Hacker News Reader

Comment by yuan43 | Hacker News Reader

Ethereum Classic (ETC) is the version of Ethereum running before the DAO attack. Unlike Ethereum, which rolled back the attacker's gains, ETC preserved them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic

There are no indications that ETC will move to proof-of-stake as planned (for many years now) by Ethereum.

There has been speculation that Ethereum miners would not abide by the upcoming hard fork to proof-of-stake (PoS) and will continue mining on the pre-fork chain.

The increase in ETC hash rate suggest that one outlet for ETH mining hardware could be ETC.

It's likely that both outcomes will happen together post-merge: ETC attracts some ETH miners while ETH PoW chugs on.

Either way, the mining rigs and their power consumption may not be going anywhere anytime soon.

The relative exchange rates of ETC and ETH have not moved much since July:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/ETC-ETH/chart/

View on HN

False. Ethereum did not roll back the attacker's gains, instead, there was a transaction made in the fork that moved the ETH out of TheDAO into a new contract where the ETH was returned to its owners. (An "irregular state change", or a "roll-forward" rather than back).

At no point was the ETH in the attacker's hands. Most of the ETH was trapped in a stalemate between the attackers (white-hats and black-hats), the remainder was time-locked under the Dao's control until the fork.

Also, the complete history of TheDAO is still on the mainchain and is being replayed and re-validated each time you do a fresh sync.

That distinction is overly pedantic. That's like saying, "No, the store didn't refund my payment. Instead, they made a second transaction that returned an equal amount of money to me."

It's like doing a `git revert` vs. `git reset --hard HEAD~1`. The distinction is relevant enough to people, and it's fair to point out how this might be different from what many people consider a 'rollback'.

git revert can be merged with a fast-forward. `git reset --hard HEAD~1` would require others to reset their clones also (and is more like what happens when blocks become orphaned in Bitcoin)

To whom would that distinction be justifiably relevant in the debate over the DAO response?

Well you are on hacker news after all.

A detailed and factually correct replay should not be scorned for being too detailed :/

I agree -- instead of opening with the scornful "False.", he should have opened with "Here are some interesting details about how that transaction is represented in the underlying data structures"

don't know what "irregular state change", or a "roll-forward" is, sounds like jargon to me.

only thing I know is that code is law, until it isn't.

&no amount of verbal gymnastics can change the simple facts.

Miners could still stake their ETH for rewards. But they still have the compute power to do PoW, so, depending on the price of power and ETC, it can make sense to both stake ETH and mine ETC.

Well even then only a small amount of hashpower can migrate to ETC, cause at that point it won't be profitable enough to mine ETC (because of it's lower marketcap/price/demand).

Either way yeah, it isn't stopping miners capitalising on free/extremely cheap energy. Any revenue is profit for them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com