Consensus ethereum


They may be the long-awaited precondition for a more prosperous and inclusive economy. Retrieved 10 May Retrieved 24 March Retrieved from " https: Ethereum Companies based in Brooklyn. Articles containing potentially dated statements from December All articles containing potentially dated statements. Views Read Edit View history.

This page was last edited on 4 April , at By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Brooklyn , New York City [2] , U. With hard forks, it is ultimately up to you to choose to participate. If the social referendum is controversial, users are able to follow their principals by choice: It is important that we avoid soft forks or other protocol changes that could endanger the explicit choice of a hard fork.

I personally like hardforks. Particularly, I like the fact that they give users a measure of control, requiring them to opt into protocol changes. Sure, they can be a little more chaotic if they're controversial, but that's the price of freedom.

Even with the benefits hard forks have, Vitalik makes it clear that they are not a stop-gap for other technology. It is clear from history that hard forks are not an agile way to protect a blockchain. New solutions will be needed in the future. FYI I personally am not in favor of accepting a long-term commitment to activist forking norms. I also think that hard forks will become technologically riskier and riskier over time and at some point assuming sufficient institutional adoption they just won't be available as an option anymore; our job is to make sure that by that time contract safety features are easily implementable and usable as a layer on top of the protocol.

It is probably clear at this point, I align with the values and social contract established by the ETH chain. Although I support ETC's right to continue the history they see fit, I strain to see a future where their version of history will have the same utility as ETH. I dedicate my time to ETH because that is where development is centered. The ETH chain is the only one working on the code verification and consensus upgrades needed for the future.

The moral of this story is the hard fork gave users choice. Although the fork resulted in a smaller community of "Ethereum Classic" with a tenth of the market cap, this community was not censored with a soft fork despite the attempt. Their ability to hard fork represents the ability of choice in a decentralized network.

The majority of the community did choose to freeze the funds, in my assessment, this is what the essence of social consensus is meant to be in a decentralized world. Code might be law, but we humans still have the ability to form consensus too. Thanks Kyle, well written and superbly informative. The whole story if the Eth split is a valuable lesson, not only in the crypto world, but in the human world. It establishes a precedent for the future.

A decentralized way of living is not an easy road to follow, but ultimately is by far the best for humans to follow if we really want true freedom.

Your posts are always one I look forward to. I am so glad to see others with a sound outlook on decentralization. Keep in mind that your understanding is in the milliPercent right now! Hard Forks naturally occur. It would be naive to believe "code is law" as it is naiv to think hard forks are trivial and foreseeable upgrades.

Hard Forks are educational examples. The Ethereum Foundation issued the following statement on their blog regarding the fork: Criticism of a hard fork - is code law? The Ethereum Classic project describes itself: