As a huge supporter of , and investor in Ethereum , I ' m going to have to disagree with you here . If you build a system that at its core relies on machine consensus , its whole purpose is called into question if a small group of people are called upon to tell users which machine consensus , of competing consensuses , is the correct version . I don ' t think brushing the issue off by saying it ' s OK as exchanges who made them an authority on the network anyway ? have cautioned that there may be issues and that they can mitigate the problem , is helpful . If Ethereum wants to realise its goals , incidences like this simply can ' t happen . What if in a couple of years , I had settled an important big money trade I had been planning for months on a decentralised exchange only to find I had done so on the wrong implentation and that my bet was null and void ? Now zoom out and add me to possibly hundreds of thousands or millions of other users in the same boat and you ' ve got yourself a cost of consensus failure that could run into the millions of dollars or more . Right there you ' ve got yourself a powerful interest group that has a huge incentive to act as a unit to claim a competing history where their transactions are not void is the correct one . Who decides who ' s right and who ' s wrong in this argument ? Decentralised systems come at a cost . For that cost you ' re supposed to get unrivalled reliability . I get the benefit of multiple implementations but that benefit cannot come at the cost of what happened today and I ' m not sure how a repeat can be prevented if the decision is to persevere with the heterogeneous approach . Despite believing that without machine consensus being king there ' s little point to the work we ' re doing in this space , I voted in favour of the DAO HF largely because I could forsee a future where such an argument would be rendered moot . In this scenario , I ' m not so sure if I can .