RE: Charles Hoskinson Steemit AMA
Do you plan to fight the Ethereum Foundation to recover the ETC equivalent of the development fund? As highlighted by Barry Silbert, the Foundation had no business taking a side in the debate since they have been funded and are still financing their operations using the crowdsale proceeds that where meant to support the development of a chain deemed "immutable" and "censorship resistant" in the crowdsale prospectus. I think the Foundation's decision to support the hardfork/bailout and reject the original chain they have been paid to develop is extremely questionable, and possibly ground for legal action given the fact it can be trivially proven that there was no actual problem with Ethereum itself. Given the circumstances, I think they are not in a position to refuse, at the very minimum, to release the split ETC funds that correspond 1:1 on the ETC chain to the remaining crowdsale funds. These funds could be used to fund developments by a new foundation on ETC.
And how do you see a "Committee" that token holders vote into and out of power based (like what bitshares has) differ from the Ethereum Foundation who cannot be fired by holders of the token?
The system works. The ETH Foundation made a decision to fork and some subset of the community effectively fired them. I mentioned this possibility back in January of 2014 in a debate with Dan Larimer and David Johnston. It has come to pass.
I think ETC has an opportunity to come up with a more effective governance structure and one that produces far less drama.
I will not advocate for the ETH Foundation to send ETC to whatever governance structure ETC forms. This is their money and they have the right to do whatever they want with it. ETC doesn't need their talent or funds to succeed. It will succeed on its own merits and with a stronger, more principled community tirelessly working towards the original vision.
To be precise, this is our money, and among other things my money. What would you say if Lisk developers made a runner with the development funds, spawned their own fork under some arbitrary reason that had nothing to do with the network itself, and even had the gut to steal the name and collude with everyone they can find to attempt to discredit the still perfectly valid and unchanged original network?
At some point in life, one has to invite pragmatism. If ETC is to survive and not get bogged down in years worth of legal fights, then I feel the best path forward is to treat it as a sharedrop to all active ETH Accounts. Whatever the people do with those accounts is their affair.
I'm not the leader of nor do I desire to be a leader in the ETC community. If you want to advocate a different position, then by all means argue it. But do understand the implications of inferring ownership of ETC. It has consequences beyond the foundation.
It is more accurate to say that ETH is a sharedrop to ETC accounts. It is completely illogical to claim that an unforked chain that has continued in a linear fashion using unchanged code is a sharedrop.
Nevertheless pragmatism or other factors may still support a decision not to fight over the foundation funds.
In light of this perspective I'm curious why you choose to describe ETC as a sharedrop. To me it seems to play into the rhetoric that continues to try to frame ETC as a rogue or illegitimate fork/project. Comments?
I'm not personally advocating going the legal route, but the legal issue is real and the Ethereum Foundation is aware of it. They have effectively wronged a significant fraction of their investors and defaulted on multiple written commitment. I don't think they have anything to win worsening their case by refusing the one opportunity they have to prove their good faith. This can be used to negociate an orderly release of the ETC side funds.
Smooth and Recursive pretty much nailed it.