I think it's a bad idea which will harm the reputation of cryptocurrency in general and potentially fuel adverse legal/regulatory intervention (e.g. will regulators believe that developers working on cryptocurrencies can make arbitrary adjustments on demand-- with ethereum as a proof point). It's also going to create wasted effort for users of Bitcoin do differentiate themselves from the not very decenteralized hf-ethereum. ...
When the DAO caught fire and I saw forwards of chatlogs with exchanges talking about hardforking to 'fix' it, I was shocked and sent Vitalik email urging them to not do so. In Bitcoin land such a thing would be unthinkable, and I think actually impossible.
Ethereum's website has long loudly advertised (even louder than Bitcoin materials): "Ethereum is a decentralized platform for applications that run exactly as programmed without any chance of fraud, censorship or third-party interference."; and all that goes out the window when a service using the system suffers a highly predictable fault from a well known class of vulnerabilities? I could certainly appreciate that ethereum could have a different philosophy than Bitcoin-- it's important that systems with many different philosophies exist-- but since ethereum has marked itself with a very Bitcoin like view, this is going to continue to create confusion in the market.
To all those people who argue 'hey, ethereum isn't money it's just fuel for a public distributed network' ethereum classic will probably have a pretty good value proposition: better integrity with a lower access cost (assuming its adoption doesn't overtake ethhf).
Though I'm also curious what will be done with the logicbomb difficulty adjustment stuff (my understanding is that the current ethereum consensus rules have a pre-programmed exponential ramp in the difficulty which will eventually make the system unworkable without a hardfork).
So the model of externalizing risks and costs what TheDAO applied to the ETH community is now extended from the ETH community to the whole cryptocurrency community.
Creating a dangerous and damaging precedents for all.
Abusing the term decentralization in the same manner as TheDAO has abused and killed the general purpuse term DAO.
I'm very bothered by both Ethereum and Steem blatantly lying about their being decentralized or censorship resistant. There are far too many blockchain projects loudly claiming being decentralized and using it to sell the idea while it all being smoke and mirrors. They are doing it so they can use the buzzword blockchain which hurts the whole community by diverting funding away from developers & researchers actually working on open source decentralized projects.
I believe if a proof-of-stake solution is not adopted before the difficulty bomb it would be reasonable to argue it should be removed. It was an interesting idea in concept but I don't think it functionally achieves its goal. It does not incentivize or pressure actually adopting a proof-of-stake, it just pressures a general hard fork. Clearly hard forks don't need to be upgrades anymore either, now that we have seen hard forking due to political pressure, the difficulty bomb seems even more meaningless.
The thing that I found most worrying in all this is how the hashpower of the silent majority (non-voters) in the pools were leveraged by a minority to help enforce the fork.
Another slimy thing was making the pro-fork setting default in geth and other clients. In one client, it was necessary to run with --assist-dao-attack to remain on original code.
Someone has elegantly termed this The harvesting of passive supporters. I worry that the same tactics could be used in bitcoin-land.
my understanding is that the current ethereum consensus rules have a pre-programmed exponential ramp in the difficulty which will eventually make the system unworkable without a hardfork
To make sure I understood you correctly: are you saying ETC needs a HF to keep on working at a certain point of time?
Man up son. And face your inner demons.
Couple of cute errors in there nevertheless.
Will Maxwell pull his finger out and once and for all and solve bitcoins problem, or will he continue to point fingers everywhere else except at himself.
Loudmouth nerd kid at the swimming pool on the diving board, oh but wait look at him, look at her, see they're stupid because...
(e.g. will regulators believe that developers working on cryptocurrencies can make arbitrary adjustments on demand-- with ethereum as a proof point)
This is based on a "Security through obscurity". A barrier, that didn't exist nor was needed yet. Any regulator can come up with that thought anytime. Did people really hope this in denial of the obvious public nature of blockchains and why?
Direct democratic governance and decentralization are in place as they are. The later is potentially vulnerable to 51% attack or bugs, but intervention is always possible as well, since the community is always the lowest level. (Automated consensus is a convenience tool but Zombie robotic entities above humans aren't intented.)
The latest Ethereum hard fork may be considered a precedence in blockchain community; yet not a difficult one; clear voting result/consensus. Many more specific/difficult decisions may happen accross blockchains in future. And so the direct demoncratic blockchain communities must prove themselves being capable of decision and action/evolvement.
This. Despite our disagreements on the blocksize, THIS is the right answer. I disagree with the hacker that the recursive split was a "feature" (it was a flaw, yes) but, "hack" or not, the fault is in the DAO's programmers, not ETH, and forking the chain itself to save a contract written on TOP of it is wrong, and everyone that piled into TheDAO without checking the thickness of the ice (the code) are hypocrites.
I mean, how more meta can it get? Look at this sticker on the laptop (with /u/vbuterin in the room): IT'S NOT A BUG, IT'S A FEATURE
but since ethereum has marked itself with a very Bitcoin like view, this is going to continue to create confusion in the market.
Bitcoin was originally marked as electronic cash and now it's becoming a settlement system. Bitcoin has also changed since the original vision.
will regulators believe that developers working on cryptocurrencies can make arbitrary adjustments on demand
The DAO hardfork wasn't arbitrary. Realistically this hardfork doesn't suddenly make other changes to the blockchain more possible. Costs and benefits will stay roughly the same for future scenario's.
Yes the DAO was hacked, but that same code also locked up funds for long enough time that a HF was even possible. The softfork even provided proof that censoring transactions is actually very had to do in Ethereum (harder than in Bitcoin). There is a very good chance that this type of HF will never happen in the future, simply because it would be impossible (cost would far outweigh the benefits).
Your argument basically is a slippery slope fallacy.
We did proof that contentious hardforks are possible. But that is a good thing, because the only alternative would be to grind a cryptocurrency to a halt. Giving undue preference to non-changes cannot be a good thing.
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: