[ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning

[Mrpumperitis]

 CHEAP ETH DAYS ARE OVER GUYS

[Mrpumperitis]

http://dwarfpool.com/eth/voting
Ethereum Soft fork voting

Accepted voices only from users mined any time but during last 5 days
Your voice is proportional amount of all shares send this period. New shares from 18 GMT 22th

Voting started 22th at 19:30 GMT and ended 25th at 20:00 GMT

Shares voices based on hashrate

Not voted 75.05% (20379747)

YES! 22.05% (5986994)

NO! 2.90% (786871)

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4pu6bg/daosoftfork_now_enabled_on_all_servers_of/

[lordoliver]

http://dwarfpool.com/eth/voting
Ethereum Soft fork voting

Accepted voices only from users mined any time but during last 5 days
Your voice is proportional amount of all shares send this period. New shares from 18 GMT 22th

Voting started 22th at 19:30 GMT and ended 25th at 20:00 GMT

Shares voices based on hashrate

Not voted 75.05% (20379747)

YES! 22.05% (5986994)

NO! 2.90% (786871)

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4pu6bg/daosoftfork_now_enabled_on_all_servers_of/

I guess not voting is more or less in favour for no...
fork means action.

[noobtrader]

http://dwarfpool.com/eth/voting
Ethereum Soft fork voting

Accepted voices only from users mined any time but during last 5 days
Your voice is proportional amount of all shares send this period. New shares from 18 GMT 22th

Voting started 22th at 19:30 GMT and ended 25th at 20:00 GMT

Shares voices based on hashrate

Not voted 75.05% (20379747)

YES! 22.05% (5986994)

NO! 2.90% (786871)

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4pu6bg/daosoftfork_now_enabled_on_all_servers_of/

I guess not voting is more or less in favour for no...
fork means action.

i thing not voting is not voting, it mean 75% doesnt care to vote no.

[lordoliver]

http://dwarfpool.com/eth/voting
Ethereum Soft fork voting

Accepted voices only from users mined any time but during last 5 days
Your voice is proportional amount of all shares send this period. New shares from 18 GMT 22th

Voting started 22th at 19:30 GMT and ended 25th at 20:00 GMT

Shares voices based on hashrate

Not voted 75.05% (20379747)

YES! 22.05% (5986994)

NO! 2.90% (786871)

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4pu6bg/daosoftfork_now_enabled_on_all_servers_of/

I guess not voting is more or less in favour for no...
fork means action.

i thing not voting is not voting, it mean 75% doesnt care to vote no.

if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...

[slowly]

Some people just don't know how to vote. Srls. And other just mine that's all.

[noobtrader]

http://dwarfpool.com/eth/voting
Ethereum Soft fork voting

Accepted voices only from users mined any time but during last 5 days
Your voice is proportional amount of all shares send this period. New shares from 18 GMT 22th

Voting started 22th at 19:30 GMT and ended 25th at 20:00 GMT

Shares voices based on hashrate

Not voted 75.05% (20379747)

YES! 22.05% (5986994)

NO! 2.90% (786871)

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4pu6bg/daosoftfork_now_enabled_on_all_servers_of/

I guess not voting is more or less in favour for no...
fork means action.

i thing not voting is not voting, it mean 75% doesnt care to vote no.

if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...

pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with  22% yes vote.

[revelacaogr]

worth read


https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4opjov/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not


https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4p0gq3/why_turingcomplete_smart_contracts_are_doomed/

[lordoliver]

if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...

pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with  22% yes vote.

you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.

This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...

[roselee]

the fork might not happen
voting or not might not make a folk happen

[mastertrader777]

the fork might not happen
voting or not might not make a folk happen

Whats your reasoning?

I don't believe that to be true at all!

Just saying..

[roselee]

the fork might not happen
voting or not might not make a folk happen

Whats your reasoning?

I don't believe that to be true at all!

Just saying..

just a feeling thats all

[noobtrader]

if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...

pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with  22% yes vote.

you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.

This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...

the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool.  so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw ::  new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
 

[roselee]

but objectivly the same can be said or asumed for the contra position no vote is a no couse if the notvoter dont like what is done they leave the pool ? am i right they are free to go ?
and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ?
i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?

[noobtrader]

but objectivly the same can be said or asumed for the contra position no vote is a no couse if the notvoter dont like what is done they leave the pool ? am i right they are free to go ?
and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ?
i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?

yes leaving is easy, but why leaving if you can vote and change the pool outcome  

[FruitBucket]

but objectivly the same can be said or asumed for the contra position no vote is a no couse if the notvoter dont like what is done they leave the pool ? am i right they are free to go ?
and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ?
i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?

yes leaving is easy, but why leaving if you can vote and change the pool outcome  

That is right. I will vote for the change or the fork. No vote no say. If you do not agree with the soft fork, vote no.

[lordoliver]

if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...

pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with  22% yes vote.

you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.

This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...

the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool.  so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw ::  new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
 

Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change...
You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...

[noobtrader]

if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...

pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with  22% yes vote.

you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.

This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...

the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool.  so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw ::  new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
 

Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change...
You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...

but that change was the right thing to do.  u know what happen in real world if a bug by the bank give you million of free money

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydney-airport-over-alleged-fraud/7385482

[roselee]

if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...

pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with  22% yes vote.

you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.

This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...

the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool.  so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw ::  new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
 

Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change...
You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...

but that change was the right thing to do.  u know what happen in real world if a bug by the bank give you million of free money

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydney-airport-over-alleged-fraud/7385482

gosh thats what i try to say since this started steeling back is still steeling they should put more effort on finding the identity of the attacker then on steeling it back

[noobtrader]

if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...

pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with  22% yes vote.

you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.

This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...

the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool.  so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw ::  new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
 

Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change...
You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...

but that change was the right thing to do.  u know what happen in real world if a bug by the bank give you million of free money

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydney-airport-over-alleged-fraud/7385482

gosh thats what i try to say since this started steeling back is still steeling they should put more effort on finding the identity of the attacker then on steeling it back

I guess they were not stealing if they never receive the money or spend it...
but you were right, counter attack like these put those ppl in the same crimescene as the original attacker. only fork can help them now as the project initiator, i guess ethereum/DAO dev has right to rectify mistake and bug that plagued their program.