Is Ethereum really going to fork?
Editor's Note: This article is from:Chatting with William (ID: William1913), Author: William Chen, reproduced by Odaily with authorization.
Editor's Note: This article is from:
Chatting with William (ID: William1913)
Chatting with William (ID: William1913)
, Author: William Chen, reproduced by Odaily with authorization.
The main reason why I will talk about this today is to see this Weibo topic being discussed in one of my big group:
To put it simply, when Ethereum 1.0 is upgraded to 2.0, there is a possibility of bifurcation, which is technically achievable. So if the community, miners and investors think that the current Ethereum is better, they can choose not to follow the new version 2.0, but stay in the old version 1.0 forever.
So, in fact, a fork has actually occurred.
The topic of BCH's fork has just fallen, and the topic of ETH's fork has started again. Different from the fork of bch, which is only a currency relationship, the fork of Ethereum involves more interests, not to mention that there are countless Tokens issued on Ethereum, and the most important thing is that there are also countless USDT. One billion U.S. dollars is issued on the Ethereum chain, which has a relatively large impact.
For example, usdt, after the fork, there will be usdt of eth1.0 and usdt of eth2.0, then it can only admit one of them, if it admits both, then it will double the usdt by the way. Two days ago, there was a very popular interpretation article about the misunderstanding of Ethereum 2.0. The author is Trenton Van Epps, who is currently in the Whileblock team. That team helps ETH2 to do things, and is quite familiar with the current progress of Ethereum 2.0.
I read the article carefully and found that his explanation of "there will be two ETH tokens after the fork" made us more sure that there will indeed be a fork, but in the end it will lead to the same goal.
Why will the two chains eventually return to one chain? The explanation he gave was:
“Because proof of stake (PoS) and sharding (sharding) has been expected from the very beginning.
The most critical part is that there were some hiccups during the transition period after the beacon chain launched but before Eth 1 was integrated. During this time, ETH (referring to the asset) will function similarly, but will be split into two domains. Over time, they will eventually converge into the same fungible market. "
To put it bluntly, the author believes that people have already reached a consensus on 2.0 and PoS, so when 1.0 and 2.0 appear at the same time, people will unanimously choose the path of 2.0, and gradually 1.0 will be abandoned by users, and eventually they all belong to 2.0 .
But I think things should not be that simple. After all, Ethereum is not what it used to be, and the interests in it are intricate. Although it cannot be said that the interests of all parties have ulterior motives, everyone sees the current inconsistency of interests.
From the mouth of the ETHfans boss, we can also know that the current internal Ethereum is still relatively inconsistent:
After years of ups and downs in the currency circle, we are too clear about the consequences of the uneven distribution of interests in the currency circle. And we clearly have little hope of reaching a consensus on the uneven distribution of benefits.
At present, it is certain that Ethereum will be divided into two versions and run simultaneously when upgrading to 2.0. Will everyone reach a consensus and finally abandon version 1.0? I think it is mainly miners and PoW enthusiasts who will be entangled in whether to stick to 1.0.
But sticking to 1.0 seems to be better than directly supporting ETC? This may also be a new game point.
