[traceddd]

People will describe technical mechanisms, but they are all pretty irrelevant since a miner rebellion would easily modify the software.

The real mechanism is that all the major players can’t accept two forks and maintain sanity. For example, Circle will have to choose which chain has a $1 peg for their USDC reserves, and they will certainly choose the chain supported by the core devs and the one the rest of the major players are selecting as well.

That leaves the rebel chain in a very compromised position. With the peg being removed many defi protocols would be in an exploitable state. Removing all those abandoned and compromised services ends up with little reason for anyone to use the chain.

To be honest, I still suspect someone will try. But it will be a mess and there will be lots of financial loss for users.

[vmception]

> To be honest, I still suspect someone will try. But it will be a mess and there will be lots of financial loss for users.

Users will have funds on both chains, they can just wait it out.

[traceddd]

Yes except that some users will be convinced by Minerchain marketing and sell their Stakingchain eth due to those beliefs.

[jl2718]

I was one of those people in prior forks. My logic was that the rebel chain would be more open for experimentation, would innovate faster, and therefore win out in the long run regardless of who was supported by Wall St. Turns out that financial backing eats innovation for breakfast. The fast-moving scrappy innovative chains are getting killed by chains that haven’t changed much since genesis except scaling back their white paper ambitions.

[Jasper_]

lol, I love how the security of it all boils down to "trust that the authorities will make the right decision". Decentralized!

[traceddd]

If that’s what you took away from my post, I must have done a poor job with it.

Firstly emergent consensus is a big part of decentralized systems. Core providers convening on a decision and supporting it is perfectly healthy. That’s quite different than a CEO saying things will be X way and everyone just having to accept it.

Additionally, my point is that people WILL likely try to have a contentious chain (as is their right in a decentralized project), but due to the maturity of Ethereum the technical consequences are much more impactful than the BTC/BCH scenario.

[magicjosh]

Appreciate your thoughtful reply here. I can tell you're excited about emergent consensus. So am I! Is there a DAO or L2 project you're particularly excited for here?

[rvz]

Exactly. Decentralised trustless systems requiring 'trust' means it's Decentralised somehow. The greatest example? The failure of 'The DAO'.

More decentra-lies and Ethereum pumping each other's, VCs and investors bags.

[betwixthewires]

That's not what the comment you're responding to says at all.

[nathanvanfleet]

People will indeed follow where the small minority of people who run things go.

[zarzavat]

It's a large community of developers who independently decide to contribute their time to the various eth related projects.

[immibis]

After the "wrong" chain collapses, the primary chain should retain the full value of its assets, so there will be no financial loss.