onestone

No, the people deciding to fork were the ETH holders. A lot of them owned DAO tokens, but not a majority, probably about 10%. There was a coin vote before the fork which showed about 85% support, and the result was confirmed by the market after the fork (ETH is about 10x more expensive than ETC).

You speak as if this was an individual's decision. It was not. Vitalik may be influential, but it was not his decision to fork. The community decided so, by a significant majority.

In God we trust, all others must submit an X.509 Certificate.

There are also more details mentioned in this Chess.com article: https://www.chess.com/news/carlsen-plays-white-in-round-one-...

Yeah, I flagged the article for being grossly inaccurate. I've had a lot of frustrations with Docker myself, and will happily switch to Rkt after it matures a bit more. Docker surely deserves a lot of criticism, but it should at least be valid and well-informed.

I for one am definitely looking to replace Docker in production with Rkt. Just waiting for Rkt support in higher-level components (Kubernetes in my case) to mature a bit more.

Btw, the blockchain in question is Ethereum. Source: https://twitter.com/HiroMarleyG/status/780713683022442496

Also, they claim to (soon) be able to filter up to 5 Tbps attacks: https://twitter.com/olesovhcom/status/778831449206231041

Such long Base64 URL parameters usually carry encrypted data. So they might be impossible to shorten.

Should have used https://github.com/uWebSockets/uWebSockets for Node.js, if performance was the objective.

Also in English: https://www.hetzner.de/ot/hosting/news/hetzner-online-bietet...

Most of it has been from BTC-ETC markets, which shows that support for ETC came mostly from outside the original Ethereum community.

Considering that the DAO hacker has the most to gain from the "classic" chain still having value, there is a significant chance.

The Ethereum crowdsale. I sold a small part of that recently, at ~60x profit.

Actually it is incorrect. Source - Zane Tackett (Director of Community and Product Development at Bitfinex): https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/4vtv1m/bitfi...

> My question is why do you need any bitcoins at all in hot storage?

In the Bitfinex case essentially all bitcoins were in hot storage. Why they switched to that system I don't know. Perhaps they were convinced by BitGo marketing brochures that this would be more secure. Or, they were forced to do that by regulators.

In the general (not Bitfinex) case, you need hot storage in order to process withdrawals quickly. No one is going to use a cryptocurrency exchange which makes you wait 24h to withdraw, this is unacceptable in such dynamic markets.

Bitfinex used to keep BTC in cold storage, but replaced that system with segregated multi-sig (2 of 3) wallets for each user account, backed by BitGo. In that scenario BitGo held one key, and Bitfinex held 2 keys for each account (one online and one offline). Supposedly BitGo should have enforced some limits on withdrawals to prevent such events, but for some reason that was bypassed.

By that logic there should be no Brexit, as less than 50% of the eligible voters voted for it.

Yes, I consider it an _excellent_ participation rate. A 5.5% sample size is orders of magnitude larger than that of nearly any sociological study (usually below 0.01%).

Passive users by definition agree to follow the active users' decision.

Which are the users you are referring to? Because all kinds of _actual_ users have shown that a clear majority is in favor of the hard fork:

- ETH holders voted on http://carbonvote.com/ with 87% pro-fork. 5.5% of the total ETH supply participated in the vote.

- ETH miners clearly voted pro-fork on the major pools, e.g. https://dwarfpool.com/eth/voting. In nearly all cases > 80% of the hash power was pro-fork.

- ETH markets reacted positively when there were good pro-fork news, and negatively when there were bad news (such as the DDoS vulnerability in the proposed soft fork). Therefore the market sees more value in the post-HF Ethereum.

Yes, there is a vocal group opposing the fork, but it mostly consists of persons wishing to see Ethereum fail.

Miners majority decides only with soft forks. A hard fork is a consensus protocol change, the economic majority can split even without the majority of miners (of course it is nice to have the miners on board as well).

Note that Bitcoin Core contributors have been openly hostile to Ethereum in many cases. So this article is a bit like asking Hitler how Hanukkah should be celebrated.

Hard forks don't require any particular adoption percentage (unlike soft forks). The network simply splits in two chains. If one of the chains is obviously weaker, it usually dies quickly, as it's no longer economically viable.

In this case the sentiment among actual ETH holders is ~ 85% in favor of the hard fork. Check http://carbonvote.com/ (it's not a binding vote, just an indication showing which way the wind blows).

I disagree. The ability to reach consensus within a community does not necessarily imply centralization.

The quote was slightly off, apologies. I was quoting from memory, this was 3 years ago, and I can no longer edit the parent post. What he actually said was more like (translation): "Only someone who does not know how to turn on the computer, can suggest that the election counting software's source should be made public" [1].

[1] http://www.mediapool.bg/mihail-konstantinov-podade-ostavka-k...

A couple of examples from the first minute of the video:

- A ridiculous example of "electronic voting" is presented - voters download ballot papers, fill them, then email or fax them back. This obviously sucks in multiple ways. Therefore, all kinds of "electronic voting" must be broken.

- Physical voting is very old, therefore it must have become solid and tamper-proof by now. This is not true. Physical voting is vulnerable to all kinds of manipulations, and they do happen on large scales.

The wrong claims continue forward. Just because that dude sounds smart doesn't mean his clip has any value.

That YouTube video is full of logical fallacies and wrong claims.

And even if such a verification is impossible, I don't think we should reject incremental improvements just because the result is not yet perfect.

He is a professor in Mathematics, and is often invited in popular TV shows as a supposed "expert" on elections, software, and politics in general.

That's awesome to hear. Many thanks for your efforts :)

I remember the CEO of Information Services JSC (the de-facto Bulgarian monopolist in governement software procurement), prof. Mihail Konstantinov, making the ridiculous claim on TV that "We can't release the source code of the elections counting software. Anyone who has the source can hack into the system, even children know that. If you don't understand that, you should tear your diploma". Glad to see that morons such as him will no longer have the final say.