A few words about ETC


Stolen from a reddit comment, I think the author, u/BenOnceAgain, articulated his argument for ETC very well.

I think ETC has huge potential.

Of course, we should all keep in mind that currently, cryptocurrency is a teeny, tiny, portion of overall money. Far less than 1%, and there’s wider definitions of money that would push that figure even smaller. So, provided the social layer/community continues to support ETC in the manner that, to date, it has, there’s only upside for the blockchain. Communication about ETC, including its unique benefits, is important, as is not breaking the principles under which Ethereum Classic came into being.

ETC can only benefit from the ecosystem that’s built up around ETH/Ethereum. The technical incompatibilities, from what I understand, are quite minor in terms of the EVM and that’s a huge advantage over nearly all other cryptos, given that ETH has quite a large dominance in actual deployment and application of smart contracts. Granted, many of these are tokens and other simple constructs, but the developer community around ETH just needs to be aware of ETC’s potential, capabilities, and to be encouraged to target the ETC blockchain. At the very least, keep some semblance of multi-blockchain capabilities. It’s just good business sense for an organization that depends on either developing ETH blockchain applications or on the operation of the ETH blockchain to have some investment in ETC as well.

I mean, imagine what would happen to many organizations that have built their existence around ETH if the ETH blockchain became “broken” (no matter how unlikely this is from a technical standpoint, it is not impossible). Granted, most failure modes wouldn’t truly equal “broken”, but this is a thought experiment. A business that couldn’t quickly move their products/services to targeting an alternative, “non-broken”, blockchain would suffer large losses. So just from the standpoint of having redundancy and some resilience, businesses that either write code for ETH and/or offer products and services that are ETH-dependent should always target both platforms.

To my way of thinking, there’s a reasonable chance that ETH is going to screw up things in their ambitious ETH 2.0/PoS/etc. plans and rollout. There’s a lot of moving parts, we’ll see what happens. Plus, even in a best-case scenario, there’s clearly the selection of winners and losers in terms of the status quo (i.e. PoW miners, for one, are going to be shown the door). For these people, ETC is a natural destination.

But ETC’s appeal goes beyond those that are looking for an alternative to potential instabilities/changes on the ETH blockchain. For example, as this great article describes, ETC has a great use-case on IoT devices. Indeed, I’d say that ETC has a great case to make that its lack of “unusual state changes” makes it ideal for all sort of high-reliability applications. I mean, you’d think money would need pretty high-reliability. But ETH shows that it could/would/did truncate it’s social layer and decision making processes to appease people that lost money vis a vis the DAO. I can tell you with certainty that puts the public ETH blockchain at a huge disadvantage in any potential government applications because they (ETH) broke the cardinal rule. There’s lots of government work in blockchain on the horizon. Many pilot projects, and some of them will turn into the next-generation of government services, humanitarian services, public services. Those are exciting, and ETC can certainly be a part of that. The “Enterprise Ethereum Alliance” crowd is also an area that can lead to enhanced interest and growth for ETC. Just have to build the case, knock on the doors, do the hustle. Treat building ETC like you’d build a startup, because in many ways, it is a startup.

By contrast, the ETC community is overcoming a very difficult situation with the recent reorg issues in a very deliberative and methodical manner. Not rushing to make changes, it’s certainly talking about lots of things. But it rightly places a priority on notifying the exchange community that the confirmation block count should be increased. This provides a valuable lesson to these exchanges and frankly it’s true not only for ETC but for many other blockchains.

Don’t forget that ETC has huge exchange support worldwide and that gives it a great market advantage in terms of usability. However, I must be honest and say that there is a need to clearly spread the message of ETC. Before I took a close look at Ethereum Classic, just a few months ago, I thought it was an inactive project that had huge compatibility problems with Ethereum and didn’t really give it much further thought. However, having been driven to take a closer look at ETC, I find that not only is it quite active, it’s capable of so much more.

To my way of thinking, the demonstration of the strong social layer that the recent attacks brought to light, increases my confidence in ETC. It inspired me to spin up a node. I doubt I’m alone in this analysis, and as time goes forward, more will join in this view. The deliberations I’ve observed remind me more of those on the bitcoin-dev listserv and in that community (which I consider to be premiere in terms of their professionalism) than many/most other projects I’ve looked into. Granted, there’s tons of projects out there and I’ve only been able to observe/participate in a tiny fraction of them. But that’s also true for 99% of other people.

So, my view, for what it’s worth, is to keep on doing what you’re doing. There’s so much potential, the surface has yet to really be scratched.


thanks to the “hacker”


That was a pretty wholesome message, definitely agree with the view that more developers should simply deploy their project on both chains: it’s just good business practice simply as!

Apparently the hacker returned what was “stolen” in the attack, maybe it was just to prove a point or a message to ETC devs to stop bickering and get coding? Guess we will never know!


YoBit was compensated by the “hacker” as well