staked ETH owners. There's a lot more wealth concentration on the blockchain than you think there is, this isn't a lot of actual people!
        4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

judge2020 4y ago

> There is no "they" to fork anything. What? ENS is BSD licensed. Anyone can ‘fork’ it at any time.

detaro 4y ago
That's clearly not what forking means in this context. You can't make the existing "instance" run different code, and it's users don't have to care if you run your own modified copy.
T0Bi 4y ago
> What? ENS is BSD licensed. Anyone can ‘fork’ it at any time. Forking a blockchain and forking a repository are completely different things. The comment was talking about the former.
jkepler 4y ago
If a project is actually decentralized, you can't simply fork the code to fork the community. In truly decentralized systems, the consensus rules define whether one is into the system or not. The big problem here is that most of the systems in crypto are really startups run by a small group of founders. Very few of these projects are really decentralized.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

> Ethereum has no "owners". ENS is fully decentralized. There is no "they" to fork anything. I think “They” once forked Ethereum to prevent DAO losses.

rglullis 4y ago
No. The "They" that did the fork only managed to do it because there was a majority consensus agreement to switch to the forked chain. If the majority refused to follow, there forked chain would have died or become a thing for the minority. Just like EthPOW vs ETH POS. Seriously, why is it that every discussion about crypto has the same bullshit talking points? Do you guys have a list of "standard basic list of BS arguments that I will throw at the discussion just to see it sticks"? Is it ignorance? Is it malice?
- jkepler 4y ago
  Don't attribute to malice what could simply be ignorance. Right now, people need to pit in some serious time (upwards of 100 hours minimum) learning about true decentralized open technologies like bitcoin, so I think uninformed ignorance is far more likely than malice in almost all cases... unless the uninformed person stands to profit from his or her ignorance. I'm not sure Ethereum is anywhere near as decentralized and bitcoin, because the Ethereum foundation and the large stakeholders (now that they have the miners the boot) appear to wield a huge amount of power.
  - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    You are right. The most likely reason almost all of hackernews wants to do nothing but make fun of crypto and the people involved is they just don't understand it. If only they invested the 100+ hours learning it like we did then maybe they would understand its value. I mean thats the only option - either its uninformed ignorance (which we think) or actual malice. There can't be a third option.
- latexr 4y ago
  > The "They" that did the fork only managed to do it because there was a majority consensus agreement to switch to the forked chain. A majority you may not agree with. So you’re still at the mercy of external entities, contradicting your original point. > Seriously, why is it that every discussion about crypto has the same bullshit talking points? Because proponents keep repeating the same debunked invalid talking points. Like saying anything they disagree with is FUD. That expression has become the Godwin’s law of blockchain discussions: it doesn’t advance the conversation, it’s just shorthand for “I angrily disagree with you”.

ajross 4y ago

> There is no "they" to fork anything. They literally forked it just last month!

rglullis 4y ago
Who is "they" here?
- ajross 4y ago
  The "they" you denied existed, of course. Look, the frame of your argument here is "the blockchain won't ever unilaterally make decisions you don't like like a big centralized tech company". And they do, and have, multiple times in the past. And lots of people didn't like that, in each case.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    No. You are talking about three different groups and you calling both by the same "they": - One "they" is the Ethereum developers making new developments and proposing changes to the "main" blockchain. - The other "they" is the thousands of people who are developing and using applications that can be used by the most people, and care (mostly) about having one blockchain where they can reach the most people. - The third "they" are the ones running the nodes and making sure that the network is functional. What I am saying is that none of these groups can unilaterally decide the course of the blockchain. Your confusion does not make my statement wrong.
    - ajross 4y ago
      You're splitting hairs. Sure, your carefully constructed "microtheys" don't have the power you fear. But someone does[1]. And they act. And have. [1] As currently constructed, it (probably) requires a 51% attack by staked ETH owners. There's a lot more wealth concentration on the blockchain than you think there is, this isn't a lot of actual people!
      - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]