[splintercell]

> Yes, the website says "unstoppable uncensorable contracts" and we stopped one.

Let's say that Hard fork never happened, lets say if tomorrow due to a certain smart contract, 90% of the Ether holders sell off, and go join Lisk or some other Smart contract platform, would you say because 90% of the Ethereum supporters sold off their currency, therefore the smart contract has been 'stopped' and that they should remove "unstoppable uncensorable contracts" from their website?

[JumpCrisscross]

I think an idea is f@<&led by design if it so quickly leads to an irreconcilable catastrophe. We already have mutable contracts. And we already have hard, distributed ledgers. If you're taking your contracting distributed ledger and making it optionally soft, I don't see a place for it other than for internal political purposes ("Look ma, I'm doing blockchain!"). That, admittedly, has value, but only so much.

[dogecoinbase]

But, of course, that's not what happened, and there's no hypothetical in play. Ethereum sacrificed its principles to stop/censor a contract, and still keeps "unstoppable uncensorable contracts" on the website. It's the height of pathetic hypocrisy.

[splintercell]

> But, of course, that's not what happened, and there's no hypothetical in play.

Literally what happened (and there is no way of saying it otherwise irrespective of how you approach it). A group of developers forked Ethereum into their own blockchain, so all the investors evened up with currency in both the chains. Then people sold their 'original ethers' and moved to the new ethers.

The current price of original Ethers (known as Ethereum Classic) is 90% less than what it used to be.

> Ethereum sacrificed its principles to stop/censor a contract, and still keeps "unstoppable uncensorable contracts" on the website.

You do understand that Ethereum is not like Apple or some other organization. It's a technology and "IT" does not have a website. You're talking about Ethereum.org which is the website of Ethereum Foundation.

And maybe I shouldn't presume knowledge on other people's (like your) part, but in a decentralized technology like Bitcoin or Ethereum, thousands of miners (or in PoS system stakers) are the real entity here. Miners too merely follow the price. This is why initially when Hard Fork happened, a lot of miners went back to mining Ethereum Classic after momentarily jumping to the forked blockchain. Then when it was clear that the market/investors don't support the idea of letting a theft continue, they jumped back to Ethereum forked chain.

Clearly Ethereum Classic hasn't 'sacrificed' it's principles, they too have a foundation, and you're free to invest and use ETC.

If I can write a piece of code which can be used to steal your emails and bank accounts, then your emails and bank accounts are already 'exposed'. They don't 'become exposed' when I write the tool.

Ethereum blockchain didn't become something different fundamentally when this hard fork was implemented. If you consider hard fork as 'mutating the blockchain' (which I heavily disagree) then it didn't become mutable when the hard fork was implemented, rather it was mutable from the day the it was created.

And funny thing is, by that measure, literally there is no such thing as immutable blockchain. Bitcoin can be mutated in the same way Ethereum was.