a) All blockchain software is evolving, just like bitcoin may needs to change block-size soon. Any blockchain could come up with the future option to only require most nodes to verify history for a minimum of x years, while other full 'archive nodes' get extra reward.
Evolving into what? Bitcoin wont change the blocksize because its the only variable that gives it stability.
oh, so you also think it is part of "bitcoin's character/brand" to stop growing once a limit of transactions per second is reached?
c) Wreckless? Prove it. On Github about 2200 Bitcoin Bugs were documented to be fixed and 1300 for Ethereum. Few other crypto economy projects have 150-500 bugs fixed while most are below 150 - so is TheDAO! (only 37 yet)
Just because bugs werent detected that deosnt mean they arent there. There are most likely many more hundreds of 0 day bugs in it waiting to be discovered.
Could be true about most software.
- I said if number of bugs fixed on github and market-cap were correlated, then the ETH dump would be unnecessary.
Again, what happened was only a TheDAO bug. Which should remind people, that the code should still have been in a beta/test phase, considering that it is both new and that the huge amount of money is a higher 'incentive' for hackers than other projects, holding much less money still.
g) Centralized, how exactly? More than Ripple?
h) They are not deciding it nor are they able to.
They are only taking their responsibility to inform the public about the options that the public has. And these are obvious options that could apply to many other Blockchains (Crypto currencies) too and at any time.
i) not even the bitcoinXT propsal killed bitcoin, did it?
Dont compare it to ripple. I`m pretty sure they called to action all nodes and exchanges to tell them what to do.
I was ironic, trying to say none of your points justify the title of the thread.
-
If the community can collectively decide to fork or anything, that will be a great
prove of spontaneous decentral governance/correction,
it will simply undo the theft but noway change the decentralized nature.
Fork or hard fork are not bad words but rather general. To declare it to be deadly to ETH, that developers even mentioned the obvious options,
is more of an attempt to confuse in favor of the FUD, dump&pump in the context of these days.
The positive part of 'distributed' is 'democratic'!
The fear is 'zombie robots immune to correction'!
A community able to clearly decide something will be a vital-sign!
Now they might not obey them ,but still its a command & control currency.
BitcoinXT had barely any legitimacy, the ETH devs obviously have a lot in ETH.
Prove it!
Ok so it was temporary, i can accept that, so i will remove this point from the OP.
Still not the best course of action in my opinion, but at least it was short lived.
I understand the urgency and the heat of action, but still this was a command & control approach.
Thanks, you may also want to correct your calculation of blockchain size. 89kb is not the "average blocksize" but the maximum.
https://etherchain.org/statistics/basick) There are more possible solution and mild ones. This is mainly about a TheDAO bugh - the only thing serious is that the subject of discussion also hold ~4.5% of Ethereums market capitalization = ~3 month worth of Ethereum's mining production = inflation
(- Still Rather tiny compared to the speed Etherum was rising in the last two years despite inflation.)
It was the trust that was broken, the trust in devs, the trust in their skills and the trust in their decentralization promises. That causes more damage than just the missing ethereum.
What do you refer to?
Nothing happened these days to change the trust in the Ethereum developer's skills (nor even potentially changing the decentralization of the whole network as explained above)
I just thought you were afraid of single people having high authority/influence in programming decisions. But now it sounds like arguing it is mandatory for Ethereum to stay alive? There are many people reviewing the open source code.