The problem is forking to undo a specific transaction. That should never happen. The fact that so many people over-invested in a risky experimental project that they felt they had to sabotage the protocol to protect themselves reflects very poorly on the community.

This is a screenshot of the choice everyone was asked when starting up their wallet: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Et...

Ability for a community to set and agree to new rules is healthy for a blockchain and it makes it more likely that Ethereum can evolve and successfully hardfork to Proof of Stake (PoS) mining in the future.

If you don't like what NYT says, and you cancel your subscription and subscribe to WSJ (and let's just say that millions of people do the same thing, possibly due to some event), have you effectively censored NYT then?

The fact is, censorship has a meaning, and the way you're using the language, abuses that. We didn't censor Ubuntu when because of their unity decision lots of people moved to Linux Mint or to other distros.

We didn't censor Digg when it lost a huge traffic to Reddit after the v3 changes.

Uber wasn't censored when after the controversial immigration changes by Trump, people started to delete uber app and ride Lyft.

Censorship is when an organization forces your speech from all effective expression.

Will ETC be invoking censorship when they hard fork to eliminate the upcoming Ice Age baked into the Ethereum protocol?

Look back to the screenshot in my post. Censorship is when you conceal information. The screenshot clearly specifies a yes/no choice without leaning to any choice. (it specifies you can use any chains you want, both buttons are blue).

If only the bitcoin core developers were as brave as that to put something like this in their client and let the community reach consensus! "Hi, we are over capacity. Do you want bigger blocks? Yes / No". Instead, we see any post that doesn't fit their narrative deleted. Now that's censorship.

Fine: it wasn't wiped from the block chain. That's irrelevant; that argument is nonsense.

Ethereum already had plans to from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake as a consensus algorithm (in Q3).

The attacker stole over 10 million ETH

How would you feel using a system whose transactions are audited in majority by a thief?

Everyone who wants someone to blame, keeps forgetting to place blame on the miners who facilitated this decision.

But for this to happen, a hard fork was needed and if enough of the miners would have rejected that, it wouldn't have happened.

In part, this is exactly what happened. The hard fork was done but a group of miners used code without the new rules, therefore creating a separate blockchain.

Ethereum is the Ethereum blockchain where the DAO hacker was drained, Ethereum Classic is the Ethereum blockchain were their account wasn't drained (lots of turmoil followed on the ETC chain but that's a different issue).

So basically you're saying centralized, institutionally backed and controlled currencies are better, or at least you're saying that hard forks are ok. Ok great. We have the dollar for that. Why even bother with cryptos.

Network-based trust decentralization, even with limitations on its effectiveness, does provide somewhat provable insurance against state actors. Currently, state actors and state actor based monopolies are the biggest barriers to financial service innovation and essentially seek a continued global monopoly on financial systems access and financial systems derived intelligence feeds, largely self-justified with 'four horsemen of the internet apocalypse'[0] FUD[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

The blockchain is not an effective "insurance against state actors" on the macro scale.

I think of it like physical gold, but with more utility - you don't use it for day to day transactions, but as a store of value it is very good.