ETC on Polo

[tokeweed]

Why only 2 ?

I propose we fork ETC and call it ETX and get Polo to list it too.

~LOL~

Thanks to Vitalik Buterin, now every other developer could be thinking exactly this for whatever reason they themselves can cause and think of.  It's the reason some didn't like to go with the hard fork.  Vitalik Buterin's Forked Ethereum is a precedent of what might come.  If there's a person who caused an uncertainty in the cryptocurrency scene, it's him.

[s1gs3gv]

Why only 2 ?

I propose we fork ETC and call it ETX and get Polo to list it too.

~LOL~

Thanks to Vitalik Buterin, now every other developer could be thinking exactly this for whatever reason they themselves can cause and think of.  It's the reason some didn't like to go with the hard fork.  Vitalik Buterin's Forked Ethereum is a precedent of what might come.  If there's a person who caused an uncertainty in the cryptocurrency scene, it's him.

Well maybe. The problem of writing perfect, and verifiably perfect, software is very difficult. So all software needs some kind of change control mechanism to allow bug fixes, etc. In a crypto-coin, this mechanism is the hard fork.

You could argue, as many do, that hard forks are bad. But you could also argue that not forking has worse consequences. Imagine all the new bugs that will be found in ETC and ETH. If they never fork, they will eventually become useless except for speculation by traders.

What is really needed is a better governance model. One that can develop a generally accepted set of rules describing when a hard fork is acceptable, and when it is not. Then we can argue about the cases.

This model will probably evolve to look something like the IETF.

[kooke]

I just sell all my ETH stake before the HF 

[tokeweed]

Why only 2 ?

I propose we fork ETC and call it ETX and get Polo to list it too.

~LOL~

Thanks to Vitalik Buterin, now every other developer could be thinking exactly this for whatever reason they themselves can cause and think of.  It's the reason some didn't like to go with the hard fork.  Vitalik Buterin's Forked Ethereum is a precedent of what might come.  If there's a person who caused an uncertainty in the cryptocurrency scene, it's him.

Well maybe. The problem of writing perfect, and verifiably perfect, software is very difficult. So all software needs some kind of change control mechanism to allow bug fixes, etc. In a crypto-coin, this mechanism is the hard fork.

You could argue, as many do, that hard forks are bad. But you could also argue that not forking has worse consequences. Imagine all the new bugs that will be found in ETC and ETH. If they never fork, they will eventually become useless except for speculation by traders.

What is really needed is a better governance model. One that can develop a generally accepted set of rules describing when a hard fork is acceptable, and when it is not. Then we can argue about the cases.

This model will probably evolve to look something like the IETF.

I'm not arguing anything of the sort in my reply.  A hard fork can be either good or bad.  It is the process on how the decision came to be is what's good or bad.  And the whole point is Buterin did this to himself.  There were some vocal people known in the community who were expressing themselves against the hard fork because it will set a precedent.  And in the way you reacted, joking or not, is proof that there are people thinking about hard forking again if they find it good, an easy out or convenient.

Again I say, if there's a person who caused a major uncertainty in the cryptocurrency scene, it is Buterin himself.  He was warned but yet he still went on, manipulated the Ethereum community and politically railroaded the hard fork to happen.

[s1gs3gv]

Again I say, if there's a person who caused a major uncertainty in the cryptocurrency scene, it is Buterin himself.  He was warned but yet he still went on, manipulated the Ethereum community and politically railroaded the hard fork to happen.

I'd like to hear you substantiate that accusation.

[ArticMine]

Again I say, if there's a person who caused a major uncertainty in the cryptocurrency scene, it is Buterin himself.  He was warned but yet he still went on, manipulated the Ethereum community and politically railroaded the hard fork to happen.

I'd like to hear you substantiate that accusation.

I for one agree with tokeweed on this. For better or for worse Buterin has shaken the crtpto currency scene to its very foundations going all the way back to the original Bitcoin whitepaper by forking Ethereum in order to effectively reverse transactions. I responded on this in another thread.

...

But it's not good for cryptocurrency as a whole.  It could (arguably) even hold Bitcoin back.  The uncertainty caused by Buterin could hurt us all as supporters whether you're a developer, researcher, entrepreneur or speculator.

I agree. This sets a precedent that reaches all the way back to: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System by Satoshi Nakamoto https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. To understand why I am quoting the introduction to the above paper:

1. Introduction

Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.

A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party. What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third  party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.

[s1gs3gv]

Sorry I missed the gist of your argument. Any one can hard fork. VB can, you can, I can, tokeweed can, even Donald Trump can.

The overwhelming majority of miners adopted the ETH chain. The ETC chain will eventually languish as a historical artifact. I hope crypto evolves better governance and we develop better processes for the maintenance and enhancement of p2p consensus systems.

I assume that you are not against forks in general because Monero was a fork.

[Febo]

What i noticed now on Polo is lots new users. that dont even know how to read charts. Probably plan to sell one ETH or both. Or are Steemians.

[ArticMine]

Sorry I missed the gist of your argument. Any one can hard fork. VB can, you can, I can, tokeweed can, even Donald Trump can.

The overwhelming majority of miners adopted the ETH chain. The ETC chain will eventually languish as a historical artifact. I hope crypto evolves better governance and we develop better processes for the maintenance and enhancement of p2p consensus systems.

I assume that you are not against forks in general because Monero was a fork.

Hard forks in general are not the issue here. In fact a hard fork can be considered a special case of proof of burn. What makes this particular hard fork different is the selectiveness. All the Ethereum holders were not eligible to participate in the proof of burn / hard fork, since all the Ether was not treated equally. In fact the very purpose of this hard fork was to change the ownership of funds. Monero has had several hard forks; however this kind selective of hard for would be virtually impossible to pull of in Monero because of Monero's design.

[NattyLiteCoin]

Just increased your total market cap by $60MIL overnight because someone legally exploited a hole in the technology worth...about $60MIL? Now you have the attention of the SEC Ethereum.

[ArticMine]

Just increased your total market cap by $60MIL overnight because someone legally exploited a hole in the technology worth...about $60MIL? Now you have the attention of the SEC Ethereum.

Actually I would say that when it comes to government agencies in the United States FinCEN would be the lead agency on this issue. If one acts as an MSB by reversing transactions then it seems to me that MSB registration become a legal requirement. Let us not forget the initial distribution of Ethereum here also.

[Marvell1]

Just increased your total market cap by $60MIL overnight because someone legally exploited a hole in the technology worth...about $60MIL? Now you have the attention of the SEC Ethereum.

Actually I would say that when it comes to government agencies in the United States FinCEN would be the lead agency on this issue. If one acts as an MSB by reversing transactions then it seems to me that MSB registration become a legal requirement. Let us not forget the initial distribution of Ethereum here also.

So if i buy some eth on polo right now i get ETC as well ?

[Minecache]

Just increased your total market cap by $60MIL overnight because someone legally exploited a hole in the technology worth...about $60MIL? Now you have the attention of the SEC Ethereum.

Actually I would say that when it comes to government agencies in the United States FinCEN would be the lead agency on this issue. If one acts as an MSB by reversing transactions then it seems to me that MSB registration become a legal requirement. Let us not forget the initial distribution of Ethereum here also.

So if i buy some eth on polo right now i get ETC as well ?

Be warned the ETC market is basically nothing and dying. Check coinmarketcap and http://fork.ethstats.net. Prince and hash rates are in free fall. Which means it's basically unsupported. Add into this the fact that on the 27th the original DAO attacker gets his 3.6million ETC from the DAO attack. HE WILL SELL.

[Febo]

So if i buy some eth on polo right now i get ETC as well ?

I dont think so. Chains separated. they have common past but present and future will be different.

Be warned the ETC market is basically nothing and dying. Check coinmarketcap and http://fork.ethstats.net. Prince and hash rates are in free fall. Which means it's basically unsupported. Add into this the fact that on the 27th the original DAO attacker gets his 3.6million ETC from the DAO attack. HE WILL SELL.

To me it looks stable some time now.

[Minecache]

So if i buy some eth on polo right now i get ETC as well ?

I dont think so. Chains separated. they have common past but present and future will be different.

Be warned the ETC market is basically nothing and dying. Check coinmarketcap and http://fork.ethstats.net. Prince and hash rates are in free fall. Which means it's basically unsupported. Add into this the fact that on the 27th the original DAO attacker gets his 3.6million ETC from the DAO attack. HE WILL SELL.

To me it looks stable some time now.

Everytime I look the price harsh rate falls.

[s1gs3gv]

Sorry I missed the gist of your argument. Any one can hard fork. VB can, you can, I can, tokeweed can, even Donald Trump can.

The overwhelming majority of miners adopted the ETH chain. The ETC chain will eventually languish as a historical artifact. I hope crypto evolves better governance and we develop better processes for the maintenance and enhancement of p2p consensus systems.

I assume that you are not against forks in general because Monero was a fork.

Hard forks in general are not the issue here. In fact a hard fork can be considered a special case of proof of burn. What makes this particular hard fork different is the selectiveness. All the Ethereum holders were not eligible to participate in the proof of burn / hard fork, since all the Ether was not treated equally. In fact the very purpose of this hard fork was to change the ownership of funds. Monero has had several hard forks; however this kind selective of hard for would be virtually impossible to pull of in Monero because of Monero's design.

Thanks for the clarification. It seems more reasonable to debate under what circumstances a fork is justifiable rather than debate whether forks are unconditionally bad, although the two arguments might be considered one by a person who believes that there are no circumstances under which a fork might be justified. And in a very real sense, this debate is resolved when miners make a choice at the fork in the road.

Too many of the arguments and comments I've read recently assert that absolute immutability of the block chain is a necessary precondition for a 'good' altcoin.

[ArticMine]

Ethereum Classic? More like Ethereum Cancer.

Deja vu? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/

[smooth]

Sorry I missed the gist of your argument. Any one can hard fork. VB can, you can, I can, tokeweed can, even Donald Trump can.

The overwhelming majority of miners adopted the ETH chain. The ETC chain will eventually languish as a historical artifact. I hope crypto evolves better governance and we develop better processes for the maintenance and enhancement of p2p consensus systems.

I assume that you are not against forks in general because Monero was a fork.

Hard forks in general are not the issue here. In fact a hard fork can be considered a special case of proof of burn. What makes this particular hard fork different is the selectiveness. All the Ethereum holders were not eligible to participate in the proof of burn / hard fork, since all the Ether was not treated equally. In fact the very purpose of this hard fork was to change the ownership of funds. Monero has had several hard forks; however this kind selective of hard for would be virtually impossible to pull of in Monero because of Monero's design.

Thanks for the clarification. It seems more reasonable to debate under what circumstances a fork is justifiable rather than debate whether forks are unconditionally bad, although the two arguments might be considered one by a person who believes that there are no circumstances under which a fork might be justified. And in a very real sense, this debate is resolved when miners make a choice at the fork in the road.

The issue here is that both chains live. That is the outcome of a controversial hard fork (and anything that involves redistribution will be controversial nearly 100% the time). It doesn't really matter if 49% or 20% or 5% of the miners and the rest of the community support the minority chain; as long as some meaningful number of people continue to support it, the community and the coin are effectively split.

In the typical case of an uncontroversial hard fork, such as the ones you mentioned Monero having done, the original chain is abandoned and dies quickly because everyone or very nearly everyone agrees that the new chain is preferable. Nothing prevents someone, even now, months or years later, from going back and mining a version of Monero pre-HF. But no one has any interest in doing so, and if they did mine it, no one would have any interest in trading the coins they mined. That is very different from what is happening here.

[Febo]

So if i buy some eth on polo right now i get ETC as well ?

I dont think so. Chains separated. they have common past but present and future will be different.

Be warned the ETC market is basically nothing and dying. Check coinmarketcap and http://fork.ethstats.net. Prince and hash rates are in free fall. Which means it's basically unsupported. Add into this the fact that on the 27th the original DAO attacker gets his 3.6million ETC from the DAO attack. HE WILL SELL.

To me it looks stable some time now.

Everytime I look the price harsh rate falls.

I dont know what datas we look at. Maybe problem is that it just passed so little time.
Price is same as was 1 day ago and HAsh rate is 20% less then was a day ago.
To me is surprisingly stable.

[RastoMan]

Just increased your total market cap by $60MIL overnight because someone legally exploited a hole in the technology worth...about $60MIL? Now you have the attention of the SEC Ethereum.

Actually I would say that when it comes to government agencies in the United States FinCEN would be the lead agency on this issue. If one acts as an MSB by reversing transactions then it seems to me that MSB registration become a legal requirement. Let us not forget the initial distribution of Ethereum here also.

Who is going to report to the FinCEN, or it will come after you, the miners, the developers and users of ETH?