Where the panel landed
The panel largely agreed that Ethereum Classic was the more principled chain after the DAO hard fork, even if miners had financial reasons to follow the new Ethereum chain. Gabriel Divay and Tone Vays both praised the immutability argument behind Ethereum Classic, while Theo Goodman framed the hard fork as a precedent that could invite future demands for reversals. On patents and central-bank digital currencies, the panel was skeptical of intellectual property and state money, but more trusting of Blockstream’s defensive intent than of Coinbase, 21, or government-led blockchain projects.
What they were watching
Price was not the main frame, though Ethereum Classic was described as having about 1% of hash power after roughly 30% of miners reportedly opposed the hard fork. Steem was watched as a market-cap spectacle, chasing Ether with three currencies, withdrawal limits, and posts allegedly worth thousands of dollars. Bitcoin itself was treated less as a price chart than as the working system underneath meetups, payments, and protocol development.
Ethereum Classic Continues
The original Ethereum chain survived after the DAO hard fork under the Ethereum Classic name. Theo supported the continued chain because it rejected reassignment of coins, while Gabriel highlighted the argument that immutability and decentralization require sacrifice.
Principles And The Hard Fork
Tone argued that Ethereum had always marketed itself as whatever users wanted it to be: currency, gas, proof of work, proof of stake, immutable, and reversible. He saw Ethereum Classic as potentially more principled because it at least committed to the immutability that the forked chain had compromised.
Mining The Losing Chain
The panel noted that miners had business reasons to mine the more profitable chain even if they philosophically preferred Ethereum Classic. Tone said he would mine Classic in principle, while Gabriel said he would sell Ethereum mining gear and buy Bitcoin mining gear.
Blockstream Defensive Patents
Blockstream’s defensive patent strategy was discussed alongside patent filings from Coinbase, 21, Bank of America, BitGo, Mastercard, Amazon, Western Union, and IBM. Gabriel rejected intellectual property on principle but liked defensive patent structures as a way to undermine the patent system from within.
Consortium Versus Solo Patents
Thomas argued that Blockstream should work toward a consortium with other Bitcoin companies to pool patents defensively. Tone trusted Blockstream more than other crypto companies and saw its technical work, including the FIBRE relay network, as a stronger contribution than its public messaging.
Central Banks Discover Digital Currency
The panel discussed central banks issuing digital currency and replacing commercial banks as payment middlemen. Tone argued that most money is already digital and that the real motive is eliminating cash, enabling negative interest rates, preventing visible bank runs, and increasing tax surveillance.
Government Coins And Coercion
Theo and Gabriel treated central-bank coins as governments trying to remain relevant in the face of Bitcoin. Gabriel said such coins would compete with Bitcoin through coercion and legal tender rules rather than market value and permissionless access.
Steem And Tokenized Content
Steem returned as a major skepticism target, with the panel questioning its three-currency design, withdrawal controls, market cap, and white paper. Theo warned that users with large nominal balances might never extract that value, while Gabriel and Tone called the system vague, overcomplicated, and likely unsustainable.
If you set this as a standard of something that can happen, then hey, Vitalik, I sent 25 Ethereum to the wrong address.— Theo Goodman
Ethereum never had any principles.— Tone Vays
if your blockchain isn't immutable, it's not a blockchain— Tone Vays
I believe it is an oxymoron.— Gabriel Divay
What steam is doing is that it didn't sell their scam coin.— Tone Vays
Bitcoin keeps going, keeps working, keeps being good.— Gabriel Divay
Story of the Week
Ethereum Classic Claims The Principle
The dominant story was Ethereum Classic continuing on the original chain after Ethereum hard forked to reverse the DAO exploit. Theo argued that once Ethereum forked for one theft, users could ask for forks for every lost phone, wrong address, or stolen wallet. Gabriel emphasized Arvicco’s argument that immutability required sacrifice, and Tone said Ethereum had never really had principles until Ethereum Classic tried to claim one. The episode turned the fork from a technical event into a values test: who believed the chain was final when finality became expensive?
I think that's great that there's Ethereum Classic and that people are still on that chain that didn't do the hard fork— Theo Goodman