The Ethereum VS Bitcoin Fork

[pooya87]

Show me the vote.

You have to first read and understand BIP91 then go to a block explorer, search for the blocks preceding 481824 and look at their versions, you will see an example of the last time we "voted" for the "real bitcoin".
There are more bitcoin forks that activated through the same "voting" mechanism where the majority vote to decide which is going to be the "real bitcoin".
BIP112 @419328, BIP66 @363725, BIP65 @388381, BIP34 @227931, BIP16 @170060

There is no part of any design that states that the "real" bitcoin is the one that gets the majority of votes.

One of the oldest bitcoin mottos talking about a basic principle is "1 CPU 1 Vote" which is talking about the majority coming to consensus about which chain to follow and that was expanded to also "which rules to follow" too.

The protocol is defined by the code. That is why there is no Bitcoin protocol specification. If there is a bug in the code, it is part of the protocol. You might not agree with that in principal, but you would be in the minority. I don't like it, but I think it will be a long time before a specification determines the implementation.

No, I don't agree with that view. History has also proven that they should not be considered the same. But we are going off-topic now.

[1715559013]

1715559013

[Pmalek]

Bump

[plexasm]

fixing an obvious bug is not contentious. the only way that 2010 bug could be fixed is if node operators volunteered to run the bug-free code, which they did without dispute. no force update mechanism was required since all users had an incentive to run bug-free code.

the ETH rollback was highly contentious and proved that the ETH devs can make arbitrary changes despite the legitimate dispute of a significant portion of their userbase. they effectively applied a force upgrade to fix something which wasn't broken. this means they can change anything they want in the protocol, including the conditions under which your coins can be spent (so do you really own your funds in a system with this security model?)

eth devs continued this since then, as their users have demonstrated zero conviction of strongly held beliefs, and no tool to demonstrate those beliefs (you can't run a node on ethereum without a massive investment), this gives eth devs ultimate power to enforce whatever rules  they want. the latest one I know about is the hilarious EIP-1559, which is Vitalik's attempt to challenge Bitcoin's sound-money narrative. of course, to do this, he needs to steal about 1.5 ETH every 20 seconds from the miners (~$9,000 per min). Vitalik insists that ETH has real value, but also that users should destroy it everytime they send a transaction. Hard to think of many other things that I find valuable and that I'd be comfortable setting ablaze. that's the kind of intellectual honesty you get in ETH hehe

[Pmalek]

the ETH rollback was highly contentious and proved that the ETH devs can make arbitrary changes despite the legitimate dispute of a significant portion of their userbase.

Without going too much off topic, I would be interested in reading more about the bolded part of your reply. Are there trustworthy sources that have calculated what percentage of users were for and how many were against the rollback? I would also like to see the official excuses the developers used to move ahead with the fork/rollback.  

[Karartma1]

the ETH rollback was highly contentious and proved that the ETH devs can make arbitrary changes despite the legitimate dispute of a significant portion of their userbase.

Without going too much off topic, I would be interested in reading more about the bolded part of your reply. Are there trustworthy sources that have calculated what percentage of users were for and how many were against the rollback? I would also like to see the official excuses the developers used to move ahead with the fork/rollback.  

The mere fact that it was possible (i.e. that kind of fork/rollback) should be disconcerting, don't you think? Personally, that original sin is irremediable, we know that ETH will always be blackmailable in the future and with recent announcements (see Visa, USDC) ETH will become more and more enterprise oriented.
Anyway, in the article below maybe there is something about what you're looking for.

https://www.coindesk.com/hard-fork-ethereum-dao

[plexasm]

the ETH rollback was highly contentious and proved that the ETH devs can make arbitrary changes despite the legitimate dispute of a significant portion of their userbase.

Without going too much off topic, I would be interested in reading more about the bolded part of your reply. Are there trustworthy sources that have calculated what percentage of users were for and how many were against the rollback? I would also like to see the official excuses the developers used to move ahead with the fork/rollback.  

the only poll I know of at the time was from ethpool, which can be found here https://web.archive.org/web/20160630134017/http://ethpool.org/stats/votes

not sure of any other official polling but I remember anecdotally from reddit threads on /r/Ethereum that about half of their users were against it.
examples:
poster is pro-hardfork but most upvoted comments are anti-hardfork:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160624034446/https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4pi07u/venting_my_thoughts_on_the_dao_so_i_dont_explode/

one of the biggest debate threads at the time which seems pretty 50/50:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170623051001/https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4olntx/an_ethereum_hard_fork_is_not_a_bailout_its/

would be interesting to see a more detailed analysis of support for it. I think it's pretty clear anecdotally that they at the very least were going against the opinion of a significant portion of their userbase.

you don't need to refer to historical examples to see ethereum devs ignoring the legitimate complaints of their users and brute-forcing a change which benefits them at the cost of others; it's literally happening live right now with EIP-1559. this is actually a much clearer example of their disproportionate power in the eco-system because they're directly attacking miners with this change, and making it clear that miners are effectively forced to run whatever the eth devs want because forking ETH is a practical impossibility due to token valuations (the classic retort of ETH-supporters when you say the devs have too much power is "miners don't need to run code they don't like"). here's a protest site made by miners to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with 1559: https://stopeip1559.org/ ... the site does not include hashrate , so let's look

Pools AGAINST EIP-1559:

pool	% hashrate
Sparkpool	23%
Ethermine	19.7%
Hiveon	4.7%
Nanopool	4.5%
Miningpoolhub	2.6%
2Miners	2.35%
Ezil/Ethashpool/WoolyPooly/Crux/Crazy	??%
MINIMUM TOTAL	56.85%

Pools FOR EIP-1559:

pool	% hashrate
F2Pool	10.2%
Poolin/Binance/Minerall/ViaBTC/EMCD/BTC.com/Antpool	??%
MINIMUM TOTAL	10.2%

?? = not listed on https://etherscan.io/stat/miner?blocktype=blocks


obviously that's a rough analysis but it's enough to conclude that there's significant opposition to it. if you're an eth miner supporting this "upgrade" you'd need to be quite masochistic, as it immediately makes you unprofitable.

for anyone who doesn't follow it, EIP-1559's big controversial change is ETH's attempt to make ETH have a reducing supply. the only way to do that is to burn the fees from blocks (currently blocks award 2 ETH + fees, fees can add an extra 1-3+ ETH to the block reward depending on demand. Without fees, mining is only profitable for those running ASICS (but they still think they are ASIC-resistant btw)) quote from Vitalik: goes something like "people believe Bitcoin is sound money because it has a deflationary supply... After EIP-1559 ETH could have a reducing supply, doesn't that make ETH ultra-sound money?". seems like they are sacrificing miners so they can start on their next narrative shift "ETH is ultrasound money"

[pooya87]

the ETH rollback was highly contentious and proved that the ETH devs can make arbitrary changes despite the legitimate dispute of a significant portion of their userbase.

Without going too much off topic, I would be interested in reading more about the bolded part of your reply. Are there trustworthy sources that have calculated what percentage of users were for and how many were against the rollback? I would also like to see the official excuses the developers used to move ahead with the fork/rollback. 

Why do you need percentages for?
Immutability is one of the basic principles of the blockchain technology and without it the cryptocurrencies can not exist. Immutability simply means when a valid block is found (ie. when a valid transaction is considered confirmed) the ledger aka the blockchain must not change otherwise the cryptocurrency becomes useless and they cease to exist.
The only reason why ETH remained alive was because of the millions of dollars they spent keeping it alive and the fact that it became profitable to keep it alive (for ICO scammers).

[Karartma1]

the ETH rollback was highly contentious and proved that the ETH devs can make arbitrary changes despite the legitimate dispute of a significant portion of their userbase.

Without going too much off topic, I would be interested in reading more about the bolded part of your reply. Are there trustworthy sources that have calculated what percentage of users were for and how many were against the rollback? I would also like to see the official excuses the developers used to move ahead with the fork/rollback. 

Why do you need percentages for?
Immutability is one of the basic principles of the blockchain technology and without it the cryptocurrencies can not exist. Immutability simply means when a valid block is found (ie. when a valid transaction is considered confirmed) the ledger aka the blockchain must not change otherwise the cryptocurrency becomes useless and they cease to exist.
The only reason why ETH remained alive was because of the millions of dollars they spent keeping it alive and the fact that it became profitable to keep it alive (for ICO scammers).

Ethereum was lucky enough to have been hit bad by the DAO failure in 2016. If that'd happened today, bye bye Ethereum as I'm sure better protocols would have already surpassed it.
Eth ticks all the boxes of a scam: ICO premined coins, rollbacks, no transacting stability yet is still there as the second largest blockchain. Mind-blowing for me.

[DaveF]

For the muscle car guys the entire Ethereum Vs Bitcoin Vs BCH and others really reads like
Ford vs. Chevy Vs Dodge Vs others.
And this is what annoys the crap out of me. It's not one size fits all:

I use BTC for purchases and LN running though my own node if needed.

I use doge / LTC for small transactions to people.

I have a crap ton of worthless ETH tokens that cost me nothing so why not have them? Possibly one takes off.

Does ETH have it's faults, yes it does. Does BTC have it's faults yes, it has some too IMO. But saying that one is better then the other? You use a hammer to put in nails, a screwdriver to put in screws and a drill to make holes in things. Yes you can do all of that with a hammer but.....

When VB released ETH you knew what you were getting and you knew what it was. After the 2016 fork, it showed it. Not saying it's good or bad, but you know what it is. Why are people here, in a Bitcoin forum talking about it in a Bitcoin tech sub part of the forum talking about ETH? It should be in the alt's section or not at all. Going back to how I started this post it sounds like a bunch of Ford guys who love their Mustangs talking about how bad the newest Camaro is.

-Dave

[Pmalek]

Why do you need percentages for?
Immutability is one of the basic principles of the blockchain technology and without it the cryptocurrencies can not exist. Immutability simply means when a valid block is found (ie. when a valid transaction is considered confirmed) the ledger aka the blockchain must not change otherwise the cryptocurrency becomes useless and they cease to exist.
The only reason why ETH remained alive was because of the millions of dollars they spent keeping it alive and the fact that it became profitable to keep it alive (for ICO scammers).

It's exactly because of that immutability that I want to know what reasoning the ethereum developers gave and how the community accepted it. The bitcoin community, or at least those few who voiced their opinions in this thread, showed a pretty healthy thought process. The protocol of bitcoin didn't work, hence necessary steps were taken to get it back on track.

With ethereum and the DAO hack, we witnessed the exact opposite. The network performed as it should have, but still steps were taken to rectify changes that a centralized authority thought shouldn't have happened. I was interested in seeing what explanations were gives as reasons for the rollback and what was the overall feedback by the community back in those days.   

[pooya87]

Ethereum was lucky enough to have been hit bad by the DAO failure in 2016. If that'd happened today, bye bye Ethereum as I'm sure better protocols would have already surpassed it.
Eth ticks all the boxes of a scam: ICO premined coins, rollbacks, no transacting stability yet is still there as the second largest blockchain. Mind-blowing for me.

But similar cases repeated again after DAO and the situation was pretty much similar with the exploit being similar too. The only different factor was that the Ethereum Foundation invested in DAO while they never invested in any of the ones that came after it, that meant only regular users lost money and regular people have no power in a centralized system!