According to Chandler Guo, an influential Chinese bitcoin miner, a proof-of-work (PoW) version of Ethereum is “coming soon.” The news comes as The Merge is expected to be implemented on Ethereum during the week of September 19, and the growing discussions about delaying the highly anticipated transition to proof-of-stake (PoS).
Chinese miner Chandler Guo says “Ethereum PoW” is coming soon
Chandler Guo has tired that an Ethereum proof-of-work (PoW) version will “come soon” ahead of The Merge which has been entered for the week of September 19th. Guo is a famous Chinese cryptocurrency miner and last week he wrote that he had a fork once, and “will fork it again”. However, Guo’s statement contradicts how it officially played out in the summer of 2016, when the Ethereum Classic (ETC) chain was introduced to the world.
I am Chandler Guo, a 51% attack on Ethereum Classic (ETC) comes with my 98G hashrate
At that time, Guo threatened to 51% attacked the ETC chain with approximately 98 gigahash hashrate in July 2016. The following month, Guo told the public that he had “made a mistake” and added: “This is not a joke. This is a revolution. This is freedom. God bless ethereum classic,” Guo added at the time. Despite how it went down, Guo played a role of sorts during ETC’s early days.
Individuals respond to Guo’s tweet saying that a PoW version of Ethereum already exists in Ethereum Classic
Most people were confused by Guo’s comment saying that a PoW version of Ethereum was coming soon. “It’s ETC already. The real immutable Ethereum,” one person black to Guo while sharing an article stating that Bitmain’s Antpool would support ETC by injecting $10 million into the Ethereum Classic ecosystem. Guo has shared other tweets about a PoW version of Ethereum saying “ETH PoW is DAO.”
ETC has already received some PoW hashrate over the past few weeks as the chain’s hashrate is around 26.07 Terahash per second (TH/s) hashpower. ETH’s hash power is progressing at 1.01 petahash per second (PH/s) or about 1000 TH/s. ETH is up 52% against the US dollar over the past month, and in the same time frame, ETC is up 134% against the dollar.
ETH POW is ETC.
— OmniEdge – Free humanity 🌞🧡☘️🌋🔑⚡ (@CryptoHolon) 31 July 2022
ETC has seen support from various parts of the ecosystem and Grayscale launched an ETC trust in January 2017. Ethereum Classic has a much lower hash rate than Ethereum today and ETC has suffered a 51% attack in the past. In fact, ETC has been 51% attacked on several occasions and faced delisting from several exchanges in January 2019 and August 2020.
In addition to Guo’s comment, crypto hedge fund Galois Capital shared a survey on the same day that also discussed the possibility of an Ethereum chain split. At the time, Paolo Ardoino, Chief Technology Officer of Tether, explained that his company would support the PoS version of Ethereum after The Merge.
Tags in this story
2016, 51% attack, Chandler Guo, Chandler Guo ETC, Chandler Guo ETH, Chandler Guo miner, Chandler Guo tweet, Chinese bitcoin miner, ETC, ETC fork, ETH fork, ETH PoW is DAO, Ethereum Classic, ethereum classic (ETC) , Ethereum Classic Hashrate, Ethereum PoW, Grayscale ETC, immutable Ethereum, PoW version of Ethereum
What do you think of Chandler Guo talking about an Ethereum PoW chain? Let us know your thoughts on this topic in the comments section below.
Jamie Redman
Jamie Redman is the news editor at Bitcoin.com News and a financial technology journalist living in Florida. Redman has been an active member of the cryptocurrency community since 2011. He has a passion for Bitcoin, open source and decentralized applications. Since September 2015, Redman has written more than 5,700 articles for Bitcoin.com News about the disruptive protocols emerging today.
Image credit: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or an endorsement or recommendation of products, services or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on content, goods or services mentioned in this article.