Hardforks, Hackers and Haribo

I’m not going to bore you with an in-depth analysis of the Dao fiasco. @steempower has a detailed explanation https://steemit.com/ethereum/@steempower/ethereum-vs-ethereum-classic-forks-free-coins-51-and-replay-attack-s that covers most of the technical aspects. However I’ll provide my insight to the implications of the hardfork and the subsequent rise of ETC

Essentially $60 million of Ether was under threat of theft due to the Dao code being exploited. I say ‘theft’ but technically nothing illegal was done. So what we’re left with is a group of disgruntled investors who are annoyed because they poured money into a fund without understanding the technical workings of how they were investing their money.

So the community posed a question that’s underlying principles was:

“The nefarious actions of one party has resulted in the exploitation of the goodwill of an ethereum community, through a malicious execution of the code. Does the community wish to reverse this?”

Despite a low voter turnout the community voted overwhelmingly in favour of the hardfork. This was a vote open to anyone and therefore any party with significant interest in the event could have researched the topic and then cast their vote. It is this principle, not the act, which is so important.

This is the first significant example of decentralised decision making. A civilised mob justice if you will. A further step towards achieving the wishes of a community is to remove the variable of currency holdings on voting influence. A one wallet one vote system would allow decisions to reflect the ethics of the community as a whole rather than having the conversation dominated by the financial powerhouses. I think the failures of our current financial system stem from the imbalance of power between the institutions and the consumers.

Gaining greater control over their money is ultimately what pushes people towards cryptocurrencies. To truly attract the mainstream investors we cannot leave people exposed to exploitation because they are not familiar with the technical mechanics of Ethereum. What we saw with the DAO was caused by imperfect knowledge on the part of the investors and therefore the community needed to act to ensure an act of goodwill was not derailed by a malicious party.

It is not the immutability of the blockchain but the immutability of community consensus that is the key to Ethereum’s success. I think by rejecting community consensus we are undermining the principle of decentralisation.

It is up to the community to decide how the ETH/ETC situation plays out but I expect ETC to fade. The ultimate goal of cryptocurrency is to reverse this balance of power and so the community should stick to the voted consensus for altruistic purposes but I believe ultimately the lack of developer support will be the downfall of ETC.