Children lack agency and are thus less culpable for their mistakes.  And they still need consequences, or they turn into spoiled brats.

DAO investors and the TBTF firms Jim Rogers speaks about are not children.  Please don't infantalize them in order to justify indulging their mistakes with bailouts and do-overs.

Please STFU with your "fundamental certainties" because I'm fundamentally certain you have no clue about how smart contract are supposed to work.

Here you go little baby, I'll be a nurturing parent and utilize this teachable moment to bail you out of your ignorance, but then it's time for your nap.   

A smart contract enforces a commitment without resorting to the threat of external litigation [2].

Nick Szabo, Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks. 1997

as cited by http://elaineou.com/2016/06/19/contracts-code-and-complexity/

Not everyone agrees with your (externally litigious) definitions of "ethics" and "stolen."

By pretending your subjective external definitions are not controversial, you commit the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent.

If that's not bad enough, your logical fallacy is then used to justify the moral hazard of bailing out the greedy and stupid, to the detriment of the wise and smart.

Shame on you.  Shame!

Most projects are afraid to come out and support ETC, because of what happened during the fork.

The EF was asking people to report others for not supporting the DAO bailout.  They are making a list of troublemakers.

The pools and dapp writers can't risk retaliation by the EF; all they can do is keep quiet until ETC provides them to freedom and economic support to act without fear of retribution from Pope Butarin and his Inquisition.


Exactly.  Any dapp that works on ETH will work even better on the immutable chain, which is not subject to 3rd party validation and time reversal according to the whims of Team Bailout.

ETH is only better for poorly-written dumb contracts which fail and require arbitrary politicized bailouts from the Central Authorities.

By definition, true smart contracts require unstoppable code running on an immutable ledger.

A smart contract enforces a commitment without resorting to the threat of external litigation [2].

Nick Szabo, Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks. 1997

as cited by http://elaineou.com/2016/06/19/contracts-code-and-complexity/

For those of you in Yorba Linda, DAO bailout = external litigation.   

PoW miners in China and everywhere else gravitate towards free surplus energy blah blah blah...OK enough of the scope creep.   

Turning the specific case of ETC into a general referendum on PoW vs PoS and every other pet issue around is the opposite of KISS.

Changing to a different pure PoW is highly controversial and a non-starter.

We have three potentially viable options.

In order of KISS to not-KISS:

1.  Merge whatever PoS ETH does.  Done.
2.  Defuse diff bomb and PoW forever.  Hope devs and economy are up to the Medium Difficulty task of coping with protocol/codebase drift.
3.  Charlie Hos' new hybrid.  Hope it works and is secure.  Hope devs and economy are up to the Highly Difficult challenge of coping with protocol/codebase drift.

Note these are not mutually exclusive propositions, resulting in ETC, Classic Classic, and ETC2, but only the first option minimizes effort duplication in regard to ETH.

Yes.  

In Classic, unstoppable Code is actually the Law, because long-term integrity is more important than preventing short-term losses by introducing morally hazardous 3rd parties.

I don't know what ETH is good for now, but smart contracts are by definition out of the question.

A smart contract enforces a commitment without resorting to the threat of external litigation [2].

Nick Szabo, Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks. 1997

as cited by http://elaineou.com/2016/06/19/contracts-code-and-complexity/

In order to enact a controversial DAO bailout, ETH hard forked off the original Ethereum chain.

The original chain is called Ethereum Classic (ETC).

 Classic Block Explorer
http://blocks.elaineou.com/home


Nice!   

ETH finished Caspar PoS?

Oh wait, no they didn't.

If they had, ETC could simply copy it.

Sorry criticism hurts your feelings, but "R&B music" didn't take lots of money and then deliver nothing, so spare us the crappy deflections and shitty pop psychology.

We're not going to stop calling out fraud when we see it.

Wasn't the MVP supposed to be done months ago?   

Most companies are saying they will go with ETH because they fear retaliation from the EF and BailoutForkers, just as most pools (regardless of what their users preferred) voted to go along to get along (rather than being placed on The List of subversive troublemakers).

The ETH commitment of the miners only lasted as long as they lacked economic incentive to defect to ETC.

When their software is cloned and run on ETC, the dapp guys will quickly ditch Pope Vitalik and serve the socioeconomic majority.

Granted there is some appeal to the prospect of bailouts for failed contracts, but that provides a useful way to force self-identification of which dapps are toys (meant to run in make-believe world of monopoly money and reversible time), and which are actual production systems (meant to run in the real world where we play for keeps and time is not reversible).

Because NVC "clearly has been done" it means Charlie Hos's new thingy will work?  LOL, no.

The particular hybrid under development for possible use in ETC is new.

Hybrids in general are not new, but nobody has proposed copying Novacoin so IDK why you'd bring it up to sell us on something different.

The hybrid vs pure PoW issue is contentious, and we're under a time constraint thanks to the diff bomb.

3 devs are barely enough to lead a search for a viable (ie fairly bulletproof) hybrid model.

It sounds like that work is mostly finished, so the next question is "are 3 devs enough to bridge the the codebase and protocol schisms entailed by using a different hash function than ETH?"

I don't think so, but we may be forced find out the hard way.

Until then, the default position seems to be defusing the bomb and staying with PoW.  That at least keeps the miners on our side.

Sorry greenie, but ETC isn't being created as some kind of home business/income supplementation opportunity for old people.

It's irresponsible to gamble on such a risky experiment, especially when on a limited income towards the end of life.

Gambling (with money owed to your power company) is how you wind up old and broke, not the solution to that problematic situation.

The proposed hybrid is a feature, and we are obligated to fight features (not rush to embrace them with dollar signs in our eyes).

A hybrid algo is a compromise which may alienate as many (or more) people than it attracts.

And it's scope creep, especially if we don't use an existing off-the-shelf schema.

Let's not (yet) go in search of wheels to reinvent before we even know what ETH is doing (and when).

Already contributed to the debate.  But thanks for the nanny finger waggling.

I think we're all adults (or at least teens) here.  Perhaps there's a browser plug-in you may use to remove or alter the words that hurt your widdle fweeelings.

Back on topic, are you the one who thinks PoW wastes energy, causing Manbearpig to send hurricanes after orphans and kittens?

You can relax about that, because mining is concentrated near surplus (ie free) energy, and the sun controls the climate.

The scope creep is already here; we're soaking in it!   

It may be an intrinsic entailment, as removing the diff bomb effectively creates an eternal PoW coin, which is equivalent to a codebase+protocol divergence bomb when ETH goes PoS. 

And (especially) for fans of PoS, that is controversial.  (Let's note many PoS supporters think PoW causes climate change and wastes energy, so they are ideologically bound to that preference with very tight couplings.)

But I take your point.  We can do the minimum now, and put off the controversial until an issue is forced, thus providing clarity and defanging controversy.

That guy is the perfect ambassador for the Bailout Edition.

He actually believes mutability via 3rd party arbitration is a good thing (Because ZOMG Bad Guys Are Bad!).

What a fucking buffoonish control freak; he couldn't grok the ethos if you gave him a map, flashlight, and 12 Eagle Scouts.   

The Jaxx dude, who was until that point doing a great job of being neutral and ecumenical, just lost it and told him to change the false advertising of "immutable/unstoppable" on ETH's web page.   

Muh feelings:

0.  We can't switch ETC to PoW "right meow."  We can't even credibility announce such an intention, only float the trial balloon.  Which PoW?  Who is going to code it all up and commit to maintenance?  What about PoS supporters?  Do we just tell them to fuck off to BailoutEdition?

1.  It's too soon to be sure about anything except No Bailouts.  ETC is still defining itself and bootstrapping an ecosystem.  We must table any notion of a "final vote" about Po[X] in the ETC community until after BailoutEdition has been running Casper or whatever for at least two weeks or, ideally, 6 months.

2.  The greater the divergence from ETH, the more dev resources are required to maintain ETC.  We should prepare for both contingencies, with low-maintenance minimally divergent PoS and high-maintenance maximally divergent PoW roadmaps, along with prioritization considerations for something in the middle.

3.  On PoS.  Do we copy ETH's work no matter what, or is adoption contingent on some notion of fairness/equality/decentralization?  My instinct is to eschew minimum staking amounts (either all wallets stake or none do) to avoid the centralizing rich-get-richer combinatorics Peter Todd's recent paper on pool mining describes.  We don't want any fucking Masternodes compounding their stake and control.

I don't like PoS.  I've seen the Theft -> FUD -> Panic -> Rollback movie before and it doesn't have a happy ending.  It's harder to steal a mine in China than some private key in a server (unless you are the PLA  ).

Peercoin is "cheating" using checkpoints; Decred has some advanced gambling based system that's mind-bogglingly complex.  Charlie Hos has a version that is reportedly validated in some kind of math/crypto model.  He's paying for 3 devs, but are they sufficient to support such an incompatibility-intensifying branch?

4. On PoW.  SHA-512 might be the KISS solution.  But But ASICS.  Boolberry's Cryptonite-derived Wild Keccak memory reqs grow with the blockchain so that's cool.  What are the pros/cons of just keeping Dagger minus the diff bomb?  The obvious question is how do we redefine the emission curve without Pope Vitalik to guide us?

5.  The Golden Rule.  All of this brainstorming doesn't make a difference without development.  And devs are expensive.  As in Bitcoin, governance is not a democracy but rather an extreme meritocracy.  He who makes the Code makes the Rules.  And that is fitting because they have to put out the fires when it all turns into a flaming tire-filled dumpster.  If the miners want to stay PoW, they must provide for the requisite dozens of devs and/or support the Genesis Foundation.

6.  Self-awareness.  Let's all savor the irony of ETC setting out to create a controversial hard fork immediately after rejecting ETH for that exact reason.   

Good, ETC is better off without proven liabilities like Chancellor Butarin and Tool.

Already happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGGW9ozE-ys

You speculate on my conspiratorial motivations, yet fail to disclose what you believe them to be.   

And you don't bother to refute the facts I related wrt ETC = original unforked branch.

If you don't understand ETH is the controversially hard forked branch, you don't have a good grasp on crypto.

No wonder your agenda is supporting the endless scam-ception platform known as NXT.