The blockchain unchangeability and hard bifurcation can coexist
It seems to ETC (Ethernet Fang original chain) hard bifurcation misunderstanding. Not based on fact inference is like a bird without feet. If the ETC is not hard bifurcation, it will perish because the mining difficultybomb problem.
ETH (Ethernet Fang bifurcation) community members to attack the ETC bifurcation hard as weapons. Only that their understanding of the DAO event of the deviation, they don’t understand why so many people are opposed to the first ETH hard branch.
Why not change so important?
Not only can change the public records to ensure the blockchain to the center. The block chain network in mining spent millions of dollars, because the only way to ensure that the books transaction is permanent.
Go to the park to the center of the chain cannot do without nature can not be changed, because this feature can guarantee the normal operation of the system, without the need for a trusted third party.
Therefore, changing the books transaction history hard bifurcation completely violated the nature can not be changed, while the hard bifurcate of repair loopholes is desirable agreement.
Once the violation of the books can not be changed, it will create a dangerous precedent, this block chain is no longer worthy of trust.
DAO rescue plan
When the ETH switch to homestead when it had carried out a hard bifurcation, then the community did not dispute. ETH was first established on the set of a social contract, which is the evolution of hard bifurcation of a part of the process. As part of the initial ETH social contract, ETC is not hard to resist the bifurcation, but only for protocol update.
When the DAO is hard bifurcation will bring so much controversy, because it is contrary to the public account can not be changed, only in order to restore a third loss of app. The bifurcation is not hard protocol layer updates, in violation of the initial social contract to save a Private Companies slock.it.
It is said that the reason why ETH developers had to save DAO of the project is too large, unable to withstand failure. Let investors lost tens of millions of dollars it will only bring negative influence to the ETH ecosystem.
A similar bailout is very common in today’s society. Large enterprises, such as banks, their size is too large, the event of bankruptcy, will cause adverse effects on the economy. The question is, are usually responsible for taxpayer bailouts of these enterprises, and they set up a system of crony capitalism. After the rescue, they will be more reckless, because they don’t need to pay for their mistakes.
The DAO event is a consequence of the entire project fling caution to the winds, too many loopholes:
The whole project should be provided with a safety review, can not wait to receive the money after the start.
Slock.it tried to profit from the security service.
Investors without due diligence under the basic blindly invested $150 million.
Vitalik has also invested in DAO, that is to say, he is so hard to adhere to the bifurcation protocol updates, because there is a conflict of interest among them.
DAO had violated the terms of the contract, the false speculation, in fact it is not the system can not be changed.
Investors are overly optimistic about the DAO project, for violation of the ETH core value proposition no remorse.
DAO rescue plan creates a dangerous precedent, that can change the state of books. Maybe Vitalik is well intentioned, but he really changed the rules of the game. The critical moment, he did not choose to remain neutral to avoid leaning to either side books, but choose to become intelligent contract makers and the ETH of the people of the dictator.
ETH can change the way deeper. One controversial example is EIP156 Vitalik, suggested that if the intelligent contract accidentally crashes can give the user a refund.
I understand that this agreement will be very controversial, because it looks more like a “improved redemption” instead of “technology”. Compared with before, the interference of this protocol is weak; the agreement is still in the community discussion stage, did not formally take effect.
Just imagine, if bitcoin developer decides hard fork, just to give the user private key accidentally lost a refund, what would you think? Although this Agreement may be well intentioned, but kill the unchangeability, make ETH become more centralized.
It can also create a legal precedent. Ethernet Square Foundation (EthereumFoundation) what guarantee contracts are not subject to regulatory review? They are hard bifurcation regulators in the press? One example is Augur, which is forecast to the center of the market platform based on ETH, and the online gambling is illegal in the United states.
To the center
I want to criticize the ETC say that ETC is a powerful proof of the free market and to the center of the. No matter how many supporters, can not force others to accept they don’t recognize the change.
It can be said that Classic is a fence to protect the ETH from legal. In case of ETH bifurcation due to hard being sued, they can argue that the hard bifurcation is controversial, causing network division.
ETC block chain is fair to all intelligent contracts and transactions on the books. ETC’s goal is to ensure that the initial ETH social contract, can not change the nature of continuity. Like bitcoin, ETC jointly maintained by community volunteers, and strive to achieve true to the center.