Bittrex CEO: There is a market only when there is demand, Ethereum Classic is a successful project

Even though some miners in the community have expressed their intention to attack Ethereum Classic, the initial protocol of the Ethereum blockchain still has a lot of support.

This week, miner representative Chandler Guo publicly announced that he would join other miners to launch a 51% attack on ETC. Bill Shihara, CEO of digital currency exchange Bittrex, expressed his doubts about this move.

Since Poloniex announced the addition of ETC trading, Guo said he joined forces with other miners to isolate blocks mined by Ethereum Classic in order to resist the generation of its transactions.

Poloniex Launches ETC Trading

This week, Poloniex launched ETC trading, which caused a stir.

Some people said that Poloniex’s behavior was completely reckless, because the ETC chain is prone to double spending and problems at any time. In addition, the behavior of listing tokens without testing is likely to cause customers to lose funds.

Shihara questions miners' allegations

Shihara believes that ETC’s computing power is sufficient and a 51% attack requires the participation of multiple mining pools. He thinks the attack mentioned by miners is just a bluff to dampen the interest of investors.

He also mentioned that replay attacks are currently a problem that both Ethereum chains have to deal with.

Users may accidentally lose their ETH or ETC due to their carelessness, so he recommends users to split their currencies before transferring.

For example, a wallet held 100 ETH before the hard fork, and after the fork it held both 100 ETH and 100 ETC.

This can easily make the holder feel like "pie in the sky". Then he will create another wallet on the ETC blockchain and transfer it to an exchange such as Bittrex to resell it.

However, when he transferred 10 ETC to the ETC address of Bittrex, this process was also recorded on the ETH blockchain (the so-called replay), and then a default process would occur, that is, 10 ETH was also transferred to the address of Bittrex (fortunately it was Bittrex) through the Ethereum blockchain. In this way, he lost 10 ETH, which is 20 times the value of ETC.

Why should exchanges support ETC?

While the vulnerability is real, Shihara said he expected exchanges to support ETC.

It's about user demand. It's clear that ETC has a market. Most exchanges predicted today's situation long before the fork. At that time, we also persuaded the Ethereum Foundation to support the initial chain.

The technical problems were not as complicated as we had initially imagined. Bittrex launched ETC trading relatively late because we wanted to ensure the security of the transactions.

I can’t possibly understand the motivations of all ETC holders, but I fully understand the open source nature of digital currency. This feature allows the community to freely choose and support market development in an existing code environment.

I have also talked to several clients, and they have many reasons for choosing ETC, such as opposing hard forks, hoping that the price of ether will fluctuate, or simply not liking the Ethereum Foundation.

Next step

Shihara believes that in the short term, the prices of ETC and ETH are tied together.

From a long-term perspective, the connection between ETC and ETH will gradually weaken. As time goes by, their respective goals and ecosystems will gradually become clearer.

Shihara suggested that Ethereum developers think carefully about two questions: Is it possible that the apps they develop will be affected by replay attacks? Are they willing to support both ETH and ETC?

It is very simple to protect your smart contract, just write and split (spilt) the contract-like function. However, some companies like Digix Global have announced that they will only support one chain because they hold some tradable assets such as gold.

I think the ETC project is viable because it already has a lot of followers.

(Bill Shihara)

Shihara interview text

Q: What do you think about Ethereum hard fork and Ethereum Classic?

We are neutral from a market perspective. Because we are an exchange, we will provide the community with appropriate market options. If the community believes that ETC is viable, I think our responsibility is to provide them with a fair trading platform. I personally think ETC is still very attractive. The Ethereum Foundation successfully executed a hard fork in a limited time to recover the losses of the DAO. They have done what they should do.

From the perspective of the exchange, the whole thing is a little different. Because we don’t have direct contact with miners and investors, we are used to looking at things from the user’s perspective. We know that most people support the hard fork, while a small number of people are against it.

ETC has a market support rate of 10%. As long as this support rate exists, we have the responsibility to understand and support the needs of users.

Q: Why do you think Poloniex wanted to be the first to try something new?

Of course it is user demand. In fact, their market share in Ethereum is larger than ours. Even our users are chasing us to list ETC, so their demand must be greater. I have no prejudice against these users. They just found a new investment opportunity, and their behavior also helps us to open up new markets. If you understand the situation, you will find that the transaction volume of ETC even exceeds that of Ethereum. Although the current price difference between the two is very large, judging from the transaction volume alone, the demand for ETC is greater.

We don’t know whether this market demand will last. I just know that we are not the only exchange that recognizes the market demand for ETC. Some exchanges have also publicly stated that they will list ETC.

Chinese miner Chandler Guo recently publicly stated that he would launch a 51% attack on ETC. Do you think he is serious?

This question is difficult to answer because I don't know him and have never spoken to him. But I understand the reaction in the community. From an economic point of view, the price of ETH and ETC should belong to ETH. If you only recognize the status of Ethereum, then the emergence of ETC means that you have lost some funds.

Therefore, eliminating ETC is indeed the best option to recover losses. In addition, mining pools are also following the example of exchanges, realizing the needs of miners, and choosing to support ETC mining. So, I am not sure if he is serious. However, ETC mining computing power is also developing with the increase in transaction volume, so I don’t think they can easily launch an attack.

Some people say that the Ethereum Foundation should be held legally responsible. What do you think?

First of all, I am not a lawyer, but I understand both sides' views. The Ethereum Foundation has publicly stated that code is law. As a programmer, I think this goal is what we dream of, and I am also looking forward to the day when technology can really develop to this point. However, our industry has not yet developed to such a mature point that we cannot create a flawless smart contract to replace the law. I think this matter does involve legal issues, and we are in the United States, you can sue anyone for any reason.

Will anyone really sue? It probably depends on who has the most to lose. If a US judge believes that some contracts are unfair or misleading to the parties involved, they can reject them. But I still don't believe that anyone will submit some untested code as evidence to the Supreme Court.