question:
like i ask pumpy and like i understand it( and i am not a superbrain like vitalik) if there is a fork and the outcome is 2 chains that is not a success ? right ?
thats a failed hardfork? and blockchain techniques are clear if you use both you are suporting both coins. the only way to have a chain die is to not touch that coin. as a holder you have to choose ? and not get tempted by the extra money ? right ? so far ?
well i read in that skype leak that devs. didnt expect extra coins saw them got happy and sold them . right ?
a bit greedy but also not smart ? if sold they creat a market for the enemy ? right ?
i thought ethereum developers and foundation are soooooo samrt guys . super brains that know how to design the future?
they keep telling between teh lines that we depend on them there smartnes . but it feels like the emprers new clothes .
so now my question:
if eth loses and etc is the new dominant chain. can vitalik and the core devs ( up there discribed ) demand to be the etereum clsissis foundation ?
Many questions. For Ethereum and the foundation it's of course not a success that ETC is not dead but on it's way to get some respect and solidarity. But I wouldn't say in general that it's bad if a hard fork results in competition.
And I don't believe that the foundation-guys already sold their ETC's. It's possible that there is still some risk of a crash if they do it. But it's also possible that it would result in legal problems, because Ethereum started with a CFC and premine. To cash out on one chain, to make money and to damage the ETC-market - I don't know if that would be accepted.
ETC is stronger than expected because there is a market at least since Poloniex decided to add it. And ppl and miners saw it as opportunity. It's a wild mix of capitalism, idealism and crypto-war. I also believe that ETC is used by those who would like to see ETH in a bad position. With other words: Most likely not everybody who supports ETC believes in Ethereum in general. In my opinion we will find out in 1-3 years that both are without chance.
If ETH should lose this fight Vitalik and most of his guys will most likely be out of the Ethereum-game. It could be seen as take-over but it also could be seen as if the team has abandoned it's own project. The majority believes Ethereum is Ethereum because of VB and the original team. But that might turn out as misconception.
One interesting question is: What to do with the funding and the premine if Vitaliks Ethereum should lose.
Btw: That's also a reason why they won't give up. They will most likely keep on with ETH even if ETC should overtake an be superior in all important parts, including hashrate.
oh i geuss the legal problems havenent even started . i am old and my experiance over the years tis that law and order are slow to get going.
what do you mean by that ?
In my opinion we will find out in 1-3 years that both are without chance. What I mean is: If we look at Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain-projects in general, we just see the first steps. If we focus on the really innovative projects and forget all the scams and shit, it's still unsure which one will find it's way into real use and real business. My Nr. 1 is Factom, because it's the only project I know of, that already has deals and companies and institutions and even governments already seem to be very interested. But it's use case is about data. It's an ambitious project but in comparison to smart contracts it's kind of simple.
Ethereum gets a lot of attention and smart contracts will most likely be part of our future life. But it's very early. And if we think in years, I don't believe that Ethereum has chances. There will be much more competition on that field. And Ethereum has a lot of weaknesses. The DAO-Hack wasn't just a result of a buggy smart contract. Or, more precise: That the DAO turned out to be buggy is a result of Ethereums design itself. Some Coders say Solidity is deeply flawed and some go even beyond that.
And even if there wouldn't be a problem: The eco-system is very risky in my opinion. They want to switch to PoS and I have some doubts that it's possible to be on the safe side with that over years. PoS means that the rich become richer and poor poorer. It's a one-way-ticket into a centralization. But maybe I'm wrong with that because it needs a lot of time to get into problems.
But: While Factom for example found a way to have a system-currency that is a crypto-currency, it also found a way for potential customers to use the system without touching a Cryptocurrency - Entry Credits for access.
That is important because banks and other companies don't like volatile Cryptocurrencies including all the regulatory issues. And the price to use the system is not dependent on the price of Factoids. FCT's are just to pay the servers to keep the system decentralized and are converted into Entry Credits for it's customers/users.
In Ethereum it's all about Ether. The costs to use Ethereum are dependent on the market. That's not optimal.
Plus: How to trust it after the HF? Will companies just don't care about the HF or maybe say: Naah... little risky to trust a Blockchain that goes through a hard fork to bail out an application if needed?
Under the line I believe to see problems on all important fields:
1. Code
2. Eco-system
3. Trust
And that in mind - plus: more competition. I believe it's very unlikely that ETH or ETC will be on top in years. I'm very unsure about the next months to be honest. Of course they will keep on with Ethereum. It's also possible that the price will see new ATH's in future. But I've never understood why it's so expensive. I believe it's more a hype without the base ppl believe to see in it.
