Nope Vitalik believes code is law, just like any simple google search will show you. You just seem to be avoiding that all all costs. Strange really, wonder what your true motives are, good luck buddy!
I don't think you read that very well. His response is to Samson Mow (CSO of Blockstream) claiming that Vitalik was "Pivoting to 'Principles are law' from 'Code is law?'". This is because anyone who is even remotely familiar with Ethereum/Vitalik knows how many times Vitalik has said he believes "Code is Law".
Vitalik goes on to defend against Mow's claim that he is "pivoting" by saying that it is indeed a principle. It's extremely clear with basic reading comprehension that Vitalik is claiming that as a principle of his.
Not sure how you extracted the meaning you did. If I'm being honest, you seem to not really be researching the subject in good faith, as a simple google search will turn up many times he's either stated he believes that in text or even video.
You are welcome to believe what you'd like to though, I unfortunately don't have the time to do your research for you, nor do I care to change your mind. So cheers and good luck!
>The idea that a blockchain with thousands of nodes requires redemption from some historical act seems to ignore the very nature of how it functions at a protocol level.
And the idea that it doesn't seems to ignore reality as a whole. Ethereum already had thousands of nodes running when the DAO scandal was perpetrated, that didn't change a thing.
As for your second statement, it stinks of a bag holder grasping at straws. There is zero credibility in the project after the DAO scandal. But you are welcome to convince yourself otherwise.
I'd argue he CAN indeed do it again today. Perhaps not in the exact way as the DAO fiasco, but lets be clear, the fundamental transgression was selling one story "the code is law" and then not abiding by that law when it affected him and his friends aversely.
So can he still commit such an egregious breach of trust in this timeline, despite having done it before? Absolutely, though that and the DAO instance may indeed look different from one another.
It's bizarre to me that one would NOT gauge the credibility of Ethereum today based on what the developers actually did vs what they said they would do. What exactly have they done to redeem themselves from their previous scandal?
I would highly suggest researching options trading, as you appear to be completely confused and/or misinformed about even the most fundamental aspects of options.
If you have a question about options, you can contact the Options Industry Council at 1-888-OPTIONS (1-888-678-4667) or visit its Getting Started web page. On the OIC website, you can also read a number of publications, including the "Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options" booklet.
To the average ignorant trader, sure. Otherwise this statement doesn't hold water. You should really do some research before making such silly uninformed claims.
As another commenter mentioned to you: "Changing the name or updating implementation details is not the same thing as completely abandoning the technology.". I agree with them, your comparison doesn't make much sense in this context.
I believe you are mistaken, the purpose of Bitcoin was very clear from the whitepaper title. It was to create "a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Bitcoin Cash is the real, continued implementation of bitcoin, as it was designed in its whitepaper. BTC is simply an attempt (rather good one at that) by bad actors, to purposely hamper the protocol and then sell offchain solutions to solve those issues they introduced.
Right. Now lets ask ourselves why one would need to spend hundreds to play a particular game. The answer you will come across most commonly is platform exclusivity deals. I am happy to pay for a game, but not buy the hardware for a system I don't want, just because they leveraged their business clout to prohibit games from releasing on other platforms. In this case, I could care less about the bottom line of the console company or the game company who agreed to what I view as a corrupt collaboration.