Not sure why, but I didn't even think about a thread for ETC and posted some stuff about ETC in the ETH-Tread. I'll post it here as well:
Disclaimer: Just watching, not invested in ETH or ETC. But of course: One of the most interesting situations I've seen in Crypto since Craig Wright. ;-)
Who will survive - without safe answer of courseimagine both coins survive..
will one always be ahead with development ? and the otherone will just copy ,if its a good feature and its tested on chain A?
we might see debats like: how long till we will also do pos ?
or will the coins separet in total different directions ?
There is an interesting "paradox" and it could turn out as very bad for ETH:
If ETC should survive, ETC will copy everything what will be developed for ETH. At least that's the plan:
At the initial stage, maintaining 100 percent compatibility with Ethereum is a high priority for us. This also means that we don't really need to do much development, we simply fork the code from the Ethereum repository and update accordingly. But, of course, if current Ethereum developers want to join us — now or in the future — they are more than welcome to do so. We are aiming for the same thing here: building a better future for humankind, where smart contract platforms provide a mechanism for social and economic cooperation on a truly global scale.https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@ghostyeti/interview-with-arvicco-developer-of-ethereum-classicWhat's interesting about that situation is: The Ethereum-team would do the development, but ETC could become the project to trust!
If it survives potential problems because of the DAO-hack etc.
--> ETC will be more Ethereum than Ethereum. Because it will be the same tech on the original chain and without a bail-out-decision to secure funds of friends. What I mean becomes clear if you read this:
More and more companies are openly showing their support for Ethereum Classic. To the majority of enterprises in the cryptocurrency world, supporting ETC may not make much sense. But Stampery feels there is a good reason to support the pre-hard fork Ethereum initiative. After all, the company wants to let anyone create verifiable records of their data.http://themerkle.com/stampery-drops-forked-ethereum-blockchain-support-due-to-censorship-concerns/Why Stampery supports Ethereum Classic(...)
For transactions to be final and unmodifiable, blockchains need to be immune to third party interference. This promise was completely broken by Ethereum. Hard forks should only happen when a catastrophic bug puts in danger the core values of the technology. In this case the consensus mechanism worked just fine. The blockchain was modified simply because a group of people lost too much money and they decided to bail themselves out.
This is completely unacceptable for Stampery because it creates a dangerous precedent. A powerful government might now decide to push for a hard fork that changes blocks in which we anchored data. They could claim “national interest” for doing so. Or a “too big too fail” corporation could force a fork because it wants to wipe all proof of some questionable process recorded on the blockchain. Because of this we prefer to anchor our data to a blockchain in which hard forks happen only when a protocol-level bug needs to be fixed.
(...)https://medium.com/@Stampery/why-stampery-supports-ethereum-classic-4c86ec7cca17#.2ufi5ptwmThe problem for Ethereum could become:
- Why should companies trust ETH instead of ETC if ETC will be technically the same as ETH?
- Why shouldn't they use ETC if it's the same as ETH if they can trust ETC more than ETH?
- Why should anybody trust the original team and not the original chain? And if there should be a tendency for such a situation: At least some Ethereum-Dev's would leave ETH and join ETC --> ETC would become stronger and Ethereum weaker. In the end it could be ETC which will become the real Ethereum again, and in fact it always was the original.
In fact the Ethereum-team abandoned the original chain! Why? Because of their bad job with TheDAO! Because of the high funding of theDAO! And what was theDAO about? Speculation, but I believe it was to fund Ethereum-guys - slock.it and so on. I never believed in theDAO because for me it looked too shady. But, just my personal opinion.
Under the line I'm not sure how good the chances are that ETC will survive, but if, I expect it to become stronger than ETH and ETH to die. And I'm not joking here. And I'm not saying it because I'm against ETH or for ETC - no Investment.
Btw: I'm mainly in Factom. And Factom also announced in march:
Factom Plans To Anchor Into Ethereum Blockchain
http://themerkle.com/factom-plans-to-anchor-into-ethereum-blockchain/And I don't know what they'll decide but it doesn't make much sense to secure a system into a blockchain if it's immutability is a question of submissive decisions with a focus on bailing out Investors. I mean: If the DAO would have been funded just with $10 Mio and not with team-money, would there be two chains now? Never.
And yesterday Factom announced a partnership with smartcontract.com, and on their site:
Ethereum Smart Oracles
Give your Ethereum smart contracts access to external resources like data feeds, your internal systems, additional blockchains and traditional banks/payment networks.https://smartcontract.comAnd it's not about Factom what will happen with data they'll provide to Ethereum, but they can provide it to all Smart Contract projects, ETC included. What I want to say with that: There is no reason to ignore ETC out of perspective of other companies. They won't feel loyal to Ethereum because they like Vitalik and his team.
There is some possibility that in future ppl will say that the original team abandoned the original Ethereum while ETC will be Ethereum.
Because there are not that many reasons to trust the original team which injured the original chain because of own interest as a result of bad code before. It's like a step-by-step but lastly total damage of credibility.
About a 51%-attackI hope developers realize that not only can they get forked, now eth miners have no morals and will 51% attack them. Eth has no morals
I've seen the plans for an 51%-attack on the ETH-forum and I don't have much doubt that there will be some kinds of attacks. But: There is a psychological problem that shouldn't be underestimated: How does the ETH-team look now?
Short overview:
1. They (or some of them) developed theDAO
2. TheDAO was funded with a lot of team-money - ridiculous $150 Mio in total. That's 3 times of the original Ethereum-CFC if I recall it correctly(?)
3. Slock.it wanted funds - could be seen as intention to develop theDAO - could give a shady impression
4. TheDAO launched on Polo - and it wasn't too successfully while some even believed it would rise in price --> totally misconception/irrational
5. Than the "Hack" - and obviously: All warnings ignored but claimed it would be secure. It says some things about them as developers.
6. Articles come out, not blaming just the code of theDAO but the Ethereum-coding-language: Solidity
7. Decision to do rush out a HF, because time is running - and totally convinced the other chain would die soon after
8. But: ETC lives and gets stronger - not weaker (at least for now)
And now add to this:
9. Ethereum-guys attack the original chain to bail out their butts again.
All points smell like "money is the priority" while nothing seems professional. For me personally just the existence of theDAO was a signal not to touch Ethereum. Not because I believed it would be not secure. I have no clue about coding. But the economical side was bad in my eyes, for Ethereum. I mean, it's speculation because we will never find out. But also the high funding was not rational. It seemed too shady, to much like: Easy way to get funds for other Ethereum-projects.
And the believe of blinded Investors, the price could increase beyond the funding was totally naive. It had to go down, because every time it would have invested it would have "lost" funds (to invest) while there always would have been the possibility of a bad investment.
Thing is: Without any doubt they have a very serious credibility-problem now and that will become worse if they should attack ETC and be successful in killing it.
Out of their perspective it would be rational to do it, because if ETC survives it really could be the beginning of Ethereums dead. But if Ethereum-members and miners should be responsible for it, there will be many people in Crypto, maybe a majority, who will disagree with that.
Again it would seem as if the team will do anything to rescue themselves. In combination with all what happened before, and some articles that were highly critical about the DAO and even more, it will begin to seem shady. I mean, Vitalik Buterin is one of the biggest stars in Crypto. People have a lot of respect for him and I really respect him as well and I don't believe that he ever had bad intentions or is in the Game just for the money. But people will lose faith.
And: Even without any thoughts about ETC, the next bad news for Ethereum, if there should come out more flaws regarding the code or whatever: Not sure if it would survive. As I said: I'm not a coder, but there seem to be serious problems and if not even ETH-Dev's are able to develop a smart contract in a secure way - who will use Ethereum for smart contracts?
And of course: That would also be a problem for ETC if true.
