(no title)
traceddd | 4 years ago
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|4 years ago
Users will have funds on both chains, they can just wait it out.
traceddd|4 years ago
Jasper_|4 years ago
traceddd|4 years ago
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.
rvz|4 years ago
More decentra-lies and Ethereum pumping each other's, VCs and investors bags.
betwixthewires|4 years ago
nathanvanfleet|4 years ago
zarzavat|4 years ago
immibis|4 years ago