From Consensus Paper
Jump to navigation Jump to search

DAO fork chain and non-fork chain[edit source]

Discussion from CorePaper's discord server.

sorpaasToday at 7:56 AM

@gitr0n1n Let's be realistic -- we should remain neutral and I don't really want Consensus Paper to join the war of who is the "original Ethereum blockchain". The colour was chosen because Ethereum's logo is blue (and so was "Frontier", "Frontier Thrawing" and "Homestead"), and Ethereum Classic's logo is green.

Pokemachamp00Today at 8:55 AM

This new tree line of Ethereum family that you did represent the real story @gitr0n1n. Thank you so much for reported accurately!!!

gitr0n1nToday at 11:00 PM

no edit war @sorpaas just the accurate representation of history: 1. 2.

sorpaasToday at 11:09 PM

The accurate representation of history is that both chains forked. Both chains either already did something that breaks the promise of stricter "code is law" (theDAO in Ethereum), or in the process of doing it (Phoenix in ETC). And we all know that it's pretty controversial to claim either chain is the original chain. We can separate the two pages though -- make it "Ethereum family" and "Ethereum Classic family" and duplicate everything prior to the split block, if that makes anyone happier.

gitr0n1nToday at 11:14 PM

That is an incorrect account of history. One chain is "the fork chain" and one was "the non-fork chain" per those sourced documents. not both as the fork chains. Also please do not add gaslighting context to my factually accurate edits. please try to remain neutral in your representation of the history. I do agree with your coloring scheme though.

sorpaasToday at 11:25 PM

Ethereum has plenty of arguments why ETC is not the original blockchain, and Classic also has plenty of arguments why ETC is the original blockchain. We all know it's just controversial. Just put it on Twitter if you want to have a bad day, but please stop dragging everyone with you into this year-long debate.

gitr0n1nToday at 11:26 PM

There is no debate. I am citing Vitalik's posts on the dates surrounding the hard fork. Who are you citing?

gitr0n1nToday at 11:33 PM

This new tree line of Ethereum family that you did represent the real story @gitr0n1n. Thank you so much for reported accurately!!! @Pokemachamp00 You're welcome! Thanks for noticing my efforts! :thumbsup: I saw the misrepresentation of the Ethereum Family tree and felt a need as an open source contributor to correct. I also included very high valued citation sources to make sure no one misrepresent the intentions of my edits via inserting gaslighting tactics as a way to dispute my changes. We see this far too often on the internet.

sorpaasToday at 11:37 PM

@gitr0n1n I'll add a one-day cool-off period on this. Put this "Ethereum Classic is the original blockchain" to ETH people and convince them you're right first. Then you can do whatever editing you want. IMO the most likely scenario is that we separate the page into "Ethereum family" and "Ethereum Classic family", given the current combined page is so easy to get trolled.

gitr0n1nToday at 11:41 PM

"curprev 05:40, 28 March 2020‎ Sorpaas talk contribs‎ m 2,605 bytes 0‎ Protected "Ethereum family" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (expires 05:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)) [Move=Allow only administrators] (expires 05:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC))) "

wow i thought Core Paper wasn't about censorship. And was about remaining neutral and accurate on topics. It appears we have a double standard here by @sorpaas. Recognize the gaslighting tactics: "Put this "Ethereum Classic is the original blockchain" to ETH people and convince them you're right first" none of these edits relate to that claim. They relate to the cited source material in the changes. Please open a discussion and provide factual evidence to support your account of history @sorpaas . Right now, this just appears to be censorship and gaslighing by rewriting history.

sorpaasToday at 11:45 PM

@gitr0n1n You can use the talk page for this. Consensus Paper Talk:Ethereum family

gitr0n1nToday at 11:45 PM

yes that is what i just referenced and you need to provide some sort of credible sources that support your account of history I have provided mine in the edits. Simply reverting my factually sourced edits with not support for your changes but "twitter" polls is laughable. Also your quickness to censor changes on Core Paper put your values into question. Further, your attempt to disrupt the conversation related to those factual edits with gaslighting leaves me wondering if you really are acting in good-faith as a neutral party. I don't believe that is so.

sorpaasToday at 11:48 PM

It appears you do perfectly understand that bringing up the topic of "who is the original Ethereum blockchain" is a gaslighting action.

gitr0n1nToday at 11:48 PM

Yes i do, that is what YOU, sorpaas, are doing.

sorpaasToday at 11:50 PM

Well, I mean, if you really want, we can have a philosophy debate page on Consensus Paper..

gitr0n1nToday at 11:50 PM

no one mentioned that topic prior to you inserting it into the conversaion. An exact exmaple of gaslighting. Well, I mean, if you really want, we can have a philosophy debate page on Consensus Paper.. @sorpaas there is no debate. I have cited my sources. You have cited NO reputable sources. Until you can cite a source greater than Vitalik on the topic. You are attempting to re-write history with unsubstantiated claims. And you are using gaslighting tactics as a justification for it. Additionally, it is on YOU to provide sources to all of YOUR edits on Core Paper. I appear to be the only contributor adding substantiation to Core Paper. In the reference list on that document, all three references were added by ME So please justify your UNCITED edits in the discussion section. At this point your censorship is unjustified. Including blocking anyone from editng the document but yourself. It's clear with your actions that you need a cool-off period. I'll leave you to calm down on the matter and look forward to reverting your uncited changes in the future to make Core Paper and more factually accruate website. :thumbsup:

sorpaasToday at 11:57 PM

Regardless of this, just to clarify -- this is about Consensus Paper (, not Core Paper ( Yes it's usually good to have citations in Consensus Paper because it's about aggregation of information and governance. Core Paper is, in the contrary, mostly about original research. Still I try to provide citations when I can.

gitr0n1nToday at 12:01 AM

You have been spamming your links everywhere as a reputable source of information. If I read a document that is factually inaccurate, you can assume I will be making changes and adding citations from reputable sources for those changes.

If your intent is to keep documents on Core Paper factually incorrect, please let me know now so I can stop reading through the website and apply my resources as an open source contributer to projects worthwhile.

sorpaasToday at 12:05 AM

I mean, that's the issue. If your last changes were put in Consensus Paper without discussions, then the people from Ethereum community will regard the website as picking ETC side of the philosophy war of ETH vs ETC. That will be troublesome for it to remain neutral and be a reputable source, TBH. Consensus Paper do not want to pick sides in this philosophy war. Just for context -- this is about the year-long philosophy war of ETH vs ETC. We all know practically both sides lean on cooperation.

gitr0n1nToday at 12:12 AM

My changes have citations. Your changes have no citations in them. It's on you to discuss changes that lack any clear citation. For my changes, you cimply have to click the link and read the source to understand the change. it's as simple as that. But its very clear from your actions (censorship) that you are emotionally upset about my contributions to the document. So, I'm going to honor your request for a 24 hour cool-off and hope you revert the act of erasing my contributions. If you don't personally revert those changes, I will be back to do so myself- as they are factual changes cited with reputable sources. If those facts cannot be added into CorePaper, then its clear that this website's administrators are not about providing factualy accurate information to the gneral public. And I will stop taking it seriously as an informational source.

After 24 hour cool off for Sorpaas[edit source]

gitr0n1nToday at 12:43 AM

Solved, NPOV edit with verbatim wording and citations.

sorpaasToday at 1:05 AM

I'll have to remove the combined family tree though, given that's what's likely to be perceived non-neutral (we can argue about whether that represents the fact all day, but no matter what that graph will make someone unhappy). Everything looks good to me otherwise.

gitr0n1nToday at 1:44 AM

no surprise. censored again by @sorpaas it's clear CorePaper is not a reputable source of accurate infomation.