On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:27 PM Tao Effect wrote: > Nick, > > Please don't spread misinformation. Whatever you think of the DAO hard > fork, it's a simple fact that the Ethereum ledger was not edited. > > > This sort of email is unhelpful to this conversation, and it certainly > doesn't help with the perception that Ethereum is nothing but a bunch of > hypocritical Bankers 2.0. > > > Everyone knows you didn't edit Ethereum Classic, but the the hard fork, > which was re-branded as Ethereum, was edited. > That's not what I was suggesting. My point is that the ledger was never edited. An 'irregular state change' was added at a specific block height, but the ledger remains inviolate. I'm sure I don't have to explain the difference between the ledger and the state to you, or why it's significant that the ledger wasn't (and can't be, practically) modified. -Nick > - Greg > > -- > Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with > the NSA. > > On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:25 AM, Nick Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:02 AM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >> > I believe the severity of replay attacks is going unvoiced and is not >> > understood within the bitcoin community because of their lack of >> experience >> > with them. >> >> Please don't insult our community-- the issues with replay were >> pointed out by us to Ethereum in advance and were cited specifically >> in prior hardfork discussions long before Ethereum started editing >> their ledger for the economic benefit of its centralized >> administrators. > > > Please don't spread misinformation. Whatever you think of the DAO hard > fork, it's a simple fact that the Ethereum ledger was not edited. > > -Nick Johnson > > >