The weak link in your article is the “War Inevitably Follows” idea.
Elliot Olds

ETH and ETC didn’t fight over the Ethereum brand, because the Ethereum Foundation has a trademark. A Bitcoin split will most definitely cause a huge fight over the brand. Not sure if it came through in the article, but that is pretty big motivation for people to be fighting and doing nasty things to each other.

Relatively speaking ETC has very little resources (that is, they’re definitely NOT well-funded) compared to what the minority of a Bitcoin fork will have and thus couldn’t wage much of a war against ETH. The fact that ETC exists at all is a testament to how you can’t just stamp out even a very small minority. The fact that Vitalik runs Ethereum more or less authoritatively helps a lot here since he’s got more moral authority over Ethereum than anyone does in Bitcoin.

The ecosystem around Bitcoin is also a lot more varied than in Ethereum. It’s simply been around a lot longer and there’s a lot more communal property to split, if you will. I wish I were wrong, but the divorce is going to be a lot nastier with a lot more suffering and attacks simply because there’s more at stake and more people with more resources to contest them.

There’s a lot of motivation to be seen as the better coin as the infrastructure around Bitcoin now will migrate to it. Obviously, the features each coin wants will be in their coin, but a far more sinister way to win is simply to attack. ETC never had a chance to win. The minority fork in Bitcoin has a far greater chance and that will be used to justify a whole lot of nastiness.

Thanks for writing your thoughts. Good to know where my argument isn’t clear.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Jimmy Song’s story.