Satoshi wrote in 2010:
"I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint."
<a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611" rel="nofollow">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611</a><p>In ETH land, the wise guidance of Satoshi is regularly ignored.
Can somebody explain the significance?<p>Is this related to the conflict between devs and miners where devs want to reduce the mining fees and miners responded by creating a fork?
Back up and running: <a href="https://forkmon.ethdevops.io/" rel="nofollow">https://forkmon.ethdevops.io/</a><p>Might take a bit to sync
It seems the issue was in how OpenEthereum handled access lists introduced by EIP2929/2930. They were adding built-in contract addresses to access lists in blocks before those addresses were activated.
Fireblocks (massive institutional settlement platform for crypto-to-crypto and crypto-to-fiat transactions (like bank-size transactions) is on openethereum too -- all the settlements are completely backed up right now and tether is going really bid
My former employer (major exchange) switched from Parity / Openethereum after the last major issue. The Parity devs gave it up when they switched to focusing on Polkadot and the community is not super committed to it. Geth is the safer choice.