Hacker News Reader

Comment by pards | Hacker News Reader

Just like the Ethereum fork in 2016 [0]. Before then, the battle cries of the crypto advocates were:

  - Blockchains are immutable! 
  - The code is the law!

...until someone exploited a code defect and took the founders' money, then they re-write history and ignored the hypocrisy.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO

View on HN

> ...until someone exploited a code defect and took the founders' money, then they re-write history and ignored the hypocrisy.

Not everybody agreed - and so the Ethereum Classic blockchain was created, causing all the problems that go hand in hand with having different, forked blockchains:

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

That's different because in Bitcoin's case there was a clear violation of the specification, of how it supposed to work. So the bug was fixed to make the software working as it intended to be. If there were two node implementations then one would just stop to work until fixed.

In Ethereum's case there were no violation of any specification. In fact there were no bug in the blockchain itself. Just someone took founder's money, they didn't like it and so they decided to get them back. And note that after that, there were bugs in the nodes code that were breaking the spec (which you should compare to the bitcoin's bug), but because of multiple node implementations only some of the nodes stopped and so we don't care about those issues.

That's probably more important than worrying about bugs in the code. There will be bugs, the concern is what are the rules for rectifying the damage done by those bugs. Plus, where do I go to appeal if I disagree with the decision?

> ignored the hypocrisy

You don't need to exaggerate so strongly.

Powers gonna power

Reply on news.ycombinator.com