> I would follow ETH only because it's backed by the original developers. The reversion happened only because member(s) of Ethereum Foundation personally invested in DAO, so they easily could and did push hard at the root (devs).
The much bigger problem was that they didn't want anybody to control 14% of all ETH with the switch of PoS on the horizon. This was IMO the most pressing issue. That people got their ETH back (well, those who didn't panic sell) was a nice side-effect which convinced people to follow the ETH chain.
> Even with all that, there's no certainty that another big mistake will be reverted by devs' will or even be technically possible having to deal with Turing completeness and zk-SNARKs "soon (TM)".
Yeah, only because of some quirks on how TheDAO is implemented, it could be resolved that way. In slightly different circumstances, a fix won't be possible.
The much bigger problem was that they didn't want anybody to control 14% of all ETH with the switch of PoS on the horizon. This was IMO the most pressing issue. That people got their ETH back (well, those who didn't panic sell) was a nice side-effect which convinced people to follow the ETH chain.
> Even with all that, there's no certainty that another big mistake will be reverted by devs' will or even be technically possible having to deal with Turing completeness and zk-SNARKs "soon (TM)".
Yeah, only because of some quirks on how TheDAO is implemented, it could be resolved that way. In slightly different circumstances, a fix won't be possible.