In February 2023, Forbes published an article titled “What Is Ethereum Classic?” authored by contributor Dan Ashmore and edited by Michael Adams. While the piece attempts to explain Ethereum Classic (ETC), it repeats several long-standing misconceptions about the blockchain. This response aims to clarify those inaccuracies, uphold factual integrity, and provide a deeper understanding of ETC’s role in the evolving blockchain landscape.
Our goal is not only to correct the record but also to educate readers on why Ethereum Classic remains a vital, secure, and principled pillar of decentralized technology.
👉 Discover how blockchain security shapes the future of digital assets
What Is Ethereum Classic?
The original Forbes article states:
“Ethereum Classic was created through a fork of the original Ethereum blockchain. Like many other blockchain forks, ETC was created due to ideological and technical disagreements within the community.”
While it's true that a fork led to two separate chains, this statement misrepresents which chain is the original.
Ethereum Classic is the original Ethereum blockchain, launched on July 30, 2015. It has operated continuously without any irregular state changes. The network that underwent a controversial rollback—the one now known as Ethereum (ETH)—was the new chain created after the DAO incident in 2016. ETC preserved the immutability principle; ETH altered its ledger.
This distinction is crucial: Ethereum Classic didn’t emerge from a split—it is the unaltered legacy of Ethereum’s genesis.
Ethereum Classic and the DAO Incident
The article correctly notes:
“Due to the scale of the hack, some members proposed reversing the ETH blockchain... Others believed this would set a dangerous precedent… A vote was held… The ETH blockchain was forked, and the minority maintained the original, unmodified Ethereum chain as Ethereum Classic.”
This section aligns with historical facts. The DAO hack prompted a community divide. One group prioritized recovering stolen funds via a hard fork (leading to ETH). Another upheld blockchain immutability, continuing on the original chain—now ETC.
Yet while this part acknowledges ETC as the original chain, earlier sections contradict it—a clear inconsistency in messaging.
Why Immutability Matters
Immutability isn’t just ideology; it’s foundational to trustless systems. Once data can be rewritten, users must trust intermediaries to decide what’s valid. That undermines decentralization.
Ethereum Classic enforces this principle strictly: no rollbacks, no exceptions. Transactions are final. Smart contracts execute as written. This makes ETC uniquely resistant to censorship and external influence.
Ethereum vs. Ethereum Classic: Key Differences
The article claims:
“ETH and ETC are incompatible with Ethereum blockchain updates.”
While technically accurate regarding consensus mechanisms, this oversimplifies user and developer experiences.
Both chains use the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) standard, meaning:
- Smart contracts are largely compatible.
- Developer tools (like Solidity) work across both platforms.
- Wallets, explorers, and dApps often support both networks seamlessly.
Where they differ is in consensus:
- Ethereum (ETH) uses Proof-of-Stake (PoS), requiring validators to stake 32 ETH (~$100K+).
- Ethereum Classic (ETC) retains Proof-of-Work (PoW), allowing open participation through mining.
This difference defines their philosophical divergence: permissionless access vs. capital-based control.
👉 Explore how consensus models impact decentralization and security
Post-Merge Migration: Miners Move to ETC
After Ethereum’s 2022 transition to PoS:
- Millions of dollars’ worth of mining hardware became obsolete.
- Miners sought PoW alternatives—and found ETC.
Hash rate surged by 280%, making ETC the largest smart contract PoW blockchain in existence.
Clarifying Misconceptions
Forbes links this surge to staking pools and Tornado Cash sanctions—but that’s incorrect.
- Staking pools are irrelevant to PoW mining.
- Tornado Cash sanctions affected ETH’s reputation but didn’t drive miners to ETC.
The real driver? Simple economics. When ETH abandoned PoW, miners needed a viable alternative. ETC offered continuity—same algorithm (Ethash), proven infrastructure, and growing network security.
Ideological Divide: Security vs. Flexibility
Forbes frames the split as:
“Cryptocurrency purists favor free, censorship-resistant models; pragmatists prefer Ethereum’s adaptability.”
This framing oversimplifies a fundamental truth: blockchain security depends on decentralization.
Proof-of-Work vs. Proof-of-Stake: A Security Analysis
| Aspect | Proof-of-Work (ETC) | Proof-of-Stake (ETH) |
|---|---|---|
| Entry Barrier | Low – anyone with hardware can mine | High – 32 ETH required |
| Censorship Resistance | High – miners globally distributed | Lower – validators subject to regulation |
| Trust Assumptions | Minimal – rules enforced cryptographically | Higher – relies on trusted finality gadgets |
| Cost of Attack | Extremely high – requires physical resources | Lower – attackers can “fake” stake or collude |
PoW ensures security through energy expenditure—a real-world cost that deters attacks. PoS relies on social consensus and protocol enforcement, introducing centralization risks.
When ETH migrated to PoS, over 60% of blocks were immediately censored, demonstrating vulnerability to regulatory pressure.
ETC’s adherence to PoW maintains true decentralization—no single entity controls validation.
Debunking Energy Consumption Myths
Forbes claims:
“PoW consumes vast amounts of energy… Bitcoin mining uses more power than Kazakhstan.”
This narrative ignores context and emerging realities.
Why PoW Energy Use Benefits the Planet
- Renewable Integration: Miners act as flexible energy buyers, absorbing excess wind/solar power that would otherwise go unused.
- Grid Stabilization: By providing consistent demand, PoW helps balance intermittent renewable sources.
- Methane Mitigation: Some operations capture flared methane for mining—turning waste into value.
- Energy Efficiency: “Per transaction” metrics are misleading; Layer 2 solutions handle volume while base layers secure value.
- Economic Incentive: Mining drives investment in green infrastructure—just like any energy-intensive industry.
Critics often overlook that traditional finance consumes far more energy than crypto—without offering comparable transparency or financial inclusion.
Scalability: A Non-Issue in Layered Architecture
Forbes asserts:
“ETC’s inflexible code hinders scalability… Ethereum gets more developer attention.”
This misunderstands modern blockchain design.
The Future Is Layered
All major blockchains follow a layered model:
- Layer 1 (Base Layer): Secure, decentralized settlement (e.g., ETC, BTC).
- Layer 2 (Scaling Layer): High-throughput processing (e.g., rollups, sidechains).
Scalability isn’t solved at Layer 1—it’s outsourced to faster layers that inherit security from the base chain.
ETC supports this model fully. Its EVM compatibility allows seamless integration with existing L2 frameworks. As long as ETC remains secure and stable, it serves perfectly as a settlement layer.
Moreover, ETC developers actively adopt Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs)—including EOF (EVM Object Format)—ensuring technological parity without sacrificing principles.
Market Position and Long-Term Outlook
Despite ETH’s $200B+ market cap versus ETC’s ~$3B:
- Size doesn’t equate to superiority.
- Security and decentralization determine long-term viability.
Why ETC Is Gaining Strength
- Only major PoW smart contract chain post-merge.
- Growing institutional recognition of PoW’s resilience.
- Developer activity increasing, with cross-chain tooling support.
- Historical consistency—no rollbacks, no governance overreach.
As concerns grow around PoS centralization and regulatory capture, ETC’s immutable foundation becomes more attractive.
It may not replace ETH—but it fills a critical niche: a trust-minimized, globally accessible base layer for decentralized applications.
👉 Learn how base layer security influences next-gen dApps
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Is Ethereum Classic just a copy of Ethereum?
No. While ETC shares Ethereum’s early history and EVM compatibility, it operates independently with its own roadmap, community, and consensus rules. It predates the ETH fork and maintains a distinct philosophy centered on immutability and decentralization.
Q: Can Ethereum Classic scale like Ethereum?
Yes—through Layer 2 solutions. Like Bitcoin (via Lightning) or Ethereum itself (via rollups), ETC can offload transactions to secondary layers while relying on its secure base chain for finality.
Q: Isn't PoW wasteful for the environment?
Not when viewed holistically. PoW incentivizes renewable energy adoption, utilizes stranded or wasted power, and contributes to grid stability. Its energy use is increasingly sustainable and economically productive.
Q: Why hasn't ETC adopted PoS like other chains?
Because PoS introduces centralization risks and higher trust assumptions. ETC prioritizes censorship resistance and permissionless participation—core values aligned with Bitcoin and early blockchain ideals.
Q: Is ETC still being developed?
Absolutely. Core teams regularly implement EIPs, upgrade tooling, and enhance network efficiency. Development focuses on stability and compatibility—not radical changes that compromise security.
Q: Could ETC overtake ETH in popularity?
Unlikely in market cap terms—but possible in influence. ETC won’t replace ETH’s ecosystem, but it can dominate as the preferred secure base layer for applications requiring true decentralization.
Final Thoughts: Principles Over Popularity
The Forbes article reflects common misconceptions—that bigger means better, that flexibility trumps security, that energy use is inherently bad.
But history shows otherwise. Systems that prioritize immutability, decentralization, and trust minimization endure.
Ethereum Classic isn’t chasing trends. It’s preserving principles.
And as the blockchain industry matures, those principles may prove more valuable than ever.
Core Keywords: Ethereum Classic, Proof-of-Work, blockchain immutability, decentralized networks, EVM compatibility, cryptocurrency security, Layer 2 scaling