As a pool operator I believe that it is important to gauge the opinion of the miners before making any important decision on the future of the pool. That is why we held a voting on the DAO soft-fork proposal and we intent to carry out the same type of voting for the hard fork proposal.
Starting from now voting will be enabled again and, similar to the soft fork vote, you can select your preference in the settings section of your account page. All votes are weighted by the current effective hashrate of each miner that has voted. The vote requires no quorum meaning that the position the majority of hashrate has voted for will decide the way the pool will take. Not voting will neither be interpreted as pro or against the fork.
We still reserve the right to act against the voting result in case there are security issues identified in the hard fork code or the pool will end up on the non-winning chain.
2 ·
Comments
Also, it sounds like Bitcoin might be what you seek -- i.e. the inability to innovate, adapt, and overcome, in addition to rewarding actions like theft rather than punishing them.
To me, when an entity has the power to 'do something' (e.g. make right a blatant wrong) and chooses not to, especially in the case of a theft against the community, then they are implicitly rewarding the actions of theft.
And yes, Ethereum has several hard forks planned throughout its development. Some of their PoS theory discussions talk about HF-ing as a self-defense mechanism against an unwanted actor (unfortunately it happened during PoW instead of PoS).
Anyway, it's all been discussed, thought about, pondered, considered, etc. and is out there and readily available for review by those who actually care and are invested in the betterment of the ecosystem.
I don't think anyone that's honestly a "bitcoin person" would ever make a comparison to TheDAO. Save for maybe pointing out how young and far-to-come Ethereum is, or to point out that bitcoin was designed with a limited set of op codes intentionally. Turing complete code would have been trivial to implement on the bitcoin blockchain, and a limited opcode set is an intentional feature to make bugs exactly like as affected the DAO impossible.
And since Ethereum is "useless", why are you here? Of course Bitcoin is "centralized" too, by your definition, so I guess they're "useless" as well.
Btw, no one forces miners to mine on pools.
What is happening with ethereum is called pool collusion attack. where "dont care" votes are used to vote "YES"
Don't care/abstain definitely does NOT mean No. I have no idea where you're getting that idea. The reason most miners are on a pool is so that the pool will keep the node software up-to-date and on the right chain, and the miner doesn't have to care.
What's happening with Ethereum is called consensus, not collusion. Collusion by definition involves a secret agreement; which isn't the case, obviously - this is all quite public. Just because you don't agree with the general consensus doesn't mean others are colluding against you, it just means you are in the minority.
It's the difference between code and the intent of that code. Clearly, reading comments and looking at theDAO's structure, the recursive exploit was not an intended feature.
Thank you DR.
As for all the other opinions, from the massive ignorance in historical/technical facts, perhaps you should stick to mining or really get educated.
We might see the Leroy Jenkins moment of block chain editing
And all I have to say is, at least your not chicken
I know you all want to set a precedent, the first brain surgery and most others usually the people died... when you try new things bad thing can and do happen
The dao is a perfect precedent, released to early without enough testing, and with only days to write a complex fork it could be terrible not to mention the dumping that will most likely happen
There's nothing complicated about the fork, nor is it the first or last hard-fork ethereum network will see. This is probably the simplest consensus change that the network will undergo.
I liked Gavin Andreson's take on the DAO fork - paraphrased, if there is a simple path forward that remedies the situation in a way that is most equitable, a failure to act is being complicit with the attacker.
It seems more like there is a small minority of very vocal opposers who keep posting the same shit everywhere.
I bet we see a nice price rise after a succesful fork. Some market hesitancy towards any change is to be expected.
I am wondering if a large miner (or even a few) are attempting to game the vote by round-robin mining -- i.e. mining on ethpool for an hour, then mining on ethermine for an hour, and then coming back to ethpool, etc., etc. I believe those 2 pools require you to have submitted valid shares in the previous hour in order for your vote to count and/or be retained.
@dr_pra also replied to my ticket saying the same thing. So we should be good to go on that particular front.