[pjc50]

I admire the principles of decentralization, but I think it's rather like "serverless" - it moves the functionality around in order to pretend. All the cryptocurrencies have pretty "centralized" dev teams; as with Etherum they can fork to decide what history is and most miners will go with that. History is written by whoever has the github.

[KirinDave]

Consensus forking should always exist as an option. The problem with PoW blockchains is not the visible governance options. Those are a very positive feature.

The problem is the invisible governance patterns that an unreliable consensus algorithm creates.

[gruez]

>History is written by whoever has the github.

Not really, just because a change is pushed to the github repo, doesn't mean the network (and its participants) will automatically accept it. Those unhappy with the changes can always fork the network if they want.

[richardknop]

But that never in reality happens. All the forks of Bitcoin or Ethereum are mostly irrelevant. The majority will blindly follow core devs in both cases as have been proven by a long series of forks that became irrelevant very quickly as most people stay with the core version (Bitcoin or Ethereum Core Devs).

[gruez]

that wasn't the case with the segwit rollout on bitcoin. despite the feature being merged and released, miners were able to hold up adoption for months

[__s]

As seen in their very example: ETC exists distinct from ETH