ETC responds to Ethereum fork: PoW fork will not succeed, miners should give up

22-08-09 14:30
Read this article in 9 Minutes
总结 AI summary
View the summary 收起
Original title: "An Open Letter to Chandler Guo"
Original source: ETC Cooperative
Original compilation: TechFlow intern


Editor's note: ETC Cooperative is a public charitable fund that complies with the 501c3 tax law. It was established on September 7, 2017 and focuses on supporting the development and growth of ETC projects.


The background of this open letter is that the ETH PoW bifurcation theory is being hotly discussed. Chandler Guo and others are the leaders of this event. In this regard, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin said that the potential Ethereum PoW fork is unlikely to achieve long-term widespread adoption.


The following is the text of the open letter:


Hello, Chandler Guo:

< p>

Please let me explain why I think the Ethereum POW fork will not be successful, and it will even be a very difficult thing.


At the time of the ETH/ETC split, supporting ETC was the easiest thing in the world - just keep mining, just keep running the same client software. No extra effort is required, and the hard work is all on supporting the side of the fork.


This time, you will need to fork Geth (and possibly Erigon, Besu, and Nethermind). Each of these codes would require removing the POS transition logic, disabling the difficulty bomb, and updating the chain ID for protection. Mining software may also need to be forked/updated for support of different chain IDs and maybe more. Unlike client code, which is public and open, a lot of mining software is closed, and you need to convince its creator to make these changes, and then support them.


You will need to work with your wallet provider to agree to support ETHW; you will need to work with an exchange to agree to support ETHW.


After you release working client software, you need to work with all node operators in order to get their support to run the new software.


All this coordination is very hard work and takes a long time. I know this because after going through multiple upgrade cycles of ETC, it was really, really difficult and slow.


Currently, as far as I can see, there is almost zero information on the site, no information about clients and other software development happening (i.e. Github organization).


This is really critical and needs to be done in public to build trust. And of course there is no link release of the client software, which is urgently needed so that node operators can get to work getting these clients online and getting ready for the transition. Also, there are no blog posts, articles, tutorials, or other documents that are essential to coordinating this effort.


We are only a few weeks away from the merger. It's too late to do anything now.


Even if you manage to get the client side to publish, bring together a small number of pools and exchanges when the fork happens, you will still face the problem that the chain will be How dilapidated.


Since all Stablecoins backed by real world assets (USDT, USDC, etc.) will be zeroed, the issuer will support ETH. Almost everything in DeFi is built on top of these stablecoins, so almost every DeFi project will be completely disrupted.


At the time of the ETH/ETC split, there was no DeFi or Stablecoin, so nothing really disrupted. Most of the value on ETH is now in the form of tokens, not just native ether. Therefore, the new PoW chain is meaningless to existing ETH users.


All dApps built on top of Ethereum have a lot of associated off-chain resources - websites they allow access to, servers running backend services, communities Resources and documentation, and most importantly, the people who run their dApps — development, bugfixes, maintenance, customer service, and more. All of these will disappear upon forking, so even projects that don't immediately go to zero will still be broken and inaccessible to most users because they are not running their own nodes, but rely on on these third-party services.


Unless specific projects agree to provide parallel infrastructure for their projects (most do not), the project will be broken and any Stuff can also be broken.


Many projects have administrator privileges for smart contract upgrades and emergency maintenance operations. These require private keys, held by project leaders. They won't hand over their private keys to people who want to fork dApps running on new PoW chains, why would they? It only puts them at risk and the value of the project they spent time and money building.


It is more likely that big name projects will explicitly choose to switch off their smart contracts on new PoW chains - to avoid user confusion and loss.


The NFT situation is the same as the DeFi situation, NFTs on PoW chains will not be recognized or supported, do you have Cryptokitties? You don’t get PoW forks of these things, and you don’t get forks of NFT marketplaces like OpenSea.


Anything on EthereumPOW needs to explicitly talk to the project team and convince them (whether it's the talk or the money) that it's worth repeating all of their infrastructure to rebuild.


This is a huge and difficult coordination task, and the merger is only a few weeks away, and today's prosperity will most likely not be repeated on the new Pow chain now.


I just don't think such a chain provides any value to the actual end user, not to mention the huge burden of starting the chain itself, and then paying more It takes a lot of effort to make it really work. But no matter what happens, due to the break of DeFi and NFT, the chain itself will become a disaster zone after the fork, and there is no way to avoid this pain.


I don't think you and other EthereumPOW supporters understand this very well, especially underestimating or ignoring this "unforkable" reality.


There is still time to cancel this fork, its existence will only cause more confusion and will inevitably fail after the initial push, Because it won't have any users.


As Barry said, "We fully support ETH PoS and will not support any ETH PoW forks except ETC. ETH miners should move to ETC, to maximize their income in the long run, it’s as simple as that.”


He is right.


Good luck, Bob.


Original link
举报 Correction/Report
Choose Library
Add Library
Cancel
Finish
Add Library
Visible to myself only
Public
Save
Correction/Report
Submit