The two chains after the Ethereum fork

Rage Comment : Although the Ethereum hard fork may harm the interests of some people and cause considerable controversy, the Ethereum community finally decided to implement it. Of course, this is not a private decision of individual developers. Although the advantages and disadvantages of the old and new chains and their development trends are still unknown, at least this is a good opportunity to try and learn, which can help us understand how to deal with similar situations. Moreover, it is safer for investors to put their funds in two blockchains than to rely on a single blockchain.

Translation: Annie_Xu

A blockchain is more than just a bunch of data created by miners and users.

It is more than just a specification describing valid state transitions, or the first block (genesis block) describing the initial state. The value of blockchain lies in human consensus, a general belief in the value of creating machine consensus according to specific rules.

In addition to the precisely defined genesis block, the blockchain also comes with a range of creative ideas. Each user can make their own judgment on the value of the blockchain.

Unfortunately, one person’s inferences can be mistaken for general consensus. These false inferences can remain hidden until an event occurs that results in inconsistent decisions and uncertainty about the merits of the new Ethereum chain versus the old one.

It is too late to talk about core values ​​and consensus now. The damage has been done. Where interests once coincided, they are now in conflict. Everyone has biases, and everyone can assume that others do the same. The "social contract" we believed in once existed has disappeared in the blink of an eye (or at least we think others are breaking it, and others think we are breaking it).

You can't kill another chain, but you expect it to. Rational arguments get lost in hatred and war breaks out. Whether you believe in the new chain or the old chain, war is not good.

Of course, a united community and a single blockchain would be better. But the lack of a unified core value overturns this possibility. Even the Ethereum Foundation does not have such a core value. When creating the genesis block, it was a huge mistake not to define a clearly defined "blockchain social contract".

And I myself have made some wrong assumptions. I was shocked to find that some people in the Ethereum Foundation were genuinely in favor of intervention.

I thought everyone recognized that the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) was the highest judicial authority; the “stolen” funds were the legal property of the “thieves”, and they should be proud of having created a system to protect their property that was not at the mercy of public outrage. Of course, I was not the only one in the Go language development team who thought this way.

We were proven wrong. People still believe their own sense of justice is more important than immutable rules of code. This fact frustrates me, but it is still a dream job to develop the coolest software technology and get paid for it, even if most people don't agree (at least for now). I would say they are stupid, I don't think they are messing around. But I don't approve of them just because they are in the majority.

That is not the truth. I choose to watch with my eyes wide open, interpret events closely, and learn as much as possible from the changes in the status quo.

Now I just know that blockchains without a definitive social contract will run into serious problems sooner or later. The situation right now is interesting, the old chain already has a better contract. This is also the one that hasn't changed, but has given most of the value to the new chain that changed the built-in protocol.

I can assume that people who believe the old chain is valuable also believe that the accidental contract behavior is not the cause of the fork. This blockchain will not encounter the same crisis again. In addition, the ether holders of the new chain cannot be sure whether this fork is just the beginning or an accidental disaster that will never happen again.

I am not saying that new chains are doomed to fail, just that there is a lack of strategy to deal with this situation.

We have no time to figure out the situation and reach a consensus on how to deal with similar situations, unless the next unexpected event occurs; so people can determine what can happen to the blockchain they invested in. In any case, I hope everyone will stay calm and not be hostile to people in the other camp, because both blockchains and the entire project are victims of this.

Everyone has the right, and more importantly, the responsibility, to follow their own set of values. Of course, it is easier to do so in a civilized manner.

The fate of the old chain is still uncertain. The main reason I hope it continues to exist is that it is an interesting and important experience for two similar blockchains with different built-in protocols to coexist and develop.

And it will likely increase the success rate of the project (and also reduce the possibility of losing funds if money is stored on both chains).

But remember, we (Ethereum developers) did not abandon the original blockchain. We did not fork, we simply adjusted the client base and let users choose whether to fork. The old Ethereum blockchain (Ethereum Classic) is as much our work as the new one, and if they both succeed, I intend to treat them equally.