始发地

关键点

• EtherumTM 和 Ethereum 经典曾经是同一个区块链。
• The DAO was a contract that raised a lot of money, but it had a bug that was exploited. ETH was potentially lost to The Hacker. ETH可能被黑客丢失。 它被DAO Hacker丢失，损毁了Ethereum 项目的声誉。
• 70%的损失资金已经收回，但仍有30%的资金被扣留。
• 针对这一建议，建议通过停止其申请，没收黑客剩余的30%。
• 硬叉是有争议的，因为它没有解决以太坊协议本身的问题，因此以太坊将自己推销为“构建不可阻挡的应用程序”。
• 一个非常令人怀疑的“硬币投票”导致以太坊基金会支持硬叉，打破了它们的中立性。
• As a result of the chain split, every address that held Ether before the Hard Fork was now seeing double; they'd have the Ether they previously held, which became known as ETC, as well as an equal amount of the newly minted Forked Ether, appropriating the symbol ETH. Thanks to exchanges listing ETC shortly after the fork, a liquid market emerged that enabled price discovery between the two chains. 由于在分叉之后不久交易所将ETC列入清单，因此出现了一个能够在两种链之间发现价格的液体市场。
• 硬叉是没有必要的，因为破碎的资金本来可以在以太基古典上收回。 但由于分叉，这一努力被放弃。
• 放弃了 代码是法律， 因此，在今后的干预行动中，从哲学角度来看，这种情况令人怀疑，这可能是个问题。
• 以太古经典仍然是运行最长的智能合同平台，信守“构建不可阻挡的应用程序”的承诺。

一. 导言

Future crypto historians will surely reference Ethereum Classic’s miraculous origin story as a case study that illuminates the sociotechnological fabric of blockchains. Like a Large Hadron Collider experiment, the incident that birthed ETC tore apart what was previously considered a more or less atomic entity, permanently splitting the Ethereum project in two, and scattering a cascade of valuable insights to observers. 喜欢一个大型哈龙碰撞实验， 事件 产生了ETC 火炬，将以前被视为多少原子实体的东西分割开来， 永远将以太坊项目分割成两个项目，并向观察员散播一系列宝贵的见解。 喜欢一个大型哈龙碰撞实验， 事件 产生了ETC 火炬，将以前被视为多少原子实体的东西分割开来， 永远将以太坊项目分割成两个项目，并向观察员散播一系列宝贵的见解。

ETC's story is fascinating and essential reading for any cryptocurrency researcher from a purely historical perspective. There is no story more relevant for those who are interested in really understanding what makes blockchains valuable. Against all the odds, despite the wishes of many, Code is Law and "Build Unstoppable Applications" ended up prevailing, and through the simple act of persisting, Ethereum Classic validated not just its value proposition, but the strength and tenacity of truly decentralized blockchains generally. 对于那些有兴趣真正了解区块链如何才能有价值的人来说，没有更多的故事。 对于那些有兴趣真正了解区块链如何才能有价值的人来说，没有更多的故事。 面对所有这些困难，尽管许多人都有愿望，但 代码是法律 并且“建造不可阻挡的应用程序”最终占上风， Etherum经典不仅确认了它的价值主张，而且确认了真正分散的区块链的力量和顽固性。

咨询意见

Ethereum Classic's mission can only be adequately understood through the events surrounding its origin story, which by definition puts it at odds with its sibling Ethereum™ in several important ways. But these differences should not be misunderstood as pitting Ethereum Classic against Ethereum™ as a whole. On the contrary, the two projects have far, far more in common than what separates them. Both Ethereum projects share the same general ambition to change the world for the better; the difference lies in what each project thinks is required to achieve this change. 但这些差异不应被误解为使以太空为基础的传统习俗与整个以太空为基础。 但这些差异不应被误解为使以太空为基础的传统习俗与整个以太空为基础。 相反，这两个项目的共同点远远超过它们之间的分离点。 以太坊两个项目都有着改变世界以实现更美好的共同抱负； 不同之处在于每个项目认为实现这一变化需要什么。

Ethereum Classic isn't anti-Ethereum™. Ethereum Classic is Ethereum. 太久经典 是 太太久。 太久经典 是 太太久。

忘记详细信息

在范围更广的以太坊社区中，人们勉强承认存在以太郎经典， 围绕其创立的关键细节大都不为人所知，而且很少得到反映，因为这些细节揭示了许多人都会忘记的真相。

这个故事的详细情况暴露了埃瑟umTM叙述中根深蒂固的缺陷。 The details of this story expose a deeply rooted flaw in the Ethereum™ narrative. To some who are over-exposed to ETH, it poses a threat, which is one reason why Ethereum Classic itself is the target of dismissal, smear, and ridicule. But while the details of ETC's genesis may be inconvenient, the facts of history must be remembered. The details matter, as they warn about the perils of centralization and capture. 虽然ETC的起源细节可能不方便，但必须记住历史事实。 细节是重要的，因为他们警告集中和捕获的危险。

那些不记得过去的人注定要重复过去。

随着时间的推移，越来越明显的是，许多批评ETC的人因为一个简单的事实而感到不舒服。 当EtherumTM 废弃的 代码是法律，它也放弃了区块链的一个主要、即使不是唯一的长期价值建议。 As time goes on it will become increasingly clear that many critics of ETC are made uncomfortable by a simple truth. When Ethereum™ abandoned Code is Law, it also abandoned a major, if not the only, long term value proposition of blockchains. For many, Ethereum Classic is an annoying reminder of this lost value, but it will persist regardless and happily pick up the pieces when, once again, Ethereum™ is bent to the will of special interests.

命名游戏

说了这番话之后，尽管过去可能出现了协调方面的失败。 没有必要对参与埃瑟姆新阶段或其周围的任何人表示不满。 远非如此，所有那些为以太坊做出贡献的人——叉车、反铲车手， 应当尊敬开发者和非开发者，因为他们在帮助创造一代人最重要的成就之一方面所做的重要工作。 With this being said, and while coordination failures may have taken place in the past, there is no need for resentment towards anyone involved in or around the nascent stages of Ethereum. Far from it, all of those who contributed to Ethereum - forkers, anti-forkers, developers and non-developers alike - should be revered for their essential work in helping create one of the most significant achievements of a generation. Ethereum Classic owes a debt of gratitude to the Ethereum project and its creators.

这一故事中的一些要点可能表明存在潜在的财务利益冲突。 但这些激励措施是所有区块链项目的必要要素，如果不受欢迎的话，也是预料之中的。 无论如何，由于无法确定他们有多少起了或没有起到作用。 所有涉案的个人都应该得到怀疑的好处。 此外，当时作出的决定很可能是由诚实的不同意见所驱动的，这些意见不一定会导致以太坊最佳结果的结果。 在现实世界上最少有先例可循的时候。

创立以太坊经典是一种奇怪和基本上无法预见的结果。 The creation of Ethereum Classic was a strange and largely unforeseen outcome. Rather than blaming individuals or groups, it may be healthier to view the birth of Ethereum Classic as a happy accident.

For these reasons, this reflection will intentionally avoid name-checking individuals, as should future discussion on the topic. Only organizations or high ranking executive positions will be identified when their roles are integral to understanding the situation. 只有组织或高级行政职位才能被确定为了解情况所不可或缺的角色。 只有组织或高级行政职位才能被确定为了解情况所不可或缺的角色。

原始以太坊视力

一开始，就有“建造不可阻挡的应用程序”，一段时间以来情况良好。 这是一场真正的革命， 因为您的平均开发者能够创建一种无法被任何人阻止或检查的新型软件。 在最初的几天里，在以太鲁姆社区内， 代码是法律 的概念背后得到了一致支持。 这不仅仅是没有争议的问题，而是特派团本身。

The phrase "Build Unstoppable Applications" appeared on the official Ethereum website, which as we previously looked at, is a feature that depends on Code is Law. Unstoppability means that Smart Contract code is the ultimate arbiter of transaction outcomes, as opposed to courts or other forces outside the contract layer who would otherwise be able to stop or overrule applications. 不可停用意味着智能合同代码是交易结果的最终仲裁者。 与合同层以外的法院或其他势力相反，他们本来能够阻止或推翻申请。

为什么区块链有用？
- 您可以运行它们上的应用程序 并说服您的用户，即使您对维护它失去兴趣，您的应用程序仍将继续运行， 您受到贿赂或威胁要以某种方式操纵应用程序状态 或者你获得一种利润动机来以某种方式操纵应用程序状态

• Blockchain Technology, Ethereum Blog, April 2015

使用区块链技术的人可以感到舒适，因为他们知道自己的身份状态。 资金或设备的所有权安全和可靠地保存在一个由MathTM打包的超安全无虞的分配分类账中。

• 信托问题, Ethereum Blog, April 2015

Thousands flocked to the project based on this understanding and contributed time, talent, and money, united by the Original Ethereum Vision of "Build Unstoppable Applications". They told their friends, vouched for its integrity, and, thanks to this, the word of Ethereum spread like wildfire. 他们告诉他们的朋友们，为其完整性而奋斗，由于这种情况，埃瑟姆的口号像野火一样散布。 他们告诉他们的朋友们，为其完整性而奋斗，由于这种情况，埃瑟姆的口号像野火一样散布。

在ETH土地上一切情况都很好。 Everything was going well in ETH land. People were excited, new ideas were sprouting, projects were launching, and one of those projects in particular was soon to prove Classic.

DAO

A DAO (pronounced "Dow Jones") or "Decentralized Autonomous Organization" describes a Smart Contract system that, much like a company, manages the distribution of funds for many stakeholders, and is usually governed by voting mechanisms. The idea of DAOs had been around for a while, but wasn't practical until Ethereum made it easy to program and launch them, which many teams began to do in 2016. DAO的想法已经有了一段时间。 但直到以太坊让它很容易编程和启动，许多团队才开始在2016年这样做。

Ethereum Foundation，它通过人群销售筹集资金来创建以太坊， 有一位首席通信官员， 宣布 Ethereum Genesis Block，是 倡导者 代码是法律 同许多其他人一样，EF的CCO看到了“构建不可阻挡的应用程序”所许诺的光明未来， 实际上，他们最终呼吁使用这一术语来促进以太坊项目。 同许多其他人一样，EF的CCO看到了“构建不可阻挡的应用程序”所许诺的光明未来， 实际上，他们最终呼吁使用这一术语来促进以太坊项目。

2015年11月，原先的CCO与一些编程员合作，组建了一个叫做slock.it的公司。 t 想要启动不仅 a DAO, 而是 __ DAO, 该基金将作为一种针对以Etherum项目为目标的风险资本基金。 它是扩大以太基生态系统和投资者净回报的一种方式。 谁会将ether 存入DAO合同，以换取DAO Tokens， 这将使得能够投票表决并从DAO的投资中获得回报。

管理者中文学士

DAO成为以太坊世界的大消息，特别是因为它得到了许多以太坊基金会成员的大力支持。 除了由EF最近的CCO领导的项目外，DAO还聘用了“监管人”。 (b) 被赋予否决具体行动并作为一种失误而采取行动的能力； 这实际上使投资者放心，资金不会受到某些类型的攻击。 The DAO became big news in the Ethereum world, not least because it received significant backing from many Ethereum Foundation members. Aside from the project being led by EF's recent CCO, The DAO had recruited "curators", who were given the ability to veto specific actions and act as a fail-safe, in effect reassuring investors that funds would not be at risk from certain types of attack. All 11 curators had worked directly for the Ethereum Project or Foundation, including some notable heavyweights.

官方说，以太基姆基金会本身没有参与农业发展局的任何活动。 但也许因为这么多的管理者与应急基金有联系，这一立场必须明确。

Etherum基金会试图与DAO保持距离，这一点很重要。 尽管有这些中立主张，但随后的行动似乎表明了另一种情况。

世界最大的集体销售

当时，许多人认为DAO是一种“无风险”投资，因为它不仅有值得信赖的馆长， 但投资者今后将能够通过“分割”机制从投资管理处提取资金； 这种进一步的激励性贡献，因为投资者稍后可以“选择不参加”，但在最初的人群中只有一次机会“选择加入”。

Slock.it于2016年4月启动了DAO群众销售，ETH开始生动，但很快就有迹象表明有些事情不对。 Slock.it launched The DAO crowdsale in April 2016, and the ETH began to roll in, but soon, there were signs that something wasn't quite right. During the crowdsale, slock.it announced a security proposal, a curator called for a moratorium, and another prominent curator gave a warning and stepped down.

But despite these warnings, by the time the crowdsale was over, The DAO had raised an incredible $150 million worth of ETH, breaking all world records to become the largest crowdsale ever. This USD amount may not sound staggering by today's standards, but it was 14% of all ETH, which would be worth about $70 billion at today's market cap (as of December 2021, ETH had a price of ~$4,000). 按照今天的标准，这笔美元数额可能不会令人吃惊，但它只占所有ETH的14%。 从今天的市场上限来看，价值约为700亿美元(截至2021年12月，ETH的价格约为4,000美元)。

“没有风险基金”

A week after the crowdsale ended, a security researcher publicly disclosed a new type of vulnerability that many Smart Contract developers had previously not considered, the so-called "reentrancy bug".

The bug can occur when a contract does not properly update its state when other contracts interact with it, allowing attackers to execute the same function many times over against the intent of the contract's authors. It is like a vending machine that does not check that a coin was inserted correctly; an attacker can tie a piece of string around the coin to pull it back out and use the same coin to sweep all the delicious goodies. 它就像一个没有检查硬币是否正确插入的售货机； 攻击者可以绑定硬币周围的一个字符串，把它拉回来，并使用同一硬币来扫除所有微妙的山羊。 它就像一个没有检查硬币是否正确插入的售货机； 攻击者可以绑定硬币周围的一个字符串，把它拉回来，并使用同一硬币来扫除所有微妙的山羊。

Because Ethereum was so new and best practices had not formed around developing Smart Contracts, this bug was quite common. Once the news got out, many contracts were exploited and funds were lost, but luckily, The DAO was not affected, according to slock.it. Once the news got out, many contracts were exploited and funds were lost, but luckily, The DAO was not affected, according to slock.it. Once the news got out, many contracts were exploited and funds were lost, but luckily, The DAO was not affected, according to slock.it.

...并且已经去了

Just as with real world contracts, the devil is in the details, and it turned out that The DAO was affected by the reentrancy bug after all. 在 line 666 上，一个漏洞已休眠， 这笔大量已提升的ETH正坐在那里，等待一名精准的程序员到nab。 在 line 666 上，一个漏洞已休眠， 这笔大量已提升的ETH正坐在那里，等待一名精准的程序员到nab。

A few days later, one or more attackers began to drain The DAO, and just like a piece of string tied to a coin, used specially crafted contracts to repeatedly call The DAO's split function to extract away more ETH than its contract authors intended to allow.

由于DAO Hack， 从DAO Token Holders (DTH)出资，从DAO DAO提取了大量ETH， 如果不采取任何行动来挽救这种投资，那么这种投资很可能会失去许多原始投资。

更改交易

A critical point to note here is that The DAO Hacker did not exploit anything in the underlying Ethereum protocol, as the exploit was limited to The DAO contract. They also did not "break the rules" of The DAO contract either, as they simply interacted with The DAO in a way that it's authors did not anticipate. Regardless of the intent of it's author's, The DAO's Terms made it clear that the contract code itself was supposed to be the final judge. According to The DAO's authors, Code is Law. 他们也没有“违反”DAO合同的规则， 因为他们只是以作者没有预料到的方式与DAO进行互动。 他们也没有“违反”DAO合同的规则， 因为他们只是以作者没有预料到的方式与DAO进行互动。 不论作者的 意向 DAO条款 明确指出，合同代码本身应是终审裁判。 根据DAO的作者， 代码是法律。

DAO Creation 的条款载于Etherum区块链上现有的智能合同代码：0xb9b9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3b8c189413。 本术语解释或任何其他文件或通信中的任何内容都不能修改或添加超出DAO代码中规定的任何额外义务或担保。 任何和所有的解释性术语或描述都只是为了教育目的，而不会取代或修改区块链上的 DAO 代码的明确条款； 只要您认为这里提供的描述和DAO代码在0xb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413的功能之间存在任何冲突或不一致， DAO的代码控制并规定了 DAO 创建的所有条款。
...
通过与 DAO 智能合同代码的互动创建 DAO 代币。 你明确同意该守则中规定的所有条款和条件。 如果您不理解或不同意这些条款，您不应该创建 DAO 令牌。
...
DAO智能合同代码管理的 DAO 令牌的创建，并且覆盖任何关于DAO 创建的公开声明。这些声明是由与DAO相关联的第三方或个人发布的。 过去、现在和未来。
...
数字密码领域非常新，正是出于这个原因。 从支持DAO功能的基本加密协议以及迄今尚未记录的与游戏理论有关的矢量来看，都存在着意外攻击的危险。 这两种矢量都是一种风险，可能会在一个或多个或甚至所有的 DAO 代币持有人帐户中导致丢失DAO 代币或ETH 。

许多与会者赞同以下观点，即投资促进组织的投资者在同意上述条件后意识到所涉风险本身就是如此。 然而，对于许多DAO Token Holders来说，情况并非如此。

DAO战争（DAO）

In a twist of fate, The DAO's split function had a time delay, meaning that The DAO Hacker would be unable to fully extract their loot until about a month after the initial attack took place, assuming that nothing prevented them from doing so in the meantime. This provided a window of opportunity for the Ethereum community to fight back against The Hacker and make DAO Token Holders whole, which became the primary focus for many. In a twist of fate, The DAO's split function had a time delay, meaning that The DAO Hacker would be unable to fully extract their loot until about a month after the initial attack took place, assuming that nothing prevented them from doing so in the meantime. This provided a window of opportunity for the Ethereum community to fight back against The Hacker and make DAO Token Holders whole, which became the primary focus for many. 这为以太坊社区反击黑客提供了一个机会之窗，并使DAO Token Holders 整体。

桌面上有若干备选办法，但主要辩论的中心问题是是否可以接受实施“硬叉”， 一个与后退不相容的协议变更，其唯一目的是违背“构建不可阻挡的应用程序”的承诺， 拦截黑客的孩子DAO并归还资金。

Would Ethereum stop the unstoppable? For many, this was unthinkable, but others thought it was the only way to undo a major injustice that could threaten the future of the entire network. 但其他人则认为，这是消除可能威胁整个网络未来的重大不公正现象的唯一途径。 但其他人则认为，这是消除可能威胁整个网络未来的重大不公正现象的唯一途径。

Robin Hood和他的男男性行为者

当“硬叉”辩论正在展开时， 一群高尚的白色黑客对黑客拆散的儿童DAO进行同样的重新入门剥削，很快开始进攻并保护了DAO基金的大部分资金。

Before a Hard Fork was decided, it was confirmed that 70% of the lost funds had already been safely recovered and a counter-attack could be performed so the remaining 30% would be returned or locked in a stalemate with The DAO Hacker. That remaining 30% could be split and re-split in perpetuity until one side gave up. 剩下的30%可以分割并永久重新分割，直到一方放弃。

但即使[软或硬]叉没有实现。 社区可以阻止攻击者退出他们的ether
。 。 这个 [counter-attack] 可以确保攻击者不会从中得到任何钱。 从那时起，就可以继续与攻击者谈判，或者一个硬叉可以偿还所有DAO Token Holders。

• 一个 DAO 反攻击，Slock.it

An unrealistic fear existed that The DAO Hacker would never back down and the 30% would be locked away forever. 但实际上，在罗宾·霍德集团能够控制剩余资金之前，这只是一个时间问题。 因为RHG可以在寻找其他途径以解锁或破坏黑客的同时，自动化它们一方的僵局。

僵局意味着白人不让DAO Hacker得到任何大风。 并知道可以使用其他途径，包括谈判、连锁法证和真正的世界治安， 黑客最终将被迫自愿放弃，或面临连锁之外的后果，从而阻止他们打破僵局。

关于DAO Fork的荒谬但重要的细节之一是没有必要，因为大部分资金已经收回， 其余部分与回收一样好。 One of the absurd but important details often forgotten about The DAO Fork is that it was unnecessary as most of the funds were already recovered, with the rest being as good as recovered. Without a Hard Fork, the worst case scenario for DAO Token Holders was a temporary 30% haircut, but as we will see, the implementation of the Hard Fork ended up causing a far worse outcome for not just DAO Token Holders but the entire Ethereum community and the culture of cryptocurrency as a whole.

UPDATE: This analysis has been proven correct as the identity of The DAO Hacker has since been deduced by researchers and members of RHG. Absent a fork, the pressure to unmask the hacker would have been much greater and likely happened much sooner. 如果没有叉，揭露黑客的压力会大得多，而且很可能会更快发生。 如果没有叉，揭露黑客的压力会大得多，而且很可能会更快发生。

要叉还是不要叉？

虽然这种相对较小的最坏情况是许多DAO Token Holders所接受的， 一个有影响力的特遣队不能接受比100%的资金立即返还更少的任何东西，因此硬福克的辩论一直在进行。

The Ethereum community was split into two opposing tribes: the forkers and the anti-forkers. The forkers were convinced that the best way to serve justice and "make DAO Token Holders whole" was to implement a Hard Fork. Any other opinion was unethical, and anti-forkers were portrayed as being antisocial and pro-theft, essentially accomplices of The Hacker. 分销商相信，实现正义和“使DAO Token Holders 全都”最好的办法是实现硬叉。 任何其他意见都是不道德的，反叉车被描绘为反社会和支持盗窃的人，主要是黑客的同谋。

One obvious problem that clouded the debate was a huge financial incentive for the many DAO Token Holders to support a Hard Fork. They were incorrectly led to believe that this was the only way to guarantee they would recoup their investment. Additionally, many influential figures, including the 11 curators, had endorsed The DAO and would lose face if they were seen not doing everything they could to make the investors they influenced whole. 他们错误地认为，这是保证他们收回投资的唯一途径。 他们错误地认为，这是保证他们收回投资的唯一途径。 此外，许多有影响力的人物，包括11名馆长， 如果人们看到他们不竭尽全力使投资者对整个投资者产生影响，那么他们就会失去正面。

Some pro-forkers incorrectly believed that to allow The DAO Hacker to get away with such large amounts of ETH would be to condemn the future of Ethereum, which would not be able to withstand a bad actor controlling such a large pool of funds in Proof of Stake. This was denied by the architects of Ethereum's Proof of Stake implementation, but was nevertheless popularized to bolster support for a fork, and is a myth that still lingers to this day. Some pro-forkers incorrectly believed that to allow The DAO Hacker to get away with such large amounts of ETH would be to condemn the future of Ethereum, which would not be able to withstand a bad actor controlling such a large pool of funds in Proof of Stake. This was denied by the architects of Ethereum's Proof of Stake implementation, but was nevertheless popularized to bolster support for a fork, and is a myth that still lingers to this day. This was denied by the architects of Ethereum's Proof of Stake implementation, but was nevertheless popularized to bolster support for a fork, and is a myth that still lingers to this day.

The anti-forkers, on the other hand, argued that "Build Unstoppable Applications" must be upheld and that implementing a Hard Fork would not only break the promises made by the Ethereum project, but represented a moral hazard that opened up the door to future interventions. Some even warned that the nature of blockchains meant that controversial Hard Forks are guaranteed to result in a chain split, which could be catastrophic. 一些人甚至警告说，区块链的性质意味着有争议的硬叉被保证会导致 链分割， 这可能是灾难性的。 一些人甚至警告说，区块链的性质意味着有争议的硬叉被保证会导致 链分割， 这可能是灾难性的。

Anti-forkers also raised the point that the adverse effects of implementing a Hard Fork would be unfairly burdened by everyone on the network, regardless of whether they were DAO Token Holders. In contrast, the beneficiaries of the fork would only be a small subset of stakeholders. This "privatized profits and socialized losses" reality was reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis, with the Hard Fork being referred to by many as a "bailout", with its various connotations. 与此相对照，分叉的受益者只是一小部分利益攸关者。 与此相对照，分叉的受益者只是一小部分利益攸关者。 这种“私有化利润和社会化损失”的现实使人想起2008年金融危机。 “硬叉”被许多人称为“拯救”，有各种内涵。

In response to this concern, pro-forkers were incentivized to downplay the risks of a chain split, shelving it under the category of "don't worry about it, that's a conspiracy theory created by Bitcoin Maximalists". Moreover, any preparation for a chain split, such as implementing replay attack protection, or informing exchanges of this potential outcome to protect them from double spending, was not made, as to do so would affirm the possibility of a chain split and, in turn, make one more likely to happen. 此外，任何链分解的准备工作，例如实施回放攻击保护。 或通报这一潜在结果的交流，以保护它们免遭双重开支， 但没有这样做，因为这样做可以肯定链条分裂的可能性，进而使情况更加可能发生。

太太暗小时

As the Child DAO split deadline loomed, the debate quickly devolved into an extremely toxic argument fueled by financial interests and philosophical angst. The rift was so intense that accusations of criminality and lack of ethics were thrown from both sides. Any and all tactics were used to win the fight, which became an almost life and death battle. 分裂如此激烈，双方都对犯罪和缺乏道德提出指控。 分裂如此激烈，双方都对犯罪和缺乏道德提出指控。 所有战术都被用来赢得这场战斗，这场战斗几乎成为一场生命和死亡的战斗。

令人悲伤的事情因威胁要对那些反对硬叉的人进行末日和其他形式的报复而平息。 t 揭露那些反对硬叉的人的身份，制造寒冷的效果，恐吓著名的反叉者不要说话：

I'd be VERY interested to know the identify of anyone coordinating an effort to oppose a hardfork. PM me [redacted]@slock.it 私信 [redacted]@slock.it 私信 [redacted]@slock.it

• 2016 年 6 月

具有讽刺意味的是，与此同时正在从这个女巫寻找的时候，这个由 slock.it 操作的DAO网站强调了它的假定价值：

我们作为一个DAO，描述以下值：
- 隐私和匿名权

• DAO网站

到现在， “硬叉”辩论类似于不受禁止的宗教运动，而不是健康地讨论什么才符合以太坊项目的最佳利益， 但也许从来没有这样做了。

A. 达成的协商一致意见：

Looking at The DAO Fork Debate on Reddit, we can see that a sizeable portion of the Ethereum community was against the Hard Fork based on upvotes alone. However, despite this, influential forces were involved that felt there was no other choice than to push for a Hard Fork to protect financial interests. 然而，尽管如此，有影响力的势力还是感到别无选择，只能为保护金融利益而推动硬叉。 然而，尽管如此，有影响力的势力还是感到别无选择，只能为保护金融利益而推动硬叉。

不幸的是，当时可能无法将 实际的 共识的底部落到底。 作为讨论的主要论坛——Reddit和Twitter——非常容易受到 Sybil 攻击的影响。 以天体为形式。 难道难道是真正得到了民众的支持，还是刚刚形成了共识？ 我们也许永远不会知道，但至少有一个很大的推动力。 而且不能否认将强加给社区的东西是一个 有争议的硬叉。

“辩论”结束

By the time the decision about whether to implement a Hard Fork was made, it appeared to be about far more than just a Hard Fork. It had become a familiar tribalistic power game where both sides were so entrenched in their positions, many were beyond reason and unable to concede. 它已经成为一个熟悉的部落权力游戏，在这个游戏中，双方的立场如此牢固，许多人没有道理，无法隐瞒。

正如我们稍后将通过游戏理论透镜反思的那样，整个折磨似乎就像一个 协调陷阱。 从一开始，经济奖励措施就把双方都推向“胜利或死亡”。 As we will reflect upon later, through a game theory lens, the whole ordeal seemed like a coordination trap. From the beginning, economic incentives were aligned such that both sides were driven to "victory or death". As a result, forkers rationally downplayed the possible adverse outcomes of a Hard Fork while simultaneously making it seem like the only viable option, glossing over the reality of the situation thanks to Robin Hood's efforts.

完全公平的金币投票

During the debate The Ethereum Foundation attempted to maintain a stance of neutrality. Whatever was done about The DAO Hack, it was a question for the Ethereum community to decide, not something that came from the top. This was an important position to hold as deferring the choice would, on paper, resolve them of responsibility. However, despite this claim, clear evidence of a lack of neutrality among various wings of the Ethereum Foundation was shown. 无论对DAO Hack做了什么，它都是一个问题要由太瑟姆 社区 来决定。 不是来自顶部的东西。 这是一个重要的立场，因为推迟作出这种选择在理论上会解决他们的责任问题。 然而，尽管有这项索赔，但仍有明显证据表明以太库姆基金会各派之间缺乏中立性。

实现硬叉的一个问题是，如果用户需要选择加入额外的配置， 许多节点操作员和矿工在经常升级他们的软件时会默认“无叉”链。 这样做只能保证链条分割的发生并造成问题。 “解决”是为了更新Ethereum 客户端的默认设置以遵循新的硬叉规则。

In a veiled attempt to maintain some level of neutrality, the decision of which default to use for Geth was made was based on the outcome of a controversial "coin vote".

Coin votes, where 1 ETH = 1 vote, are notoriously bad tools to reflect the opinions of a community, especially where those voting are financially incentivized. Suppose one whale has 90,000 ETH, and 10,000 dedicated community members only have 8 ETH each. In that case, the whale can guarantee a win and dictate the consensus of "the Ethereum community". Smaller position voters also have less incentive to participate as they have individually less sway, and collectively require a far higher level coordination, effort and gas fees to participate. 假定一只鲸有90 000个ETH，10 000名专门的社区成员每个只有8个ETH。 假定一只鲸有90 000个ETH，10 000名专门的社区成员每个只有8个ETH。 在这种情况下，鲸鱼能够保证赢得胜利，并决定着“以太社区”的共识。 较小的选民也因为他们各自的步行较少而对参加投票的积极性较低。 而且集体上需要更高层次的协调、努力和天然气费用才能参与。

As it turned out, one single address voted with so much Ether that it amounted to 25% of all the votes. On top of this, this coin vote had no minimum quorum, and only 6% of total Ether participated. Most shockingly, it was announced and concluded within 12 hours, giving very little time to coordinate any response from anti-forkers, and made it impossible to get input from half the planet that was asleep. 除此之外，这次硬币投票没有最低法定人数，参加投票的总人数只有6%。 最令人震惊的是，它是在12个小时内宣布和缔结的，很少有时间协调反叉者的任何反应。 并且使我们无法从已经睡觉的地球上的一半获得投入。

可以预见，少数鲸鱼可能知道或可能不知道这项公告，结果严重偏差。 Predictably, the results were heavily skewed by a handful of whales who may or may not have had foreknowledge of the announcement. The critical decision of which chain for Geth to default to was then claimed to be made "by the community" and was later used to justify Ethereum Foundation's support of the forked chain over ETC.

值得赞扬的是，在Etherum.org网站的最新版本中，围绕这一重要的硬币投票的争议有文件记载。

This course of action was voted on by the Ethereum community. Any ETH holder was able to vote via a transaction on a voting platform. The decision to fork reached over 85% of the votes. This course of action was voted on by the Ethereum community. Any ETH holder was able to vote via a transaction on a voting platform. The decision to fork reached over 85% of the votes. 任何ETH持有人都能够通过交易在投票平台投票。 分派的决定获得85%以上的选票。

重要的是要注意到，虽然协议的确有叉要还原黑客， 决定分叉时所进行的表决的权重可以辩论，有几个原因：
- 投票率极低
- 大多数人不知道投票正在进行
- 投票只代表了ETH 持有人， 不是系统中的任何其他参与者

• Etherum.org 网站

While it was clear that some pro-forkers did not want Geth or any Ethereum Foundation products even to have the option of running the unforked chain, to provide neutrality, the infamous --oppose-dao-fork flag was added to Geth, enabling users to opt-in to the unforked chain by enabling this config parameter. However, it was soon removed in later versions. 但后来的版本很快就删除了这一句。 但后来的版本很快就删除了这一句。

To be fair, some other Ethereum Foundation teams attempted to provide genuine neutral choices. For example, Mist, the dapp browser, required users to make an explicit choice of which version of the chain to run when opening the client, rather than opting them into one side of the fork by default. 例如，Mist, dapp 浏览器要求用户在打开客户端时明确选择要运行哪个版本的链， 而不是默认选择他们进入叉的一侧。 例如，Mist, dapp 浏览器要求用户在打开客户端时明确选择要运行哪个版本的链， 而不是默认选择他们进入叉的一侧。

遗憾的是，Mist客户端的决定远远不如Geth，因为Mist的目标用户基地既不是矿工，也不是交易所。 因此这个选项对散列或用户采用没有重大影响， 它主要是由交易所和其他钱包服务使用Geth的新默认值所决定的。

Some Ethereum Foundation members even publicly spoke out against the Hard Fork, cementing the idea that consensus was not reached. To those who stood up for "Build Unstoppable Applications" despite the peer pressure, we salute you. 对那些在同伴压力下站起来“建造不可阻挡的应用程序”的人，我们向你致敬。 对那些在同伴压力下站起来“建造不可阻挡的应用程序”的人，我们向你致敬。

如此中立、大致的协商一致意见：

另一支吸烟枪支表明埃瑟姆基金会对叉决定缺乏中立性，这体现在交易所Poloniex的一项公告中。 这表明EF不仅仅是没有就链分的可能性提出警告， 但私下正在积极发挥其潜力，而且与关于Reddit的讨论相反， 他声称以太坊社区对未加工的链条几乎没有兴趣或根本没有兴趣。

...Ethereum 基金会代表一再保证，该社区对未知链上的Ether 几乎没有兴趣……

• Poloniex

Either way, ignoring rumors and conspiracy theories, the proof was in the pudding; those who pushed for the Hard Fork appeared very happy with Ethereum Foundation's "help" implementing such an effective solution.

As the Child DAO's split function deadline loomed, consensus was declared, and Ethereum™ would implement the unthinkable: a Hard Fork to change the rules of the game to try to undo the hack. The forkers had won the debate; or at least, they got their way. For now. 这些叉车赢得了辩论；或者至少他们走了路。 这些叉车赢得了辩论；或者至少他们走了路。 现在。

派生论坛

在2016年7月20日的第1,920,000号区块上，做了历史。 While the Ethereum™ website still proudly proclaimed "Build Unstoppable Applications", its authors changed the Ethereum protocol for the sole purpose of stopping The Hacker's Child DAO in its tracks. 到达合同层的转场，拳打脚踢 代码是窗口外的法律 改写了DAO公司的中途航班合同，并没收了The Hacker的ETH。 到达合同层的转场，拳打脚踢 代码是窗口外的法律 改写了DAO公司的中途航班合同，并没收了The Hacker的ETH。

任务已完成！

Contrary to popular misconception, The DAO Hard Fork was technically not a "rollback", as it is commonly referred to - there was no "going back" to an old state. Instead, it was a "surgical irregular state change". In many ways, this is a far worse outcome than a rollback from a Code is Law perspective, as unlike a long reorg, this was the manual intervention of a contract, overriding its logic, changing the rules of the game, and inserting some arbitrary replacement code determined by a subjective off-chain governance process with next to no transparency. 相反，这是“外科不正常地改变状态”。 在许多方面，这比退回 是法律 角度的结果要差得多。 与长篇大论不同，这是合同的人工干预，推翻了合同的逻辑， 更改游戏规则, 并插入一些由主观的脱链治理程序决定的任意替换代码，几乎没有透明度。

On this new fork, where the contract layer had been desecrated, the promise of unstoppability was defiled, and Code is Law was dead. F. 附 件 附 件

The DAO Hard Fork was unlike the typical hard forks that happen reasonably frequently on Ethereum which involve protocol fixes or feature enhancements; there was no "upgrade" to the protocol from a technical point of view. Instead, for the first time (and for now, the last), the "upgrade" was political, and only concerned overriding something happening in the contract layer, which is distinguishable from the protocol and was marketed as being unstoppable. 相反，“升级”是第一次(现在是最后一次)是政治性的，只是涉及否决合同层中发生的事情， 它是 个可区分的 和协议，并被推销为不可阻挡的。 相反，“升级”是第一次(现在是最后一次)是政治性的，只是涉及否决合同层中发生的事情， 它是 个可区分的 和协议，并被推销为不可阻挡的。

链条

As if by some divine universal law, a dynamic of opposites is seen all throughout nature. The Light and the Dark, the Yin and Yang, the Decentralized and Centralized. 光明与黑暗、Yin和Yang、权力下放与中央化。 光明与黑暗、Yin和Yang、权力下放与中央化。

When its authors attempted to crush the Original Ethereum Vision, the universe provided an equal and opposite response, and on that fateful day, a miracle occurred. In a defiant continuation of Code is Law, the blocks of the original chain continued to be mined, following the Classic unforked protocol rules. 在非法继续 代码是法律的情况下，原始链中的方块仍在继续埋设， 遵循 经典 取消的协议规则。

该技术第一次恰当地展示了其最终解决争端机制。 For the first time, the technology had properly demonstrated its ultimate dispute resolution mechanism. Through the chain split, all parties got what they wanted; either a version of Ethereum where Code isn't Law or a chain where the promise of "Build Unstoppable Applications" was upheld.

The DAO Fork was a sacred cleansing moment for Ethereum, a shedding of the corruption and centralization that allowed The Fork to happen. Those who didn't like Code is Law started a new chain with new rules, leaving the unforked chain to operate as it was, with less baggage, a refined community, and a clear mission. 不喜欢 代码为法律 的人开始了一个新的链，制定了新的规则。 离开未分叉的链条来操作，行李较少，是一个精细的社区，是一个明确的任务。

与新近派生的EtherumTM形成对照的是，未派生的以太太太郎在许多方面都是相反的。 它是不可阻挡的，它的权力下放水平，因此具有改变世界的无限潜力。

Confusingly, the Ethereum Foundation determined that their new forked chain would be called "Ethereum". It would almost exclusively receive official support from the Foundation from then on, including the huge amounts of funding raised during the crowdsale. But the unforked chain kept something far more valuable, as Code is Law is not something that could be forked away on a whim, and the original chain they abandoned continued to chug along. 从那时起，该基金几乎完全将得到基金会的官方支助，包括在人群中筹集到的大量资金。 从那时起，该基金几乎完全将得到基金会的官方支助，包括在人群中筹集到的大量资金。 但未解决的链条仍然有一些更加宝贵的东西。 因为 代码是法律 并不是可以在短时间内被派生出来的东西， 他们放弃的原始链条继续沿着原始链。

运行时间最长的智能合同平台是、并且总是 Etherum经典。

纯洁教概念

以太坊经典的出现在许多方面都是奇迹，在情况和实质上都是如此。 The emergence of Ethereum Classic was miraculous in many ways, both in circumstance and substance. Had it not been for Bitcoin, Ethereum, The DAO, The Bug on line 666, The Hacker, the Split Function Time Limit, the Hard Fork Debate Coordination Trap, the Hard Fork itself, and the brave and charming supporters of ETC, without this series of profoundly improbable events, the world would not be blessed with a truly decentralized Smart Contract platform that champions Code is Law.

以太古经典也有许多奇迹般的特性，不可能人为地加以利用。 Ethereum Classic also has many miraculous properties that are impossible to conjure artificially. With a commitment to Code is Law, no founders, no Ethereum Foundation, no premine*, a fair distribution, and a community that self-select based on concern for principles over convenience, ETC stands higher than even the Bitcoin Standard on many of the pillars of decentralism, giving ETC one of the greatest potentials of all blockchains for Sovereign Grade Censorship Resistance and the reality-bettering power it unleashes.

以太西姆古典出现的情况非常罕见，以至于不可能再次发生。 The circumstances of Ethereum Classic's emergence are so rare that they are unlikely to ever happen again. Ethereum Classic, being the first to demonstrate the power of Code is Law and the danger of pushing for controversial hard forks, serves as a warning to prevent similar situations from happening in the future, making ETC the only chain likely to achieve these properties, thanks to its original authors abandoning it.

餐厅

Three days and three nights after The DAO Hard Fork, The Original Ethereum Vision rose again, and Ethereum Classic got its first exchange listing on one of the largest altcoin exchanges Poloniex. After this first listing, ETC's future was sealed, as market forces would take hold, causing other exchanges to rush to list, and making mining the Classic side of the chain split liquid and profitable. 在这第一次上市之后，ETC的未来被封闭，因为市场力量将站稳脚跟。 造成其他交易所匆忙列出，从而开采链条分割的液体和利润经典一侧。

两天后，一个版本的 Geth 被推送到经典链中，并删除 DAO Fork 代码。 Two days later, a version of Geth was forked that defaulted to the Classic chain and removed The DAO Fork code. Three days after this, Ethereum Classic is officially supported by Parity, Ethereum's second major client. Prominent ETH miners quibble about whether to "51% attack" ETC to prevent its rise, but eventually decide to let it be. 著名的ETH矿工就是否“51%的攻击”ETC以防止其上升，但最终决定让它升起。

《独立宣言》

Ethereum Clasic社区很快组织起来，形成了一个新的、分散的新的社会秩序，启动了EtherumClassic.org，并宣布独立于以太瑟姆基金会。

Let it be known to the entire world that on July 20th, 2016, at block 1,920,000, we as a community of sovereign individuals stood united by a common vision to continue the original Ethereum blockchain that is truly free from censorship, fraud or third party interference. In realizing that the blockchain represents absolute truth, we stand by it, supporting its immutability and its future. We do not make this declaration lightly, nor without forethought to the consequences of our actions. 我们认识到区块链代表着绝对的真理，我们支持它的不可变性和未来。 我们认识到区块链代表着绝对的真理，我们支持它的不可变性和未来。 我们没有轻率地发表这一声明，也没有预先考虑我们行动的后果。

• 埃瑟姆经典独立宣言

难度断开

The now fractured Ethereum community, already war-weary thanks to the Hard Fork debate, was sent into overdrive by the emergence of Ethereum Classic. What many had hoped would be the end of the struggle turned out to be the beginning of another difficult chapter in a demoralizing development that was far worse than professed and anticipated just weeks earlier. 许多人所希望的是这场斗争的结束，这场斗争已经成为另一个困难篇章的开端，这一令人沮丧的事态发展比几个星期前所说和预期的要差得多。 许多人所希望的是这场斗争的结束，这场斗争已经成为另一个困难篇章的开端，这一令人沮丧的事态发展比几个星期前所说和预期的要差得多。

链条分割绝非无尽。 The chain split was far from painless. Had all the side effects been known in advance, it seems extremely unlikely that even the most ardent supporters of a Hard Fork would have considered it an acceptable solution, especially compared to alternatives that would not have caused a split. ETC was living proof that pro-forker assurances about a smooth Hard Fork were just wishful thinking. Having caused such a cock-up, who could trust their judgment again? ETC 生动地证明，有利于叉的保证是一种顺利的硬叉，只是一种美好的想法。 ETC 生动地证明，有利于叉的保证是一种顺利的硬叉，只是一种美好的想法。 已经造成了这种情况，谁可以再次相信他们的判决？

小偷的连线

The forkers, rather than accepting responsibility, proclaimed that this new "Classic" thing was trouble; it was an attack on Ethereum by Bitcoin Maximalists, an empty protest chain, a zombie that would disappear in short order, even a "chain of thiefs" [sic]. ETC was many things, but definitely not legitimate. Nobody that supported Ethereum™ could honestly support Ethereum Classic. That was heresy. ETC was many things, but definitely not legitimate. 没有任何人能够真正支持以太基姆蒂姆教程。 那个 是异常的。 没有任何人能够真正支持以太基姆蒂姆教程。 那个 是异常的。

For many, those responsible for Ethereum Classic were "idiots", "crazies", "baddies", or worse, and they had to pay for their crimes. Much of this post-fork animosity was captured at the time by commenters, but to avoid picking at scabs, we strongly advise against googling the title of this section. 评论者在当时捕获了这种派生后的敌意。 但为了避免在舞台上挑选，我们强烈建议不要将本节的标题作上游。

“Free Money”和超公平的再分配方式

But the attacks against Ethereum Classic were not just limited to name-calling. Some believed it might be possible to destroy Ethereum Classic, sending its price to zero by dumping large amounts of ETC on the market. Of course, the reality is that blockchains are far more resilient than this, but that didn't stop attempts to wage economic war for fun and profit. But the attacks against Ethereum Classic were not just limited to name-calling. Some believed it might be possible to destroy Ethereum Classic, sending its price to zero by dumping large amounts of ETC on the market. Of course, the reality is that blockchains are far more resilient than this, but that didn't stop attempts to wage economic war for fun and profit. 有些人认为，有可能通过在市场上倾倒大量ETC而摧毁Etherum类，将其价格提高到零。 当然，现实情况是，区块链比这更具复原力。 但这并没有阻止为了有趣和赢利而发动经济战争的企图。

As a result of the chain split, every address that held Ether before the Hard Fork was now seeing double; they'd have the Ether they previously held, which became known as ETC, as well as an equal amount of the newly minted Forked Ether, appropriating the symbol ETH. Thanks to exchanges listing ETC shortly after the fork, a liquid market emerged that enabled price discovery between the two chains. 由于在分叉之后不久交易所将ETC列入清单，因此出现了一个能够在两种链之间发现价格的液体市场。

During these early days of price discovery many pro-forkers were keen to sell their "worthless" ETC at ridiculously low rates, dumping massive amounts of ETC under the assumption it was a "race to the bottom" of a dying market, pushing the price down to as low as a 0.01 ETH per ETC. This may have caused temporary concern, but it allowed diamond-handed supporters of ETC to pick up some once-in-a-lifetime deals. 这可能会引起暂时的关切，但它允许钻石手持的埃塔公司的支持者拿起一些一生中的交易。 这可能会引起暂时的关切，但它允许钻石手持的埃塔公司的支持者拿起一些一生中的交易。

这种做法在疯狂的市场销售中出现，著名的分销商声称出售他们的ETC是免费的。 This crescendoed in a market selling frenzy with prominent forkers claiming the selling of their ETC was "free money". To them, it was a no cost trade as ETC had no value, but in reality, they were participants in one of cryptocurrency's fairest market-based redistribution events ever. The "worthless" ETC was transferred essentially for free away from the ardent pro-forkers to those who saw a future in Code is Law, in what can be recognized today as an "Ultrafair Redistribution". This crescendoed in a market selling frenzy with prominent forkers claiming the selling of their ETC was "free money". To them, it was a no cost trade as ETC had no value, but in reality, they were participants in one of cryptocurrency's fairest market-based redistribution events ever. The "worthless" ETC was transferred essentially for free away from the ardent pro-forkers to those who saw a future in Code is Law, in what can be recognized today as an "Ultrafair Redistribution". “无价值的”ETC基本上是为了远离老板转给那些在 代码是法律中看到未来的人。 在今天可以被认为是“过度再分配”的东西中。

最初的倾倒失去了势头，ETC的价格因复仇而回归。 To the horror of many pro-forkers, after they had thrown away their ETC, the initial dump lost momentum, and the price of ETC came back with a vengeance. A week later, the price of ETC peaked at 0.4 ETH, giving the original buyers a 40x return and presenting the significant threat of "flippening" ETH, hugely delegitimizing the Hard Fork. Alas, the ETC/ETH flippening didn't quite happen back then and has yet to, but some predict that as time goes on the likelihood of this not happening approaches 0. 不幸的是，ETC/ETH 翻转当时并未发生，而且至今尚未发生， 但一些人预测，随着时间的推移， 的可能性将不会发生 接近0。 不幸的是，ETC/ETH 翻转当时并未发生，而且至今尚未发生， 但一些人预测，随着时间的推移， 的可能性将不会发生 接近0。

白帽小组和他们不属于Merry Men

但要等一秒钟。 But hold on a second. Whatever happened to those funds that Robin Hood Group previously secured? As a quick reminder, Robin Hood Group had already secured 70% of the lost funds, now in the form of ETC. For the remaining 30%, they had sourced help from the community to acquire Child DAO "controller keys". They had the option of maintaining a stalemate of perpetual splits with The DAO Hacker. 作为一种快速的提醒，Robin Hood集团已经获得了70%的损失资金，现在是以ETC形式提供的。 作为一种快速的提醒，Robin Hood集团已经获得了70%的损失资金，现在是以ETC形式提供的。 其余的30%得到了社区的帮助，获得了儿童DAO“控制器钥匙”。 他们可以选择保持与DAO Hacker永久分裂的僵局。

不过，在叉后，Robin Hood集团（RHG）将轮子（以及ETC的监护权）交给了一个新成立的白帽集团（WG）。 After the fork, though, Robin Hood Group (RHG) handed over the wheel (and custody of the ETC) to a newly formed White Hat Group (WHG). Who was calling the shots for White Hat Group exactly is unknown, but the announcements that WHG were making were being published by a company called Bity, which happened to be partnered with slock.it at the time.

在拆分中的以太坊经典一侧， 决定由王国政府/王国政府决定 不 来维持他们对僵局的一面， 而且尽管他们提出了要求，但他们并没有将儿童DAO钥匙转给其他一些受信任的团体，以使他们的利益继续处于僵局。

RHG [...] 本来可以利用上述“DAO wars”“无限期”战略，继续袭击ETC 链，但决定不这样做。

• "查看DAO", BitMEX Research

他们是如何作出这一决定的，但只能假定是部分疲劳。 并希望硬叉将意味着沙加的结局， 但这也可能部分是一种游戏理论游戏，其目的不是赋予ETC任何合法性。

不表明做任何准备的战略是减少先前出现链条分割的机会的最佳途径。 作为一种似乎未起作用的链条在理论上会消亡， 使它更有可能因被视为被遗弃而死亡。 The strategy of not showing to make any preparations was the best way to reduce the chances of a chain split occurring in the first place, as acting as if the unforked chain would die out would, in theory, make it more likely to die out as it would be perceived to be abandoned. A Hard Fork was supposed to be the way to make DAO Token Holders whole, and to take precautions or chase the funds on ETC would undermine recent justifications for its implementation.

无论意图如何，黑客的儿童DAO都被允许在不被重新分割的情况下达到截止日期。 而这种缺乏行动的情况实际上意味着移交了大约3人。 百万ETC to The DAO Hacker, 它今天仍然在他们的 监管下。

Before a Hard Fork was decided, it was confirmed that 70% of the lost funds had already been safely recovered and a counter-attack could be performed so the remaining 30% would be returned or locked in a stalemate with The DAO Hacker. That remaining 30% could be split and re-split in perpetuity until one side gave up. 剩下的30%可以分割并永久重新分割，直到一方放弃。

但乐趣刚刚刚开始。

ETC 清算失败

没有警告或询问DAO Token Holders, WHG, 首先试图通过几个地址“肿瘤”资金以混淆ETC的来源后， 在若干交易所存放了约400万份（占70%的一半） 打算 将此ETC “代表”DAO Token Holders转换为ETH。

这种行动使许多怀疑这些“白帽”不一定在一个完全黑白道德的世界中活动的人的交易密封。 而且有以上动机为了DAO Token Holders的最佳利益采取行动。

他们的行动引起两个问题：

• Why not give DAO Token Holders a choice in the matter, or at least open a discussion about what to do? Many holders did not support the Hard Fork, let alone wanting to convert their ETC to ETH. Indeed many still hold that ETC to this day, so clearly this action could not have been aligned with the wishes of all DAO Token Holders. 许多持有人不支持硬叉，更不用说希望将其电子贸易机会转换成电子贸易机会了。 事实上，许多人至今仍然认为这是ETC的。 这个动作本来不可能符合 所有 DAO 令牌持有者的愿望。
• 为什么试图使ETC肿瘤？ 这似乎是可疑的，除了诱使交易所不记录存款外，没有什么用处。 如果所有这一切都是合法的，那么迷惑会有什么好处？

Only the most cynical of perspectives seems to adequately answer these questions, in that it seems likely that WHG was attempting to financially attack Ethereum Classic by extracting as much value from ETC holders as possible. By making no announcement beforehand, this prevented the market from pricing-in the dump and allowing speculators to protect themselves. The tumbling may have been an attempt to prevent exchanges from flagging the funds, which would alleviate the need to explain their actions to anyone ahead of time, which could allow the economic attack to be countered. 由于事先没有作出任何宣布，这就使得市场无法对倾销进行定价，并允许投机者保护自己。 这可能是为了防止交易记录这些资金。 这将减轻提前向任何人解释其行动的需要，从而能够制止经济攻击。

幸运的是，尽管有人企图掩盖ETC的真正起源，但另一个令人尴尬的事态发展。 这些存入的资金大多是通过交易所冻结的， 而且甚至被清算的ETC也最终在很清楚WHG无法执行其初步计划之后被交易回ETEC。

Though WHG provided a rationale for why they wanted to sell the reclaimed ETC, all of these excuses were shown to be baseless thanks to the subsequent implementation of a Withdrawal Contract on ETC, which eventually allowed DAO Token Holders to get their ETC back safely and decide for themselves what to do with it.

重放攻击

不准备出现链条分裂的可能性的一个后果是有可能再度发动攻击，而这种情况可能会发生。 不论是偶然的还是故意的，都会造成资金流失或从链条的任何一侧被盗。 One effect of not preparing for a possibility of a chain split was the prospect of replay attacks, which could, both accidentally and intentionally, cause the loss of funds or theft from either side of the chain. The possibility of replay attacks was known in advance, but presumably to play down the possibility of a chain split being a concern, no action was taken to mitigate or even warn the community about them.

After the split, holders of ETH would have the same amount of ETC associated with the same addresses, and most transactions made on either side of the chain were valid and could be copied to the other. A signed transaction could be broadcast to the other side of the split and published to this chain without the knowledge or intent of the signer. This danger was not widely known at first, and it seemed that some clients would sometimes publish valid transactions to the mempools of both chains, creating chaos and causing innocent parties to lose funds in various ways. 签名的交易可在没有签字人知情或意图的情况下向分裂的另一方广播并在这一链条上公布。 这种危险最初并不广为人知，而且似乎有些客户有时会将有效的交易公布于两个链库中。 • 制造混乱，使无辜的当事方以各种方式失去资金。

这种杂务的一个例子是将合同部署到ETH，而不是ETC。 One example of this mess was the case of contracts deployed to ETH but not to ETC. A value transfer sending ETH to a contract, say a multisig address, could be replayed on ETC, but the ETC may be lost forever as the receiving contract address has no private key, and no contract code is deployed to that address on Classic. In this scenario, no malicious actors were required, it was simply a preventable bad outcome caused by lack of preparation. 在这种情况下，不需要任何恶意行为者，这只是由于缺乏准备而造成的可预防的不良结果。 在这种情况下，不需要任何恶意行为者，这只是由于缺乏准备而造成的可预防的不良结果。

还记录了一些被恶意利用再玩交易的案件，交易往往是受害者。 There were also documented cases of replayed transactions being exploited maliciously, typically with an exchange being the victim. For example, an attacker could deposit and withdraw ETH many times over, each time also withdrawing ETC from the exchange by replaying the exchange's withdrawal transaction from ETH to ETC, and as most exchanges had no idea ETC was or could be a thing, much of the ETC in hot wallets was ripe for the picking once opportunistic blackhats figured out the trick.

当时，防止重新进行交易的唯一保证办法是确保将资金分成每个链条上的不同地址， 这是一个令人烦恼的过程，特别是对于技术上不太热心的用户。 几个月后，引入了一个协议层解决方案， EIP-155。 这就是为什么EVM 区块链现在尊重 CHAIN_ID， 签名交易时指定的每个链条的唯一号码，使其在其他链条上无效。

吸取的经验教训

Since the Hard Fork and its immediate fallout in 2016, the dust has largely settled, the animosity has faded away, and both Ethereum™ and Ethereum Classic continued to develop and have grown in their own ways. With the past behind, and the actions of individuals caught up on the whirlwind forgiven, the practical and moral lessons that The DAO Fork taught us must not be forgotten, so that similar future debacles can be avoided. 随着过去的落后和被困在鞭风下的个人的行动， 决不能忘记DAO Fork告诉我们的实际和道义教训，以便避免今后发生类似的灾难。 随着过去的落后和被困在鞭风下的个人的行动， 决不能忘记DAO Fork告诉我们的实际和道义教训，以便避免今后发生类似的灾难。

协调陷阱：

One significant takeaway from The DAO Fork debacle, which can now only be properly identified with hindsight, is the danger of coordination traps. This term is coined here to describe a phenomenon in a blockchain context, but the same concept echoes true in many systems where incentive structures yield bad outcomes. 这个词是为了描述一个区块链环境中的一种现象。 但在奖励结构产生不良结果的许多制度中，同样的概念也是如此。

Blockchains are designed to solve coordination problems, as Bitcoin and Ethereum did so by managing to, with nothing but a well-defined protocol implementing economic incentives, get millions of individuals to work together and, in short, do a bunch of cool stuff. But it appears that these exact mechanisms can, if left unchecked, contort and deform on their own and yield decidedly uncool stuff. 但看来这些确切的机制如果不加以制止，就可能会自行产生扭曲和变形，并产生明显不冷的东西。 但看来这些确切的机制如果不加以制止，就可能会自行产生扭曲和变形，并产生明显不冷的东西。

Looking back, it seems clear that The DAO Hard Fork was an example of a coordination trap, which caused individuals acting in their own immediate economic rational self-interest to engage in actions that on the whole were strictly worse for all involved. With hindsight, the events that unfolded don't make much sense given the poor outcomes, so why wasn't it obvious at the time that a Hard Fork was a bad idea? 事后看，鉴于结果不佳，所发生的事件没有多大意义。 因此，为什么当时“硬叉”是一个坏主意吗？

By the time the decision about whether to implement a Hard Fork was made, it appeared to be about far more than just a Hard Fork. It had become a familiar tribalistic power game where both sides were so entrenched in their positions, many were beyond reason and unable to concede. 它已经成为一个熟悉的部落权力游戏，在这个游戏中，双方的立场如此牢固，许多人没有道理，无法隐瞒。

The Hard Fork debate was essentially a complex game of chicken, and the forkers were led to believe they could only "win" if they doubled down on the idea that a chain split would not happen. So, they downplayed the possibility of a chain split and, to ensure a united front of confidence, intimidated and prevented others from making any plans to deal with one. 因此，它们低估了出现链条分裂的可能性，并确保建立一个团结的信任阵线。 他受到恐吓，阻止他人制定任何计划来处理这个问题。

Having drunk their own Kool-Aid, many truly believed those who were against a hard fork or were warning that a chain split could happen were either allied with The Hacker or Bitcoin Maximalists who wanted to see Ethereum die. As a result, forkers, fueled by a rational desire but misguided strategy to protect their wealth, were willing to spread and consume increasingly ridiculous propaganda that bolstered support for a Hard Fork, which created a vicious cycle that compounded the effect. 因此，在保护其财富的合理愿望、但却是错误的战略的推动下，叉者得到了促进。 我们愿意散布和进行越来越荒谬的宣传，支持硬叉，这种做法造成了一种恶性循环，加剧了这种影响。

不表明做任何准备的战略是减少先前出现链条分割的机会的最佳途径。 作为一种似乎未起作用的链条在理论上会消亡， 使它更有可能因被视为被遗弃而死亡。 The strategy of not showing to make any preparations was the best way to reduce the chances of a chain split occurring in the first place, as acting as if the unforked chain would die out would, in theory, make it more likely to die out as it would be perceived to be abandoned. A Hard Fork was supposed to be the way to make DAO Token Holders whole, and to take precautions or chase the funds on ETC would undermine recent justifications for its implementation.

How can blockchain projects avoid similar disasters in the future? Strong philosophical underpinnings provide an antidote to this and other mad game theory quandaries. Principles act as a reference point that can nip the bud of the economic interests which would otherwise push communities into these traps. This is why principles are important and are upstream of everything for blockchains that expect to last. They can lay down the rules of the game socially, and inoculate a chain against a whole host of unforeseeable failure states that can occur when those rules are ambiguous. 强有力的哲学基础为这种和其他疯狂游戏理论的数量提供了一种解药剂。 强有力的哲学基础为这种和其他疯狂游戏理论的数量提供了一种解药剂。 原则是一个参照点，可以将本来会将社区推入这些陷阱的经济利益卷入其中。 这就是为什么原则对于区块链来说是重要的，并且是所有可望持久的东西的上游。 他们可以在社会上规定游戏规则。 如果这些规则含糊不清，就可能发生一系列无法预见的故障。

代码法吗？

To the layman, Ethereum™ still markets itself on Smart Contracts and the idea that their code should be the final arbiter of contract interactions. "Build Unstoppable Applications" was Ethereum.org's main slogan all the way up until 2019, many years after The DAO contract was stopped. The clear reality is that the usefulness of Smart Contract depends on Code is Law being upheld, as otherwise they can be censored arbitrarily by outside forces. In the beginning, there was "Build Unstoppable Applications" and for a time, it was good. It was a real revolution, as your average developer was able to create a new type of software that could not be stopped or censored by anyone. In the early days, there was unified support behind the concept of Code is Law within the Ethereum community. It was not just uncontroversial, but the mission itself. 明确的现实是，智能合同是否有用取决于 代码是法律 正在维护。 In the beginning, there was "Build Unstoppable Applications" and for a time, it was good. It was a real revolution, as your average developer was able to create a new type of software that could not be stopped or censored by anyone. In the early days, there was unified support behind the concept of Code is Law within the Ethereum community. It was not just uncontroversial, but the mission itself. 明确的现实是，智能合同是否有用取决于 代码是法律 正在维护。 否则，他们可能受到外来势力的任意检查。

However, Ethereum™'s history suggests a questionable relationship with the concept of unstoppability and Code is Law. The direct contradiction of this concept in Ethereum™'s past means that the project is now in a schizophrenic position where it is simultaneously for and against the idea of Code is Law. 以往这个概念在埃瑟姆TM的过去中直接相互矛盾，这意味着该项目现在处于一种精神分裂状态，在这种状态下，它同时也是为了和反对 代码的概念，这是法律。 以往这个概念在埃瑟姆TM的过去中直接相互矛盾，这意味着该项目现在处于一种精神分裂状态，在这种状态下，它同时也是为了和反对 代码的概念，这是法律。

一些Etherians说，DAO Fork是一次性的，永远不会再发生； EtherumTM 真的遵循了 代码是 Law, 或者至少是在Fork 之后. 这种立场的问题是，当它重要时， EtherumTM的历史表明，它容易被干预，可以推翻 代码是法律。 这种立场的问题是，当它重要时， EtherumTM的历史表明，它容易被干预，可以推翻 代码是法律。 如果 可以 否决 代码是法律, 你没有 代码是法律, 你只是假装它是暂时的。 Whether on a philosophical, social, or financial level, Ethereum™'s central points of failure have already shown it to be captured.

Other thought leaders in Ethereum Foundation say that Code is Law is an inhumane, sociopathic concept; future DAO Fork level "corrections" are on the table for Ethereum™, and that is a feature, not a bug. The problem with the Code isn't Law position is that it misunderstands the fundamental value proposition of blockchains, which are useful because special interests can't overrule them. For everything else, there are much more efficient options. 代码的问题不是法律 的立场是它误解了区块链的基本价值建议。 有用的 因为 特殊利益不能推翻它们。 就所有其他方面而言，还有更有效率的选择。

On top of this, despite the gaslighting that continues to this day, The DAO Fork was an objective dog's dinner, which only adds empirical evidence supporting the Code is Law case. Subjective intervention in supposedly unstoppable applications is inherently messy and must be avoided. 对所谓无法阻止的应用进行主观干预本质上是不明确的，必须避免。 对所谓无法阻止的应用进行主观干预本质上是不明确的，必须避免。

双击绑定

For Ethereum™, major problems remain regardless of whether code is or isn't law; it is in a philosophical double bind. It cannot square the circle of its past performance contradicting its value proposition, and it is left with a dangling thread that increasingly tempts the kitten of fate the longer it remains unpulled. 它不能平息其过去的表现，违背其价值主张。 而且它留下了一个令人刺耳的线索，日趋诱人命中命运的陷阱，越久不被挖出。

像Wile E. 科约特正在关闭片段 这是让尚未回答问题的教导人以未来DAO Fork 级别选择的形式敲击的时候了。 EtherumTM 当前对 代码的战略模糊性是法律 可能有助于暂时缓和利益。 但这将在今后只会造成更严重的问题。

In contrast with Ethereum Classic, in Ethereum™, the question "When should applications be stopped?" remains unanswered. For instance, whatever process determining whether forks should happen on Ethereum™ has decided that the victims of replay attacks caused by The DAO Hard Fork should not get another Hard Fork to make them whole, let alone all the major Smart Contract bugs and DeFi Hacks. Presumably, allowing these losses is a level of sociopathy acceptable to the Code isn't Law brigade. In contrast with Ethereum Classic, in Ethereum™, the question "When should applications be stopped?" remains unanswered. For instance, whatever process determining whether forks should happen on Ethereum™ has decided that the victims of replay attacks caused by The DAO Hard Fork should not get another Hard Fork to make them whole, let alone all the major Smart Contract bugs and DeFi Hacks. Presumably, allowing these losses is a level of sociopathy acceptable to the Code isn't Law brigade. 例如， 无论在EtherumTM上确定派生是否应该发生派生的过程如何，都已经决定，由DAO Hard Fork 引起的重放攻击的受害者不应该再得到一个硬派来使他们变成 个整数 个整体。 可以推测，允许 这些 丢失是一种可以被 代码所接受的社会疗法水平 旅不是法律。

Having this question remain unanswered is bound to create future issues and is the core reason why Ethereum Classic openly advocates for the principle of Code is Law in all circumstances. While it may not always be the most convenient position at any given moment, it is the only stance that can treat all participants neutrally, remain philosophically consistent, and therefore has the potential to stand the test of time. 虽然它在任何时候都可能不是最方便的立场，但它是能够中立对待所有参与者的唯一立场。 在哲学上保持连贯性，因此有可能经得起时间的考验。

五. 结论

The DAO Fork story shows how Ethereum was hijacked by a highly motivated special interest group, who forced through a misguided change on the network at everyone's expense. For Ethereum™, The Hard Fork was a disaster. Not only did it cause the community and network to split, forfeiting its precious Code as Law status, but in a bout of poetic justice, The DAO Fork ended up returning fewer funds to DAO Token Holders than the non-fork alternative that respected Code is Law would have. 对于以太过硬的风格，硬叉是一场灾难。 对于以太过硬的风格，硬叉是一场灾难。 它不仅导致社区和网络分裂， 丧失其宝贵的 代码作为法律 状态，但是在诗歌正义中， DAO Fork 最后向DAO Token Holders 退还的资金少于尊重 代码为法律 的非叉。

所发生的真正、持久的破坏是对远远超出以太空边界的加密空间文化造成的。 The real, lasting damage that occurred was inflicted upon the culture of the cryptocurrency space far beyond the boundaries of Ethereum. Regrettably, a generation of new entrants do not care about or openly ridicule "Code is Law" as undesirable, and the ecosystem is set up for another massive The DAO scale failure leading to subjective interference in the near future, or worse, the censorship of users who depend on immutability.

Despite the chaos, one project, or more specifically, one philosophy, while it was far from evident at the time, did massively benefit from the Hard Fork; Ethereum Classic and Code is Law. In the end, the real "winners" of the vicious Hard Fork debate were the anti-forkers, who were proved right by the chain split and the return of recovered ETC, demonstrating that the Hard Fork wasn't necessary. Moreover, the moment it was apparent that The Original Ethereum Vision would not go silently into the night, it was settled; Code is Law prevails. 最后，邪恶的硬叉辩论的真正“赢家”是反叉车， 经链分解和收回的ETC归还证明，硬叉是没有必要的。 最后，邪恶的硬叉辩论的真正“赢家”是反叉车， 经链分解和收回的ETC归还证明，硬叉是没有必要的。 此外，当 原始以太空视图 显然不会默默无声地进入夜晚时，它已经被安置。 法典是法律 优先。

但要等一分钟，这是否严重？ 只需看看以太鲁姆古典的市场上限与以太森！ But hold on a minute, is this serious? Just look at Ethereum Classic's market cap compared to Ethereum! In what world is Ethereum Classic considered a winner?

对于那些获得 代码的人来说， 是法律 并且理解区块链的真正价值，答案是显而易见的。 There is a world of difference between market cap and network value, and while the market can stay irrational for a long time, eventually all blockchains will face existential challenges that can only be overcome through an _unwavering commitment to unstoppability. 缓慢而稳步地赢得了这个种族。 缓慢而稳步地赢得了这个种族。

Having chosen to abandon Code is Law, Ethereum™ must live with this decision going forward, including during future crises where its abandonment may prove to be a fatal mistake. Luckily for humanity, though, Ethereum Classic will be there to pick up the pieces when this happens. 幸运的是，为了人类，爱森古姆经典会在发生这种情况时拿起碎片。 幸运的是，为了人类，爱森古姆经典会在发生这种情况时拿起碎片。

要理解我们下一步如何才能更仔细地研究支持区块链的核心有用特性。 权力下放，以及为什么ETC 处于长期维持它的独特地位。