With the Ethereum Merge approaching, why are miners threatening to fork? How would a fork impact Ethereum? Why is ETC surging? Why don't miners switch to ETC instead of creating a new chain? All your burning questions answered here.
Understanding the Ethereum Merge
The Ethereum Merge represents a monumental shift from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS). This transition isn't just about energy efficiency—it fundamentally alters how Ethereum secures its network and processes transactions.
How Does the Merge Process Work?
Consensus Layer vs. Execution Layer:
- The consensus layer (new PoS validators) replaces PoW miners, while the execution layer (EVM) remains unchanged.
- Users experience no functional difference—transactions and smart contracts operate as usual.
What If PoW Miners Refuse to Upgrade?
- The "Difficulty Bomb" ensures PoW becomes increasingly harder to mine, slowing block times from ~13 seconds to minutes or hours.
- PoS ETH maintains a fixed 12-second block time, ensuring faster transactions and higher throughput.
Can Miners Force a PoW Fork?
Technically yes, but:
- New forks must modify core fields (e.g., restore
ommers, repurposedifficulty). - Economic viability hinges on exchanges listing the forked token—otherwise, miners face unsustainable costs.
- New forks must modify core fields (e.g., restore
Why Is ETC Surging?
ETC’s Role as a Miner Alternative
- Limited Capacity: ETC’s current hash rate (~25 TH/s) is just 2.7% of ETH’s, creating a bottleneck for migrating miners.
- Price vs. Hash Rate: ETC’s price must rise exponentially to justify miner migration (currently at a 1:50 price ratio with ETH).
ETC’s Technical and Security Challenges
- 51% Attacks: ETC’s smaller hash rate makes it vulnerable to double-spend attacks (e.g., Nicehash rentals cost ~20–30 BTC/day to attack ETC).
- Weak DeFi Ecosystem: With only ~$100K TVL, ETC lacks robust dApps, deterring long-term miner commitment.
PoS ETH: Security and Finality
Advantages Over PoW
- Deterministic Finality: PoS blocks are irreversible once validated by 2/3 of staked ETH, eliminating reorganization risks.
- Attack Cost: Manipulating PoS ETH requires $140M+ in staked ETH, making attacks economically unfeasible.
Why ETH’s Design Matters
- ETH’s multi-phase rollout (including future VDF-based randomness) ensures long-term scalability and security.
- Unlike narrative-driven L1 competitors, ETH’s technical rigor and community trust cement its position as the leading smart contract platform.
Key Takeaways
- ETH PoW Forks: High risk, low reward—dependent on exchange support.
- ETC’s Limitations: Hash rate and security issues cap its growth potential.
- PoS Superiority: Lower energy use, faster transactions, and unhackable finality make ETH a safer bet.
👉 Explore more about Ethereum’s future
FAQs
Q: Will ETH PoW forks have value?
A: Only if exchanges list them—otherwise, they’ll likely crash (e.g., BCHA’s fate).
Q: Why can’t miners just switch to ETC?
A: ETC’s small capacity and low ROI make it a short-term fix, not a solution.
Q: Is PoS ETH really safer?
A: Yes! Its $140M+ attack cost and deterministic finality eliminate PoW’s reorganization risks.
👉 Dive deeper into ETH’s security
Original insights by 0xTodd. Adapted with permission.