4 ms·
The whole ethereum fork was such a funny situation. "Our currency is immutable and all, no banks or any law messing with your money" "oh, but that contract th
by PunchyHamster 11mo ago
The whole ethereum fork was such a funny situation.
"Our currency is immutable and all, no banks or any law messing with your money"
"oh, but that contract that people got conned by need to be fixed, let's throw all promises into the trash and undo that"
"...so you just acted as bank or regulators would, because the Important People lost some money"
"essentially yeah"
- latenightcoding 11mo agowhen the core devs lose money, the rules change.
- DennisP 11mo agoIt's been nine years since the chain split, which happened within the first year. No irregular changes have been made since then. Two major hacks caused over a hundred million dollars in losses to Parity, a company founded by one of the core devs. That dev lobbied heavily for rescue, and the community refused. Bitcoin also made an irregular change, a year and a half into its history.
- csomar 11mo agoIt just shows that the decision making is very centralized and failure of ETC shows that the community is not interested in a true immutable ledger.
- mlrtime 11mo agoNo True Scotsman , Crypto edition. Listen, this is all code running on computers. At the end of the day everyone could choose to shut it down or replace it entirely and they criticism would still be: See not immutable! Eventually entropy makes everything mutable.
- ChadNauseam 11mo agoThe old version stayed around but (essentially) nobody wanted to use it. If they had, the forked version would be worthless. That is the difference. A cryptocurrency fork cannot succeed without the consent of the community. No one is compelled to use it the way that you are compelled to accept the decisions of a regulator.
- ceejayoz 11mo agoWell, the consent of some of the community. Potentially far, far less than a majority of the community, even, considering it's not one person, one vote.
- torginus 11mo agoyeah this sounds like direct plutocracy - money votes, not people. Which I guess is a cricitism of crypto in general - if it were to be adopted widely, the rich can gang up any time on the rest of us and do an 50% vote to rewrite the votes - right now the 1% owns about 30% of wealth in the US - not a stretch to see it go to 50%
- vkou 11mo agoIf the community of people in this country didn't like regulation, all they'd need to do is vote in someone who would remove it. The fact that they haven't, or that there aren't even headwinds for such a thing implies that they are more-or-less fine with it.
- solumunus 11mo agoIf people disagree with one particular regulation, you think it’s possible to vote someone in to fix that issue in isolation? I don’t think you have thought about this very deeply, either that or you’re completely ignorant of the political environment you inhabit. You’re also misusing “headwinds”.
- kikimora 11mo agoWhich country? Mind you, at least 50% of population are in countries where votes do not work the way you’d think they do. Even in US, how easy would it be to change zoning regulation to promote more housing.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- w4yai 11mo agoMost of the community wanted that fork, and both versions still exist. The difference with the bank/regulators is you can't really decide, contrary to Ethereum. The comparison doesn't hold.
- ForHackernews 11mo agoThe comparison absolutely holds: the Important People With Money decide. The cryptobros just want to re-invent an alternate world of finance where they are the wealthy oligarchs.
- w4yai 11mo agoYet again, no. The "rich people" decided just as everyone did. If you still want to use the old chain, you can. It's still running. Most people don't want to though, because it doesn't make sense for them : agreeing with "the rich people" don't make you wrong.