The whole ethereum fork was such a funny situation.

"Our currency is immutable and all, no banks or any law messing with your money"

"oh, but that contract that people got conned by need to be fixed, let's throw all promises into the trash and undo that"

"...so you just acted as bank or regulators would, because the Important People lost some money"

"essentially yeah"

▲

ChadNauseam 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The old version stayed around but (essentially) nobody wanted to use it. If they had, the forked version would be worthless. That is the difference. A cryptocurrency fork cannot succeed without the consent of the community. No one is compelled to use it the way that you are compelled to accept the decisions of a regulator.

	▲	ceejayoz 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, the consent of some of the community. Potentially far, far less than a majority of the community, even, considering it's not one person, one vote.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

latenightcoding 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

when the core devs lose money, the rules change.

▲

DennisP 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's been nine years since the chain split, which happened within the first year. No irregular changes have been made since then. Two major hacks caused over a hundred million dollars in losses to Parity, a company founded by one of the core devs. That dev lobbied heavily for rescue, and the community refused.

Bitcoin also made an irregular change, a year and a half into its history.

	▲	csomar 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It just shows that the decision making is very centralized and failure of ETC shows that the community is not interested in a true immutable ledger.