<center>![Is Ethereum Classic a fork of Ethereum?](https://images.hive.blog/DQmdSEvkqmFaqY9aFZZwKGJyr12ATQspdbsEEJDES1ddX2k/is-ethereum-classic-a-fork.png)</center>

**Direct from the desk of Dane Williams.**

<br>

---

<br>

## No. Even though it was the original chain that had to rebrand, Ethereum (ETH) is technically a fork of Ethereum Classic (ETC)

As [Ethereum Classic (ETC)](https://leofinance.io/@crypto-guides/what-is-ethereum-classic-etc) maintains the original blockchain, [Ethereum (ETH)](https://leofinance.io/@crypto-guides/what-is-ethereum-eth) is technically a fork of ETC.

It was the Ethereum Foundation and its co-founder Vitalik Buterin that moved on by forking to reverse the transactions that occurred during the DAO hack. 

So Ethereum is the fork, **NOT Ethereum Classic.**

<center>![ETC: The classic Ethereum banner.](https://images.hive.blog/DQmV7MhPGL8JDgJh4az3dXGrJ6HLzoRBke328oHvs2o8MUZ/etc-the-classic-ethereum.png)</center>


### Wait, so Ethereum (ETH) is the fork?
This is confusing to many because not often is the original chain forced to rebrand.

Just look at [Hive](https://leofinance.io/@crypto-guides/what-is-hive-crypto-hive) forking from Steem for example.

Steem got to keep the original branding and something that still burns me personally to this day… the excellent *steemit.com* domain.

But this just shows the control that Vitalik Buterin had not only over the project itself, but also over the exchanges that had to decide how to proceed when it came to their listings.

Of course they sided with Vitalik, meaning the fork therefore got to keep the ETH branding.

This meant those continuing the original Ethereum chain were the ones forced to rebrand in order to differentiate themselves from Vitalik and the new chain.

So even though they were the original, they look like the fork.


### The Vitalik dictatorship
Ultimately it was the cartel of major exchanges that made the decision to give the ETH code to the fork.

This was likely based on the popularity and recognition of the Ethereum brand at the time, as well as the fact that the new forked chain was being led by Vitalik Buterin.

Letting the fork keep it would have made it easier for users and traders to understand and recognise the new chain as a continuation of Ethereum. 

Additionally, some exchanges may have had existing contracts or agreements with Ethereum that made it easier to simply list the forked chain as Ethereum under the same ticker. 

While some argue that Vitalik's influence was necessary for the growth and success of Ethereum, others raised concerns about the potential for centralisation and loss of the decentralised ethos that blockchain technology was founded upon.

But as you can see from this branding debate, the importance of control and influence in the blockchain space can not be underestimated. 

For 99% of the projects out there, it is all that matters.

Ultimately, the blockchain space is still in its early stages and everyone is still figuring out how to balance the need for control with the end goal of decentralisation. 

The Vitalik dictatorship’s role in the Ethereum fork however, shows the importance of these factors cannot be underestimated.

Not to mention that whether we like it or not, they will likely continue to shape the evolution of blockchain technology.


### Long live Ethereum Classic
To wrap up, Ethereum is technically a fork of Ethereum Classic. 

But it was Vitalik Buterin's influence and final decision to fork Ethereum in order to reverse the DAO hack transactions that ultimately led to Ethereum becoming the dominant chain.

Leaving Ethereum Classic, original or not, to fend for itself with new exchange listings that differentiate it as now a minority chain. 

This Ethereum branding debate ultimately highlights the importance of control in the blockchain space and how it can impact the success of a project.

Long live Ethereum Classic!

Best of probabilities to you.

Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/@forexbrokr/is-ethereum-classic-a-fork-of-ethereum)