The tale of two circuits
The blockchain is not just a huge pile of data created by miners and users. It is not only the specification that describes the valid movement and the Genesis block describing the initial state.
What makes the blockchain is really valuable is the human consensus, having a widespread view that the creation of a machine of consensus, in accordance with a certain rule set will be useful. Along with exactly defined the Genesis block, the chain is also born with a set of attached ideas. Each user can have its own set of ideas about what the circuit may be valuable and how valuable it is.Unfortunately, the individual may be the assumption, falsely perceived as a General consensus. Such false assumptions are to remain in the shadows until then, until an event occurs that will lead to a divergence of opinion about what to do next. Say, you want to make a decision on execution or rejection of a fork, and different people have different opinions, which it will affect the value network. At this moment it's too late to take up the discussion of core values and try to come to consensus. The damage would in any case be inflicted. Where interests coincided previously, now will be a conflict. Each side is biased, and can blame another. We believe in the existence of a "social contract" and suddenly realized that it is actually there (or, at least, some people broke his rules according to his understanding). You can't destroy another chain, but wish her death. Logical arguments are drowning in a flood of hatred. The beginning of the war supposed.
Whichever networks you support, war is bad. Of course, a single community with one chain would be the best solution, but it will not work, because we don't agree on key issues. Even in the most fundamental of them. The lack of a well-defined ‘social contract’ at the stage of the Genesis block was a huge mistake. By the way, I have had a false view of him. I was shock that some people within the organization support the intervention (i.e. intervention with the aim of returning stolen from the TAO of ether). I thought we all agree that there should be no "higher justice", except the execution result of the virtual machine Ethereum, and that 'stolen' ether is the legitimate property of the thief. I thought that we will be proud of the fact that, contrary to public outrage, the system is so reliable that will be able to protect his/her property. And in the GO team I was definitely not alone in such views. But as it turned out, we were wrong. People are still attached to their sense of justice higher than the law of immutability in your code. This realization has somewhat saddened me, but whatever it is, get the money for that developing the coolest technology in the world, was still a dream job (even if the majority thought differently). I won't call them fools. I do not consider them trolls. I also don't think they are right because they are in the majority. The truth doesn't work. I intend to keep my eyes open and to carefully perceive events to learn a lesson from this situation.I realized the fact that sooner or later, blockchain without a clearly defined social contract will face serious problems. Interestingly, at the moment, the old network of ‘Classic’ has a much better social contract. We can assume that those who see the value in Classic, I believe that an unintended outcome of the TAO of the contract could not be considered a reason for the fork. This network (Classic) will never face a similar crisis for similar reasons. On the other hand, the holders of ETH in the new network may not agree with the fact that this fork is a precedent for all future similar cases or one-off problems.
I don't think fornata the network is done. I just want to say that we have no strategies in place for such cases. Before the next major event of this plan, we may have time to develop consensus about what to do in such situations. So the people making decisions will know exactly what can and can't happen with a chain, which they have entrusted their money. In any case, I urge everyone to calm down and not be hostile to people from the other camp, because what is happening is very harmful to both circuits. Everyone has a right and even a moral obligation to follow their own set of values, and it's easy to do it in a civilized way. Perhaps the old chain will survive, but perhaps not. The main reason I wish she didn't die, is that it is a striking experiment of two independent networks with different values will coexist. It may even increase the chances of success of the entire project (including your chances of not losing money in a potential time of crisis if you keep your tools in both networks).
PS Nice to see the people behind the project https://ethereumclassic.github.io/ support the work of the old chain, but let's be clear about this: we (the developers of Ethereum) has never refused it. We do not forcall network. We have implemented a switch in our client, so that users themselves could make the choice to forcat or not to forcat. The Ethereum network Classic to the same extent is our child, as well as Portnoy Ethereum. And if both networks will survive (and this will also be the users choice, not ours) in the future I intend to equally take care of both of them.