Quote from: d5000 on July 24, 2016, 09:34:33 PM

In my opinion both sides - the "hardforkers" and the "Classic" guys - are right in certain way:

ETH Hardforkers sustain that Ethereum is, above all, a community with democratic rules. That's what also Vitalik means when he talks about weak subjectivity. In my opinion, he is right: Cryptocoins with no communities would not work, and even in an nearly-objective coin design like Bitcoin there are subjective decisions to be taken (which BIPs to include, for example).

ETH Classic guys argue that smart contracts can only work if "code is law". That means that they value objectivity more than subjectivity. They are also right: Smart contracts, as they are modeled after real contracts, can only work really if they are regarded as valid and irreversible.

So who is right now? In my opinion, it depends how you market/communicate the platform. If you market it as a "objective" platform, how ETH has done until now, then the "ETH Classic" approach is nearer to the truth. But if ETH switches its marketing strategy to a "democratic contract model", where contracts are not totally objective, then its approach to take into consideration the community's choices is also valid. But it may have less usage cases.

I see a problem with a community that votes on wallet balances of other people. Don't you? Hardfork for wallet balance not for technical issues? Excuse me?!

What could go wrong? hahaha
mETH is a joke. If anything is viable it's ETC.