|
Title: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 17, 2016, 05:04:24 PM Investors agreed to give their ETH to whomever it was who figured out how to take them up on their offer.
Read this carefully. The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation. (Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim.) Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Biodom on June 17, 2016, 05:07:43 PM Investors agreed to give their ETH to whomever it was who figured out how to take them up on their offer. Read this carefully. Quote from: https://daohub.org/explainer.html The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation. (Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim.) well, then, bitcoin should have 184 billion coins right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bitcoin Quote On 6 August 2010, a major vulnerability in the bitcoin protocol was spotted. Transactions weren't properly verified before they were included in the transaction log or "block chain" which let users bypass bitcoin's economic restrictions and create an indefinite number of bitcoins.On 15 August, the vulnerability was exploited; over 184 billion bitcoins were generated in a transaction, and sent to two addresses on the network. Within hours, the transaction was spotted and erased from the transaction log after the bug was fixed and the network forked to an updated version of the bitcoin protocol. Let's re-reverse THAT. Incidentally, I am neutral on DAO reversal. If eth will crash, i will diversify more of my fiat (not btc) toward it. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Biodom on June 17, 2016, 05:08:25 PM Selfhack like all scammers do. yeah, THIS needs to me checked out for sure Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 17, 2016, 05:10:41 PM well, then, bitcoin should have 184 billion coins right now. Please quote, as I did above, where Satoshi said that the code overrides the stated specifications and everyone who got involved with Bitcoin explicitly agreed to that, because I've been around a while and I've never seen it. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: NUFCrichard on June 17, 2016, 05:11:18 PM Investors agreed to give their ETH to whomever it was who figured out how to take them up on their offer. Read this carefully. Quote from: https://daohub.org/explainer.html The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation. (Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim.) well, then, bitcoin should have 184 billion coins right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bitcoin Quote On 6 August 2010, a major vulnerability in the bitcoin protocol was spotted. Transactions weren't properly verified before they were included in the transaction log or "block chain" which let users bypass bitcoin's economic restrictions and create an indefinite number of bitcoins.On 15 August, the vulnerability was exploited; over 184 billion bitcoins were generated in a transaction, and sent to two addresses on the network. Within hours, the transaction was spotted and erased from the transaction log after the bug was fixed and the network forked to an updated version of the bitcoin protocol. Let's re-reverse THAT. Incidentally, I am neutral on DAO reversal. If eth will crash, i will diversify more of my fiat (not btc) toward it. Will you really trust the next DAO? Will Banks, or companies now trust that it won't be hacked. I remember hearing that Ukraine wanted to use Eth for their election, how can they do that now? Altcoins are based on trust, ETH has lost a lot of that today. If the fork, then that also loses lots of support as it is a centralized coin then. It is no win now. It isn't irrecoverable, but they had better be damn sure that this is a one time event! Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 17, 2016, 05:12:43 PM Selfhack like all scammers do. Not ruling it out, but that makes the hardfork proposal a bit strange. Possibilities include: 1. Selfhack, but for market manipulation purposes, not to steal the coins. 2. Selfhack, but got cold feet. 3. Social engineering/misdirection of the form where they propose a reversal hardfork knowing it won't happen. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: yelllowsin on June 17, 2016, 05:15:43 PM Investors agreed to give their ETH to whomever it was who figured out how to take them up on their offer. Read this carefully. Quote from: https://daohub.org/explainer.html The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation. (Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim.) Do you actually are taking part on the thieves on this quote aren't you? Do you feel any better doing it politely than saying "fuck you" to Dao investors? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Biodom on June 17, 2016, 05:16:28 PM well, then, bitcoin should have 184 billion coins right now. Please quote, as I did above, where Satoshi said that the code overrides the stated specifications and everyone who got involved with Bitcoin explicitly agreed to that, because I've been around a while and I've never seen it. perhaps, but where Satoshi said that validated transactions could be erased? Plus, well, bitcoin was forked to fix the problem, wasn't it? I actually agree that maybe it is not "pure". To me, it means, basically, that NO smart contract is worth investing in, since there will be ALWAYS someone smarter to steal it. "Thou shalt not invest in smart contract(s)" Title: Re: There was no DAO hack ..smart contract(s) ? ROFL Post by: Spoetnik on June 17, 2016, 05:17:35 PM interesting..
but NUFCrichard did you really need to slip in more retarded rumors ? PS: I hear Jesus is thinking about using ETH ::) PPS: ETH is NOT Bitcoin ..hell ETH is not even a currency. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 17, 2016, 05:18:22 PM https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClKl69XVAAAAXsU.jpg
Since the legitimately transferred coins are being auto locked in by a Child DAO for almost a month as designed why is he telling exchanges to freeze trading and deposits? Such a comment is outrageous to make in this context. Oh shit, it gets worse , these guys are literally insane. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClK0vTAXEAAzL1K.jpg Title: Re: There was no DAO hack ..smart contract(s) ? ROFL Post by: NUFCrichard on June 17, 2016, 05:26:06 PM interesting.. but NUFCrichard did you really need to slip in more retarded rumors ? PS: I hear Jesus is thinking about using ETH ::) PPS: ETH is NOT Bitcoin ..hell ETH is not even a currency. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/ukraine-government-plans-to-trial-ethereum-blockchain-based-election-platform-cm585001 that 'retarded rumour'? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: billotronic on June 17, 2016, 05:27:37 PM Investors agreed to give their ETH to whomever it was who figured out how to take them up on their offer. Read this carefully. Quote from: https://daohub.org/explainer.html The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation. (Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim.) Do you actually are taking part on the thieves on this quote aren't you? Do you feel any better doing it politely than saying "fuck you" to Dao investors? I have no problems saying fuck you. People throw money at things they do not comprehend and this is the result. Just another day on bitcointalk. This is barely even news worthy. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack ..smart contract(s) ? ROFL Post by: Spoetnik on June 17, 2016, 05:30:22 PM interesting.. but NUFCrichard did you really need to slip in more retarded rumors ? PS: I hear Jesus is thinking about using ETH ::) PPS: ETH is NOT Bitcoin ..hell ETH is not even a currency. http://www.nasdaq.com/article/ukraine-government-plans-to-trial-ethereum-blockchain-based-election-platform-cm585001 that 'retarded rumour'? So stupid i would have to piss my self laughing at them type of rumor yeah.. So people i the Ukraine are dumb eh ? @billotronic Here ! Here ! Well said man ;D Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: crairezx20 on June 17, 2016, 05:31:41 PM Or how you sure they already fix it? I think they is like the same as other altcoin they are announcing that they are hack but the truth is not they are just saying that so that they can run your money..
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 17, 2016, 05:32:42 PM Do you actually are taking part on the thieves on this quote aren't you? Do you feel any better doing it politely than saying "fuck you" to Dao investors? Research into the concept of "Moral Hazard": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhL1Y1lg35w&feature=youtu.be&t=28m45s Additionally, the "Hacker" didn't steal anything as the whole purpose of Smart Contracts is the CODE IS THE LAW! Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: RealBitcoin on June 17, 2016, 05:33:20 PM https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClKl69XVAAAAXsU.jpg Since the legitimately transferred coins are being auto locked in by a Child DAO for almost a month as designed why is he telling exchanges to freeze trading and deposits? Such a comment is outrageous to make in this context. Oh shit, it gets worse , these guys are literally insane. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClK0vTAXEAAzL1K.jpg It is essentially 100% capital controls. The things we just ought to avoid in cryptocurrencies, ETH has just crossed the line! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516058.msg15255150#msg15255150 Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Biodom on June 17, 2016, 05:43:18 PM history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Bitcoin; 2010 (about a year after start)-similar episode with Bitcoin where 184 billion bitcoins were created in a few transactions, then these transactions were erased and bitcoin forked. 2014-Mt Gox Ethereum: 2016 DAO fiasco (equivalent to 2010 bitcoin episode) 2017-2020 probably an exchange failure (my guess it could the one that rhymes with Kleenex or some other) Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 17, 2016, 05:46:12 PM history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. Bitcoin; 2010 (about a year after start)-similar episode with Bitcoin where 184 billion bitcoins were created in a few transactions, then these transactions were erased and bitcoin forked. 2014-Mt Gox Ethereum: 2016 DAO fiasco (equivalent to 2010 bitcoin episode) 2017-2020 probably an exchange failure (my guess it could the one that rhymes with Kleenex or some other) I still don't even agree that the Bitcoin 184 billion bug was equivalent to the DAO. No bug has been identified in Ethereum. It is executing the DAO smart contract code correctly, afaik. A bug in Ethereum itself would be more analogous. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 17, 2016, 05:50:59 PM To me, it means, basically, that NO smart contract is worth investing in, since there is ALWAYS will be someone smarter to steal it. Agree with you there. Maybe if they could be made much simpler and less error prone, but in their current form, not a good idea. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 17, 2016, 05:51:36 PM history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. Bitcoin; 2010 (about a year after start)-similar episode with Bitcoin where 184 billion bitcoins were created in a few transactions, then these transactions were erased and bitcoin forked. 2014-Mt Gox Ethereum: 2016 DAO fiasco (equivalent to 2010 bitcoin episode) 2017-2020 probably an exchange failure (my guess it could the one that rhymes with Kleenex or some other) I still don't even agree that the Bitcoin 184 billion bug was equivalent to the DAO. No bug has been identified in Ethereum. It is executing the DAO smart contract code correctly, afaik. A bug in Ethereum itself would be more analogous. Maybe it is just all PR and the exploit is on Ethereum side ? hence the Rollback. Interesting theory. I doubt they would be able to hide that for long though. Peter Todd thinks the fact that Ethereum developers are likely heavily invested in the DAO might be relevant: I think that's a terrible precedent, esp. from devs who have lost money. Goxxed BTC devs didn't ask for a bailout. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: sidhujag on June 17, 2016, 05:53:20 PM Selfhack like all scammers do. Not ruling it out, but that makes the hardfork proposal a bit strange. Possibilities include: 1. Selfhack, but for market manipulation purposes, not to steal the coins. 2. Selfhack, but got cold feet. 3. Social engineering/misdirection of the form where they propose a reversal hardfork knowing it won't happen. this. The attacker must have known about the 27 day window and would know that the community would nill out the transaction. So therefor it was an attempt at manipulating the market down to levels where he and his friends would buy. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: bugsywugsy on June 17, 2016, 05:55:29 PM Well one thing is for sure, the FUD spread like wildfire and definitely seemed at least partially orchestrated. Eth was dropping so fast I couldn't even put in a margin order before it was down a few more points.
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 17, 2016, 05:57:08 PM Selfhack like all scammers do. Not ruling it out, but that makes the hardfork proposal a bit strange. Possibilities include: 1. Selfhack, but for market manipulation purposes, not to steal the coins. 2. Selfhack, but got cold feet. 3. Social engineering/misdirection of the form where they propose a reversal hardfork knowing it won't happen. this. The attacker must have known about the 27 day window and would know that the community would nill out the transaction. So therefor it was an attempt at manipulating the market down to levels where he and his friends would buy. Nope, this is unlikely as the resulting news and HF would likely permanently damage DAO and ETH so the attacker more likely chose to profit from shorting ETH or did it out or spite or for the LOL's. There is also a good chance that the HF never is activated because the community is divided over this dangerous proposition so he may end up with the ETHs anyways. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: sidhujag on June 17, 2016, 05:59:45 PM Selfhack like all scammers do. Not ruling it out, but that makes the hardfork proposal a bit strange. Possibilities include: 1. Selfhack, but for market manipulation purposes, not to steal the coins. 2. Selfhack, but got cold feet. 3. Social engineering/misdirection of the form where they propose a reversal hardfork knowing it won't happen. this. The attacker must have known about the 27 day window and would know that the community would nill out the transaction. So therefor it was an attempt at manipulating the market down to levels where he and his friends would buy. Nope, this is unlikely as the resulting news and HF would likely permanently damage DAO and ETH so the attacker more likely chose to profit from shorting ETH or did it out or spite or for the LOL's. There is also a good chance that the HF never is activated because the community is divided over this dangerous proposition so he may end up with the ETHs anyways. Yea probably shorting it aswell... im sure the person who was on it was on polo (the biggest exchange for eth) probably setting up his margin orders before the start of the attack. I wonder if the exchange can somehow find out who created big margin orders around that time although you wont be able to prove it :S Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 17, 2016, 06:00:52 PM Maybe it is just all PR The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO. The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing. $50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice) Normally it is best to buy when there is "blood in the streets". Ethereum isn't likely dead. So far, CC is a delusion of decentralization any way. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: sidhujag on June 17, 2016, 06:04:27 PM Maybe it is just all PR The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO. The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing. $50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice) The child DAO releases coins same day as btc halvening too I think... def timed accordingly. It also created reverse head and shoulders on the daily... so all short/medium bear targets were met and bullish targets remain intact. This would make sense. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: jubalix on June 17, 2016, 06:06:25 PM This is not a good look.
I tend to think you have to let the contract go through, as that is what is is designed to do. This imposes market discipline and makes future "dao" like investors and offers much more robust. BTC did have a similar thing back in the day. I still don't get what Viterlan Butlerick has actually ever programed or practically done apart from the Bitcoin Magazine. no one has ever answered me on this. no offense to him, but it seems to be emperors new clothes ... he's really smart said by everyone that speaks of him .... but what in code has he done? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 17, 2016, 06:08:09 PM I still don't get what Viterlan Butlerick has actually ever programed or practically done apart from the Bitcoin Magazine. no one has ever answered me on this. no offense to him, but it seems to be emperors new clothes ... he's really smart said by everyone that speaks of him .... but what in code has he done? pybitcointools. I think he also did some python coding for Ethereum, but not a lot. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: TrueAnon on June 17, 2016, 06:11:29 PM WBB make all this bullshit coins/projects look silly soon enough :) muahhaaaahahaaa
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Blazin8888 on June 17, 2016, 07:32:50 PM We could see lower levels. 7 dollar floor...5 at the worst. This project still has a bright future. However the price is all speculation right now and it only makes sense. Dont forget ETH is a GAS...GAS prices go up and down. I expect this to be normal on the ETH network. I think more stable coins/investments will spring up on the ETH network. ETH is just the GAS. Someday it will maybe be some very expensive gas indeed.
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 17, 2016, 07:41:55 PM We could see lower levels. 7 dollar floor...5 at the worst. This project still has a bright future. However the price is all speculation right now and it only makes sense. Dont forget ETH is a GAS...GAS prices go up and down. I expect this to be normal on the ETH network. I think more stable coins/investments will spring up on the ETH network. ETH is just the GAS. Someday it will maybe be some very expensive gas indeed. Ether has competition and may not have a bright future at all due to some fundamental flaws which others do not have. Additionally, if Ether is mainly CPU/contract fuel , than it isn't very useful to have "fuel" that is so volatile. ETH was pitched as fuel , but in reality is an insecure tarball of a mess that is principally still 99% speculative and IMHO irreparable. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Biodom on June 17, 2016, 07:43:30 PM We could see lower levels. 7 dollar floor...5 at the worst. This project still has a bright future. However the price is all speculation right now and it only makes sense. Dont forget ETH is a GAS...GAS prices go up and down. I expect this to be normal on the ETH network. I think more stable coins/investments will spring up on the ETH network. ETH is just the GAS. Someday it will maybe be some very expensive gas indeed. I actually agree on $5-7 worst case scenario. What i will be doing in the meantime...absolutely nothing, but will probably start buying eth for $$ OR even btc (less likely) at those prices. This might be good for mining as POS could be further delayed, naturally. Clearly, btc has at least temporary (or maybe permanent) edge now, until segwit is relesed and LN is started. An unlikely failure of segwit and/or LN and the leadership roles might reverse once again. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Fanpant on June 17, 2016, 08:00:15 PM We could see lower levels. 7 dollar floor...5 at the worst. This project still has a bright future. However the price is all speculation right now and it only makes sense. Dont forget ETH is a GAS...GAS prices go up and down. I expect this to be normal on the ETH network. I think more stable coins/investments will spring up on the ETH network. ETH is just the GAS. Someday it will maybe be some very expensive gas indeed. I actually agree on $5-7 worst case scenario. What i will be doing in the meantime...absolutely nothing, but will probably start buying eth for $$ OR even btc (less likely) at those prices. This might be good for mining as POS could be further delayed, naturally. Clearly, btc has at least temporary (or maybe permanent) edge now, until segwit is relesed and LN is started. An unlikely failure of segwit and/or LN and the leadership roles might reverse once again. If the price goes down to $5 or below, it is not profitable for many people with high electricity price. So it does not help. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Biodom on June 17, 2016, 08:04:58 PM We could see lower levels. 7 dollar floor...5 at the worst. This project still has a bright future. However the price is all speculation right now and it only makes sense. Dont forget ETH is a GAS...GAS prices go up and down. I expect this to be normal on the ETH network. I think more stable coins/investments will spring up on the ETH network. ETH is just the GAS. Someday it will maybe be some very expensive gas indeed. I actually agree on $5-7 worst case scenario. What i will be doing in the meantime...absolutely nothing, but will probably start buying eth for $$ OR even btc (less likely) at those prices. This might be good for mining as POS could be further delayed, naturally. Clearly, btc has at least temporary (or maybe permanent) edge now, until segwit is relesed and LN is started. An unlikely failure of segwit and/or LN and the leadership roles might reverse once again. If the price goes down to $5 or below, it is not profitable for many people with high electricity price. So it does not help. so, these people will drop off, network speed will decrease somewhat and profitability increase Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: rdnkjdi on June 17, 2016, 08:13:55 PM Quote "Miners and mining pools should resume allowing transactions as normal, wait for the soft fork code and stand ready to download and run it if they agree with this path forward for the Ethereum ecosystem." Don't the miners make the system on which the law is built on - in both bitcoin and ethereum? If 51% of miners choose a certain path then I really don't see an issue (they could choose a different path and the code can't force anything on the miners or blockchain either way). I guess I agree that there was no DAO hack. I also agree that miners choosing a different direction of code is a higher authority than the code itself. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 17, 2016, 08:40:40 PM https://twitter.com/goenda/status/743816080343195649
"@ethereumproject I made a bad contract in the first days ETH was online and lost 2K ETH with it, can I also get it back?" Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 17, 2016, 08:43:47 PM Paypal stole the $600 of BTC I sold via a matchup on localbitcoins. Can Vitalik help me with that also? Does anyone know anyone who knows him and put in a good word for me?
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 17, 2016, 09:24:54 PM Looks like the "hacker" was already paid with 3k BTC (2.2million in USD) shorts on ethereum before he used the DAO (as it was correctly designed.)
https://twitter.com/EthereumWiki/status/743905989682855936 Think about this for a moment . Now a precedent has been set for these weak turing complete blockchains- ETH and any future DAO , that incentivizes hackers to attack and exploit weak code regardless of HF freezing and reversing Txs. Expect more attacks in the future! Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iCEBREAKER on June 18, 2016, 12:37:09 AM The Code Is The Law.*
*Until someone gets butthurt. Void where prohibited. No representation or warranty, express or implied, with respect to the completeness, accuracy, fitness for a particular purpose, or utility of these materials or any information or opinion contained herein. Actual mileage may vary. Prices slightly higher west of the Mississippi. All models over 18 years of age. No animals were harmed during the production of this product. Any resemblance to actual people, living or dead, or events, past, present or future, is purely coincidental. This product not to be construed as an endorsement of any product or company, nor as the adoption or promulgation of any guidelines, standards or recommendations. Some names have been changed to protect the innocent. This product is meant for educational purposes only. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Package sold by weight, not volume. Contents may settle during shipment. No user-serviceable parts inside. Use only as directed. Do not eat. Not a toy. Postage will be paid by addressee. If condition persists, consult your physician. Subject to change without notice. Times approximate. One size fits all. Colors may, in time, fade. For office use only. Edited for television. List was current at time of printing. At participating locations only. Keep away from fire or flame. Avoid contact with skin. Sanitised for your protection. Employees and their families are not eligible. Beware of the dog. Limited time offer. No purchase necessary. Not recommended for children under 12. Prerecorded for this time zone. Some of the trademarks mentioned in this product appear for identification purposes only. Freshest if eaten before date on carton. Subject to change without notice. Please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, error or failure to perform. Slippery when wet. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. For recreational use only. No Canadian coins. List each check separately by bank number. This is not an offer to sell securities. Read at your own risk. Ask your doctor or pharmacist. Parental guidance advised. Always read the label. Do not use while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. Do not stamp. Breaking seal constitutes acceptance of agreement. Contains non-milk fat. Date as postmark. Lost ticket pays maximum rate. Use only in well-ventilated area. Price does not include taxes. Not for resale. Hand wash only. Keep away from sunlight. For a limited time only. No preservatives or additives. Keep away from pets and small children. Safety goggles required during use. If rash, irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue use. Do not fold, spindle or mutilate. Please remain seated until the web page has come to a complete stop. Refrigerate after opening. Flammable. Must be 18 years or older. Seat backs and tray tables must be in the upright position. Repeat as necessary. Do not look directly into light. Avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool dry place. No salt, MSG, artificial colouring or flavoring added. Reproduction strictly prohibited. Pregnant women, the elderly, and children should avoid prolonged exposure to this product. If ingested, do not induce vomiting. May contain nuts. Objects in mirror may be closer than they appear. Do not use if safety seal is broken. Apply only to affected area. Do not use this product if you have high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, thyroid disease, asthma, glaucoma, or difficulty in urination. May be too intense for some viewers. In case of accidental ingestion, seek professional assistance or contact a poison control center immediately. Many suitcases look alike. Post office will not deliver without postage. Not the Beatles. Products are not authorized for use as critical components in life support devices or systems. Driver does not carry cash. Do not puncture or incinerate. Do not play your headset at high volume. Discontinue use of this product if any of the following occurs: itching, aching, vertigo, dizziness, ringing in your ears, vomiting, giddiness, aural or visual hallucinations, tingling in extremities, loss of balance or coordination, slurred speech, temporary blindness, drowsiness, insomnia, profuse sweating, shivering, or heart palpitations. Video+ and Video- are at ECL voltage levels, HSYNC and VSYNC are at TTL voltage levels. It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the contents can be harmful or fatal. This product has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory rats. Do not use the AC adaptor provided with this player for other products. DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -- make depend depends on it. Warranty does not cover normal wear and tear, misuse, accident, lightning, flood, hail storm, tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, avalanche, earthquake or tremor, hurricane, solar activity, meteorite strike, nearby supernova and other Acts of God, neglect, damage from improper or unauthorised use, incorrect line voltage, unauthorised use, unauthorised repair, improper installation, typographical errors, broken antenna or marred cabinet, missing or altered serial numbers, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts, microwave ovens or mobile phones, sonic boom vibrations, ionising radiation, customer adjustments that are not covered in this list, and incidents owing to an airplane crash, ship sinking or taking on water, motor vehicle crashing, dropping the item, falling rocks, leaky roof, broken glass, disk failure, accidental file deletions, mud slides, forest fire, riots or other civil unrest, acts of terrorism or war, whether declared or not, explosive devices or projectiles (which can include, but may not be limited to, arrows, crossbow bolts, air gun pellets, bullets, shot, cannon balls, BBs, shrapnel, lasers, napalm, torpedoes, ICBMs, or emissions of electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves, microwaves, infra-red radiation, visible light, UV, X-rays, alpha, beta and gamma rays, neutrons, neutrinos, positrons, N-rays, knives, stones, bricks, spit-wads, spears, javelins etc.). Other restrictions may apply. Breach of these conditions is likely to cause unquantifiable loss that may not be capable of remedy by the payment of damages. This supersedes all previous disclaimers Entire contents (c) 1999 by Our Group, Inc. This disclaimer is protected by copyright and its use, copying, distribution and decompilation is restricted. All rights reserved. No part of this disclaimer or any attachments may be copied or reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, optical, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, telepathic, or otherwise, without the express witnessed and notarised prior written consent of the all holders of the relevant copyrights. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. However, no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information is implied. No liability is accepted for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations thereof. The reader assumes sole responsibility for the selection of these materials to achieve its intended results. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Spoetnik on June 18, 2016, 03:03:04 AM Paypal stole the $600 of BTC I sold via a matchup on localbitcoins. Can Vitalik help me with that also? Does anyone know anyone who knows him and put in a good word for me? They took almost 5k from me and i had my lawyer get it back after a 2.5 month long battle.. then when they were done they stole a hair under $700 and kept saying they already gave it back. They kept telling me i had broke the TOS i signed. It is forbidden to use ANY related virtual currency shit with Paypal period . Like others before me they simply kept demanding i get a signed affidavit (admitting my guilt) I kept asking why would i admit guilt and what will that do ? Will they give me my frozen money then ? They would not comment.. ever ! They just kept demanding i admit guilt or saying my account / funds would stay locked. BUT HEY ! Head on over to the Market Section here.. 99% of all topics for HUNDREDS of pages are buying & selling Bitcoin etc with Paypal so it HAS to be ok right ? Crypto.. pinnacle of Stupidity on a scale never seen before in human history. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 18, 2016, 03:40:54 AM Maybe it is just all PR The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO. The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing. $50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice) Normally it is best to buy when there is "blood in the streets". Ethereum isn't likely dead. So far, CC is a delusion of decentralization any way. The ETH chart is looking very similar to BTC's 2013/14 crash. Note after an extended deadcat bounce, then BTC proceeded to make lower lows and eventually found bottom @150ish. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitcoinEXpress on June 18, 2016, 03:43:56 AM Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: kennyP on June 18, 2016, 06:32:17 AM Investors agreed to give their ETH to whomever it was who figured out how to take them up on their offer. Read this carefully. The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation. (Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim.) +1 "The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation." Nobody would ever choose to have a child with a genetic abnormality that creates a disability, but when a disabled baby is born the parents don't usually send it back, and in the vast majority of cases the parents learn to love the child anyway. @VB, The DAO code worked the way it was programmed so you should accept what happened and move on. Anything else and you damage the whole crypto project by setting a precedent that will cause far more damage than this 'hacker' did Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: vincentvincent on June 18, 2016, 06:40:30 AM Interesting stuff:
http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/16/scanning-live-ethereum-contracts-for-bugs/ Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: sadasa on June 18, 2016, 09:30:02 AM Will this DAO incident cause cautions on all smart contract platform including those based on the bitcoin?
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: fluffypony on June 18, 2016, 10:49:50 AM well, then, bitcoin should have 184 billion coins right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bitcoin Quote On 6 August 2010, a major vulnerability in the bitcoin protocol was spotted. Transactions weren't properly verified before they were included in the transaction log or "block chain" which let users bypass bitcoin's economic restrictions and create an indefinite number of bitcoins.On 15 August, the vulnerability was exploited; over 184 billion bitcoins were generated in a transaction, and sent to two addresses on the network. Within hours, the transaction was spotted and erased from the transaction log after the bug was fixed and the network forked to an updated version of the bitcoin protocol. Let's re-reverse THAT. Incidentally, I am neutral on DAO reversal. If eth will crash, i will diversify more of my fiat (not btc) toward it. No. The *spec* for Bitcoin is 21 million coins max. If something breaks the spec it is an implementation issue and can (and should) be reversed in order to maintain the *social contract*. The 2010 bug was clearly an implementation bug that broke the spec. The DAO had no spec, the truth was in the (poorly documented) code. Per the about page on the website: https://daohub.org/about.html - "The DAO is borne from immutable, unstoppable, and irrefutable computer code, operated entirely by its members, and fueled using ETH which Creates DAO tokens." Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 18, 2016, 11:49:31 AM Unclear whether the signature even checks out. May be fake.
Quote from: http://pastebin.com/CcGUBgDG ===== BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE ===== To the DAO and the Ethereum community, I have carefully examined the code of The DAO and decided to participate after finding the feature where splitting is rewarded with additional ether. I have made use of this feature and have rightfully claimed 3,641,694 ether, and would like to thank the DAO for this reward. It is my understanding that the DAO code contains this feature to promote decentralization and encourage the creation of "child DAOs". I am disappointed by those who are characterizing the use of this intentional feature as "theft". I am making use of this explicitly coded feature as per the smart contract terms and my law firm has advised me that my action is fully compliant with United States criminal and tort law. For reference please review the terms of the DAO: "The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation." A soft or hard fork would amount to seizure of my legitimate and rightful ether, claimed legally through the terms of a smart contract. Such fork would permanently and irrevocably ruin all confidence in not only Ethereum but also the in the field of smart contracts and blockchain technology. Many large Ethereum holders will dump their ether, and developers, researchers, and companies will leave Ethereum. Make no mistake: any fork, soft or hard, will further damage Ethereum and destroy its reputation and appeal. I reserve all rights to take any and all legal action against any accomplices of illegitimate theft, freezing, or seizure of my legitimate ether, and am actively working with my law firm. Those accomplices will be receiving Cease and Desist notices in the mail shortly. I hope this event becomes an valuable learning experience for the Ethereum community and wish you all the best of luck. Yours truly, "The Attacker" ===== END SIGNED MESSAGE ===== Message Hash (Keccak): 0xaf9e302a664122389d17ee0fa4394d0c24c33236143c1f26faed97ebbd017d0e Signature: 0x5f91152a2382b4acfdbfe8ad3c6c8cde45f73f6147d39b072c81637fe81006061603908f692dc 15a1b6ead217785cf5e07fb496708d129645f3370a28922136a32 Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: hv_ on June 18, 2016, 12:18:16 PM If all that was done just by standard usage of the code / smart contracts and anybody could do this again with not much effort this looks not like a sharky 'hack attack' rather sth our banks do all the day: looking for opportunities in our hacky regulated financial env..
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Lauda on June 18, 2016, 12:26:28 PM well, then, bitcoin should have 184 billion coins right now. No. The *spec* for Bitcoin is 21 million coins max. If something breaks the spec it is an implementation issue and can (and should) be reversed in order to maintain the *social contract*. The 2010 bug was clearly an implementation bug that broke the spec.-snip- The DAO had no spec, the truth was in the (poorly documented) code. Per the about page on the website: https://daohub.org/about.html - "The DAO is borne from immutable, unstoppable, and irrefutable computer code, operated entirely by its members, and fueled using ETH which Creates DAO tokens." history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. Wrong. That incident in Bitcoin created additional supply that breaks the initial specifications (protocol). That can not be compared to this incident, where the ETH specifications were not harmed. Everyone keeps using this as a bullshit argument to bail-out the holders, and rewrite a history of a "immutable blockchain" (which ETH will not be afterwards). The Mt.Gox incident proved which blockchain is truly secure and immutable.Bitcoin; 2010 (about a year after start)-similar episode with Bitcoin where 184 billion bitcoins were created in a few transactions, then these transactions were erased and bitcoin forked. https://i.imgur.com/EeVDFV4.png Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: NorrisK on June 18, 2016, 12:35:33 PM Unclear whether the signature even checks out. May be fake. Quote from: http://pastebin.com/CcGUBgDG ===== BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE ===== To the DAO and the Ethereum community, I have carefully examined the code of The DAO and decided to participate after finding the feature where splitting is rewarded with additional ether. I have made use of this feature and have rightfully claimed 3,641,694 ether, and would like to thank the DAO for this reward. It is my understanding that the DAO code contains this feature to promote decentralization and encourage the creation of "child DAOs". I am disappointed by those who are characterizing the use of this intentional feature as "theft". I am making use of this explicitly coded feature as per the smart contract terms and my law firm has advised me that my action is fully compliant with United States criminal and tort law. For reference please review the terms of the DAO: "The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation." A soft or hard fork would amount to seizure of my legitimate and rightful ether, claimed legally through the terms of a smart contract. Such fork would permanently and irrevocably ruin all confidence in not only Ethereum but also the in the field of smart contracts and blockchain technology. Many large Ethereum holders will dump their ether, and developers, researchers, and companies will leave Ethereum. Make no mistake: any fork, soft or hard, will further damage Ethereum and destroy its reputation and appeal. I reserve all rights to take any and all legal action against any accomplices of illegitimate theft, freezing, or seizure of my legitimate ether, and am actively working with my law firm. Those accomplices will be receiving Cease and Desist notices in the mail shortly. I hope this event becomes an valuable learning experience for the Ethereum community and wish you all the best of luck. Yours truly, "The Attacker" ===== END SIGNED MESSAGE ===== Message Hash (Keccak): 0xaf9e302a664122389d17ee0fa4394d0c24c33236143c1f26faed97ebbd017d0e Signature: 0x5f91152a2382b4acfdbfe8ad3c6c8cde45f73f6147d39b072c81637fe81006061603908f692dc 15a1b6ead217785cf5e07fb496708d129645f3370a28922136a32 Cant take this serious if the attacker does not disclose his identity and that of his law firm... If he is taking legal action, it will be public right? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 18, 2016, 12:37:47 PM Gulp.
Charge it to experience! We told you DAO investors that it was an insane risk for very little possible reward. Now you will learn to appreciate the wisdom of people who have more knowledge than you do. By bringing this to court and regardless of the court's decision, it will establish a precedent that law is superior to code. The only way code wins, is if it is truly decentralized and can't be vacated by law. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 18, 2016, 12:57:21 PM Maybe it is just all PR The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO. The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing. $50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice) Normally it is best to buy when there is "blood in the streets". Ethereum isn't likely dead. So far, CC is a delusion of decentralization any way. The ETH chart is looking very similar to BTC's 2013/14 crash. Note after an extended deadcat bounce, then BTC proceeded to make lower lows and eventually found bottom @150ish. I rescind the quoted speculation. Lower lows seen on the chart now, because of the revelation that ETH is fucked. It's going down, down, down. Game over. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: hv_ on June 18, 2016, 01:21:02 PM Maybe it is just all PR The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO. The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing. $50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice) Normally it is best to buy when there is "blood in the streets". Ethereum isn't likely dead. So far, CC is a delusion of decentralization any way. The ETH chart is looking very similar to BTC's 2013/14 crash. Note after an extended deadcat bounce, then BTC proceeded to make lower lows and eventually found bottom @150ish. I rescind the quoted speculation. Lower lows seen on the chart now, because of the revelation that ETH is fucked. It's going down, down, down. Game over. The big shit might come soon as the press takes this to damn all cryptos... Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 18, 2016, 01:22:47 PM Maybe it is just all PR The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO. The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing. $50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice) Normally it is best to buy when there is "blood in the streets". Ethereum isn't likely dead. So far, CC is a delusion of decentralization any way. The ETH chart is looking very similar to BTC's 2013/14 crash. Note after an extended deadcat bounce, then BTC proceeded to make lower lows and eventually found bottom @150ish. I rescind the quoted speculation. Lower lows seen on the chart now, because of the revelation that ETH is fucked. It's going down, down, down. Game over. The big shit might come soon as the press takes this to damn all cryptos... I warned r0ach of that. I hope I was wrong. Hopefully BTC will get stronger with the exodus from ETH -> BTC. And y'all know I am not a Bitcoin Maximalist. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Spoetnik on June 18, 2016, 01:23:45 PM Will this DAO incident cause cautions on all smart contract platform including those based on the bitcoin? I sure hope so.. they are fucking retarded scams. They exist to add a digital token that can be traded on exchanges. CUT THE CRAP crap Investards.. Want smart contracts ? fine then do it. BUT.. What you are all REALLY doing is hobbling together poorly written code for the sole purpose of adding a "coin" to a "Scheme" ..................... FOR PROFIT ! ..with catch phrases like "Block-Chain" "Crowd Funding" "Smart Contracts" In the end.. Bittrex Cryptsy Poloniex etc exist to take a slice of the pie and ALL of you dive on them to pull a bit of profit from the scam machines ..while loitering around playing fucking dumb about it. How many of you idiot Investard mETH heads used a DAPP and there for wanted to support it ? Want my advice Kidiot Investard Dregs ? Invest in crypto-currencies (not scammy retarded bullshit ICO scam schemes for profit) ..and for fuck sakes quit spouting off retard bullshit & playing dumb (it's not working) Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Tacalt on June 18, 2016, 01:28:49 PM Maybe it is just all PR The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO. The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing. $50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice) Normally it is best to buy when there is "blood in the streets". Ethereum isn't likely dead. So far, CC is a delusion of decentralization any way. The ETH chart is looking very similar to BTC's 2013/14 crash. Note after an extended deadcat bounce, then BTC proceeded to make lower lows and eventually found bottom @150ish. I rescind the quoted speculation. Lower lows seen on the chart now, because of the revelation that ETH is fucked. It's going down, down, down. Game over. The big shit might come soon as the press takes this to damn all cryptos... Bitcoin survived well from previous problems and correction hard forks. So did the Monero. I think Etheruem will also survive. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Lauda on June 18, 2016, 01:31:24 PM Bitcoin survived well from previous problems and correction hard forks. So did the Monero. I think Etheruem will also survive. Stop posting nonsense and read the thread. fluffypony has already explained why the situation with Bitcoin can not be compared to this one. Bitcoin was broken at the protocol level and a fix was applied. ETH is not broken at the protocol level. Reverting anything means that they are rewriting history and that the blockchain is not immutable, nor decentralized. I can't say anything about Monero as I'm not familiar with their situation (past).Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 18, 2016, 01:34:18 PM Maybe it is just all PR The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO. The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing. $50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice) Normally it is best to buy when there is "blood in the streets". Ethereum isn't likely dead. So far, CC is a delusion of decentralization any way. The ETH chart is looking very similar to BTC's 2013/14 crash. Note after an extended deadcat bounce, then BTC proceeded to make lower lows and eventually found bottom @150ish. I rescind the quoted speculation. Lower lows seen on the chart now, because of the revelation that ETH is fucked. It's going down, down, down. Game over. The big shit might come soon as the press takes this to damn all cryptos... Bitcoin survived well from previous problems and correction hard forks. So did the Monero. I think Etheruem will also survive. A salient difference is that Bitcoin and Monero were fixed. This issue can't be fixed because smart contracts are programmable and so the protocol can't protect against all bugs in the smart contracts. The only way it is fixed is by the ecosystem maturing and having a wide diversity of smart contracts (many of which have been well vetted) so that the failure of any one of them can't impact the ETH price significantly. And I think also Ethereum might have a problem where bad contracts can infect other contracts, so that may prevent the ecosystem from ever being NOT TOO BIG TO FAIL (I need to research this more). Thus since the ecosystem is a long way from achieving that (heck there isn't even a use case for smart contracts yet and The DAO as it was designed was not a use case as I had explained (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.0)), the price could move much lower, perhaps at least back to $7, if not $1. But maybe not. It depends on how the speculators interpret this. Note I called every price move of ETH correct, the temporary correction at $5-6, the top at $15, predicted in advance the drop to $7 and rise to a double-top at $15, and recently I said it was at nosebleed and I also warned against technological failure. I also wrote within the past 48 hours that it was best to sell out of the DAO to ETH so as to be ready to sell. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Minecache on June 18, 2016, 01:38:15 PM Let's put all this FUD into perspective gentlemen. BTC has suffered similarly during its growth so why expect zero hiccups for the DAO. We are breaking boundaries here so ups and downs are to be expected. Hodl.
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 18, 2016, 01:42:06 PM Let's put all this FUD into perspective gentlemen. BTC has suffered similarly during its growth so why expect zero hiccups for the DAO. We are breaking boundaries here so ups and downs are to be expected. Hodl. In retrospective (again not picking a fight nor against you, just for perspective): Ethereum reaching new ATHs so it's not surprising this clown is not amused. Happy dayz for everyone else though. Promise me you won't leave or change your tune if ETH collapses in price? Can you make that promise? I am not writing this to be against you. I am wondering what you will do if ETH collapses? Will you then admit that it is not always happy dayz? In Balls Deep? Are you sure you want to see UnunoctiumTesticles (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=504237)’ balls? http://oi63.tinypic.com/awf32x.jpg Fantastic article on Vitalik. He is quite a genius and we are all so proud that he works on the Ethereum project. https://backchannel.com/the-uncanny-mind-that-built-ethereum-9b448dc9d14f#.jckispyvx The only thing in that article which isn't just more hype is from Vlad: Quote “There’s still technical problems. It doesn’t scale. It’s not efficient. It’s not secure. It sucks, basically. It’s shitty technology,” says Vlad Zamfir, a developer that Buterin has hired to conceptualize the next iteration of the Ethereum software. So what he can add 3 digit numbers in his head. I can do that too (I split the numbers in powers-of-10). How about multiplying them in your head, which I can also do but not as fast this 5 year old (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAMxbHQyPdk#t=129) although I didn't practice. Vitalik is math smart. But there are many, many people who are math smart and very few of them produce $billion successful enterprises. The jury is still out on whether Ethereum will amount to anything more than hype (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15150806#msg15150806). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11232300/Why-do-geniuses-lack-common-sense.html Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Spoetnik on June 18, 2016, 01:57:14 PM Bitcoin survived well from previous problems and correction hard forks. So did the Monero. I think Etheruem will also survive. Stop posting nonsense and read the thread. fluffypony has already explained why the situation with Bitcoin can not be compared to this one. Bitcoin was broken at the protocol level and a fix was applied. ETH is not broken at the protocol level. Reverting anything means that they are rewriting history and that the blockchain is not immutable, nor decentralized. I can't say anything about Monero as I'm not familiar with their situation (past).Hysterical lunacy or simply out right deceitful commentary ? Honesty & Reality has been long gone around here for years. Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda. You can tell them i have proof 1+1=2 and here it is. and they ignore you and create 10 more accounts to say it equals 3 ::) sad :-\ In other words i agree with the sensible and honest comments i quoted. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 18, 2016, 02:14:52 PM (Checkmate)2
GTFO: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516913.msg15266162#msg15266162 it is hype for scam purpose only In the case of DAO, Slock.it, and Augur, then that seems to be the case. There is no valid use case which isn't game theory broken for those. Expect The DAO to eventually collapse in a massive clusterfuck of theft and waste with most losing their money. Wise people would get the hell out of The DAO as fast as they can, because the DAO is broken in the sense that you can be jammed from exiting (http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/05/27/dao-call-for-moratorium/). Decentralized crowd funding might be viable. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: bitebits on June 18, 2016, 02:29:30 PM smooth? Brilliant: http://pastebin.com/CcGUBgDG
And a very weak comment by Buterin. It really does not matter whether this message is by "The Attacker" or not: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4oo35k/signed_message_from_the_ethereum_hacker/d4e7qi3 Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 18, 2016, 02:42:22 PM The "daoattacker"is really giving out a ton of free BTC - Example - https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE
Thus if he is merely a troll, he is a well funded troll with deep pockets looking to support the attacker and prevent a HF. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: MySecondCunt on June 18, 2016, 02:49:11 PM The "daoattacker"is really giving out a ton of free BTC - Example - https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE Thus if he is merely a troll, he is a well funded troll with deep pockets looking to support the attacker and prevent a HF. Arguably, doing so falls under "enlightened self-interest" for individuals/consortia invested in BTC/BTC mining. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 18, 2016, 05:14:32 PM Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Minecache on June 18, 2016, 05:20:18 PM So the attacker is running scared. All those threats of legal action are either fake or bluff.
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: xxxgoodgirls on June 18, 2016, 05:24:11 PM What channel of slack is that?
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 18, 2016, 05:24:54 PM So the attacker is running scared. All those threats of legal action are either fake or bluff. Have you visited your own slack? The user awarded those ETH is brazingly out in the open and handing out BTC. He/She already has made almost 1 million on ETh shorts and could care less about those ETH but is willing to carry on this game to educate naive investors. He is doing a fantastic service for your community removing the spell of Dunning–Kruger. What channel of slack is that? DAO slack but now you can find him here- https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClPU2VLXIAg4bJZ.jpg:large Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: leopard2 on June 18, 2016, 06:27:03 PM NO.
http://www.coindesk.com/sue-dao-hacker/ Others have suggested that the hacker can't be liable as they only did what the contract allowed. It's an interesting argument but, simply stated, code vulnerability doesn't equal consent. As a defense, it’s pretty weak tea. Theft is theft, off chain or on. In fact the hacker, if caught, would not only lose his gains, but be liable for the losses of many ETH owners. He is heading for bankruptcy and jailtime. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 18, 2016, 06:32:25 PM NO. http://www.coindesk.com/sue-dao-hacker/ Others have suggested that the hacker can't be liable as they only did what the contract allowed. It's an interesting argument but, simply stated, code vulnerability doesn't equal consent. As a defense, it’s pretty weak tea. Theft is theft, off chain or on. In fact the hacker, if caught, would not only lose his gains, but be liable for the losses of many ETH owners. He is heading for bankruptcy and jailtime. Assuming that we ignore the contract that the " hacker" agreed to which shows that he merely was a DAO client. There is almost no chance the "hacker" will get caught. You understand that even if there was only 1 person shorting ETH , it is simply circumstantial evidence. In this case there may be several people they can believe to be suspects , and that is when they will hit a dead end. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: hv_ on June 18, 2016, 06:48:24 PM Just turing complete...
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4op2es/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/ Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Minecache on June 18, 2016, 07:28:50 PM NO. http://www.coindesk.com/sue-dao-hacker/ Others have suggested that the hacker can't be liable as they only did what the contract allowed. It's an interesting argument but, simply stated, code vulnerability doesn't equal consent. As a defense, it’s pretty weak tea. Theft is theft, off chain or on. In fact the hacker, if caught, would not only lose his gains, but be liable for the losses of many ETH owners. He is heading for bankruptcy and jailtime. Assuming that we ignore the contract that the " hacker" agreed to which shows that he merely was a DAO client. There is almost no chance the "hacker" will get caught. You understand that even if there was only 1 person shorting ETH , it is simply circumstantial evidence. In this case there may be several people they can believe to be suspects , and that is when they will hit a dead end. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 18, 2016, 07:34:15 PM If it's down to 500 devs then look for the one suddenly taken early retirement. Multiple will be taking early retirement after this is over , and even if its just one , what are you or any court going to do ? All circumstantial. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: onemd on June 18, 2016, 08:04:59 PM If it's down to 500 devs then look for the one suddenly taken early retirement. Multiple will be taking early retirement after this is over , and even if its just one , what are you or any court going to do ? All circumstantial. After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Lauda on June 18, 2016, 08:18:47 PM Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda. That's what the ETH supporters are currently doing.After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see. You do realize that ETH will lose all the value that the underlying technology (the blockchain) has? If they take back those coins, they are no better than the Fed and they lose decentralization and immutability. This suggestion is horrible. Nobody should have any right nor power to take anyone's coins in a decentralized system regardless of whether they are legit, stolen or whatever. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: hv_ on June 18, 2016, 08:25:04 PM Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda. That's what the ETH supporters are currently doing.After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see. You do realize that ETH will lose all the value that the underlying technology (the blockchain) has? If they take back those coins, they are no better than the Fed and they lose decentralization and immutability. This suggestion is horrible. Nobody should have any right nor power to take anyone's coins in a decentralized system regardless of whether they are legit, stolen or whatever. Correct. After this HF you must call it VBCoin, not ETH. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: jeffthebaker on June 18, 2016, 08:28:27 PM Bitcoin survived well from previous problems and correction hard forks. So did the Monero. I think Etheruem will also survive. Stop posting nonsense and read the thread. fluffypony has already explained why the situation with Bitcoin can not be compared to this one. Bitcoin was broken at the protocol level and a fix was applied. ETH is not broken at the protocol level. Reverting anything means that they are rewriting history and that the blockchain is not immutable, nor decentralized. I can't say anything about Monero as I'm not familiar with their situation (past).Exactly, this is quite the predicament for Ethereum. If they do nothing about the event that has taken place, they have just forfeited a very, very significant amount of ether to a 'theft'. If they do roll it back via a fork, they disprove any value Ethereum was alleged to have. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: anthonydar on June 18, 2016, 08:44:32 PM Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda. That's what the ETH supporters are currently doing.After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see. You do realize that ETH will lose all the value that the underlying technology (the blockchain) has? If they take back those coins, they are no better than the Fed and they lose decentralization and immutability. This suggestion is horrible. Nobody should have any right nor power to take anyone's coins in a decentralized system regardless of whether they are legit, stolen or whatever. Correct. After this HF you must call it VBCoin, not ETH. If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 18, 2016, 10:53:40 PM Just turing complete... https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4op2es/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/ I haven't studied the specific vulnerability in this case[1], but I think it has to do with the contract code doing mutability aliasing on global state. So this is an issue of synchronizing mutability aliasing. For example, imagine if some intended to be atomic operation[1] of a check for sending of ETH out of the contract had not set a global count of sent before some recursion which enabled sending more ETH out, thus exceeding the threshold. So the Reddit post seems to be somewhat clueless about the actual issue. Functional programming and static typing is orthogonal to the issue of dealing with global state and mutability aliasing. I had just finished analyzing this issue at the Rust-lang forum and in my private discussion with keane recently. Although Rust can statically check mutability aliasing, this is restricted to disjoint data structures. We concluded that some semantics can't be modelled with a static checker. Mutability aliasing is thorny issue and I am not familiar enough with Coq to know if it can model it. I would need to really dig into the details of this and study it before I can comment with high degree of confidence.
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iCEBREAKER on June 18, 2016, 10:58:36 PM One may not hack that which has never been secured.
"We must not forget that it is not our [computing scientists'] business to make programs, it is our business to design classes of computations that will display a desired behaviour." -Edsger Dijkstra, The Humble Programmer, 1972 Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 18, 2016, 11:05:19 PM Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: tmzn32 on June 18, 2016, 11:25:34 PM We need litecoin right next to bitcoin both enjoying the popcorn lol Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 19, 2016, 12:18:22 AM Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda. That's what the ETH supporters are currently doing.After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see. You do realize that ETH will lose all the value that the underlying technology (the blockchain) has? If they take back those coins, they are no better than the Fed and they lose decentralization and immutability. This suggestion is horrible. Nobody should have any right nor power to take anyone's coins in a decentralized system regardless of whether they are legit, stolen or whatever. Correct. After this HF you must call it VBCoin, not ETH. If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker. Satoshi had a term for that, he called it attacking the network: As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network ... - Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf) So, no, there has been no "hack" or "attack" so far, but Vitalik, Tual, and their cronies are working on one. Soft forks are 51% attacks. At best, when done for relatively-benign upgrade purposes, they demonstrate a vulnerability of the network and should still raise some level of concern that the developers and miners are able to conspire to pull off a 51% attack. When done transfer control over coins, that is outright theft. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 19, 2016, 12:42:25 AM If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker. Satoshi had a term for that, he called it attacking the network: As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network ... - Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf) So, no, there has been no "hack" or "attack" so far, but Vitalik, Tual, and their cronies are working on one. Soft forks are 51% attacks. At best, when done for relatively-benign upgrade purposes, they demonstrate a vulnerability of the network and should still raise some level of concern that the developers and miners are able to conspire to pull off a 51% attack. When done transfer control over coins, that is outright theft. Smooth if forks are authorized by a protocol that was designed in the coin from the start, i.e. an ability to vote on changes by stake holders for a PoS coin (e.g. DASH) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15271779#msg15271779), then that appears to not be a 51% attack. But otherwise I agree with you, and when you have the same group of devs from the ICO able to control the politik then they are essentially running the enterprise. There is a grey area where someone from the outside creates a fork and the users and miners spontaneously decide to switch over to it. This can be argued to be a feature of decentralization and open source, and necessary to correct deficiencies. Yet it is still a 51% attack. If done with proof-of-burn, then it is not a 51% attack. But your analysis of the issues here seems to be oversimplified because the law interacts with all this to create more complex scenarios. Please read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.msg15271289#msg15271289 Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: galaxiekyl on June 19, 2016, 01:22:58 AM Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda. That's what the ETH supporters are currently doing.After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see. You do realize that ETH will lose all the value that the underlying technology (the blockchain) has? If they take back those coins, they are no better than the Fed and they lose decentralization and immutability. This suggestion is horrible. Nobody should have any right nor power to take anyone's coins in a decentralized system regardless of whether they are legit, stolen or whatever. Correct. After this HF you must call it VBCoin, not ETH. If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker. i think, you would not better now that a scammer..maybe more, if i ask 20$ at atm and i receive more the bank does going not run after me..it will stop the blood flow and do jumped up the champagne to the next season..isn't a hack is just a feat. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 19, 2016, 01:29:52 AM If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker. Satoshi had a term for that, he called it attacking the network: As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network ... - Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf) So, no, there has been no "hack" or "attack" so far, but Vitalik, Tual, and their cronies are working on one. Soft forks are 51% attacks. At best, when done for relatively-benign upgrade purposes, they demonstrate a vulnerability of the network and should still raise some level of concern that the developers and miners are able to conspire to pull off a 51% attack. When done transfer control over coins, that is outright theft. Smooth if forks are authorized by a protocol that was designed in the coin from the start, i.e. an ability to vote on changes by stake holders for a PoS coin (e.g. DASH) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15271779#msg15271779), then that appears to not be a 51% attack. But otherwise I agree with you, and when you have the same group of devs from the ICO able to control the politik then they are essentially running the enterprise. There is a grey area where someone from the outside creates a fork and the users and miners spontaneously decide to switch over to it. This can be argued to be a feature of decentralization and open source, and necessary to correct deficiencies. Yet it is still a 51% attack. If done with proof-of-burn, then it is not a 51% attack. But your analysis of the issues here seems to be oversimplified because the law interacts with all this to create more complex scenarios. Please read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.msg15271289#msg15271289 I'm not really sure that "authorized voting forks" are even compatible with Satoshi's original design at all. He wrote that the nature of the system required that its core properties be set in stone forever. Probably the ideas of governance and voting were considered by Satoshi(s) during the years of development, as they are pretty obvious ones to consider. A reasonable conclusion (and one I have reached somewhat independently) is that "set in stone" is required because there is no good way to differentiate between good changes and bad changes. Allow changes (e.g. by "voting") and the structure collapses in on itself. Limited time to read or comment more, will do so later. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: darkagentx on June 19, 2016, 01:36:32 AM The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it that is why the dao attacker was able to have enough time and planning to do the heist. And I do not think this is just a one man team effort, it may compose of some group that has hidden agenda to thwart DAO as they have their own digital currency on their back.
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: J1mb0 on June 19, 2016, 01:59:06 AM The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: darkagentx on June 19, 2016, 02:04:15 AM The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork. A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 19, 2016, 02:26:39 AM If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker. Satoshi had a term for that, he called it attacking the network: As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network ... - Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf) So, no, there has been no "hack" or "attack" so far, but Vitalik, Tual, and their cronies are working on one. Soft forks are 51% attacks. At best, when done for relatively-benign upgrade purposes, they demonstrate a vulnerability of the network and should still raise some level of concern that the developers and miners are able to conspire to pull off a 51% attack. When done transfer control over coins, that is outright theft. Smooth if forks are authorized by a protocol that was designed in the coin from the start, i.e. an ability to vote on changes by stake holders for a PoS coin (e.g. DASH) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15271779#msg15271779), then that appears to not be a 51% attack. But otherwise I agree with you, and when you have the same group of devs from the ICO able to control the politik then they are essentially running the enterprise. There is a grey area where someone from the outside creates a fork and the users and miners spontaneously decide to switch over to it. This can be argued to be a feature of decentralization and open source, and necessary to correct deficiencies. Yet it is still a 51% attack. If done with proof-of-burn, then it is not a 51% attack. But your analysis of the issues here seems to be oversimplified because the law interacts with all this to create more complex scenarios. Please read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.msg15271289#msg15271289 I'm not really sure that "authorized voting forks" are even compatible with Satoshi's original design at all. He wrote that the nature of the system required that its core properties be set in stone forever. Probably the ideas of governance and voting were considered by Satoshi(s) during the years of development, as they are pretty obvious ones to consider. A reasonable conclusion (and one I have reached somewhat independently) is that "set in stone" is required because there is no good way to differentiate between good changes and bad changes. Allow changes (e.g. by "voting") and the structure collapses in on itself. Limited time to read or comment more, will do so later. You are raising the point that PoS has security flaws, but I was treating that as an orthogonal concern. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: GetVisaCoin on June 19, 2016, 02:35:36 AM The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it that is why the dao attacker was able to have enough time and planning to do the heist. And I do not think this is just a one man team effort, it may compose of some group that has hidden agenda to thwart DAO as they have their own digital currency on their back. could The DAO creators be sued for negligence, for ... 1- the bug itself 2- publishing it Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: darkagentx on June 19, 2016, 02:45:07 AM The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it that is why the dao attacker was able to have enough time and planning to do the heist. And I do not think this is just a one man team effort, it may compose of some group that has hidden agenda to thwart DAO as they have their own digital currency on their back. could The DAO creators be sued for negligence, for ... 1- the bug itself 2- publishing it That is quite a possibility and trust and confidence to these people will be withdrawn unless they do the correct solution for this problem. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitcoinEXpress on June 19, 2016, 03:58:06 AM People, take from someone who actually understands exploits.
This was no hack. This was built into the code and it executed as designed. It was there from the second it was launched. It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug. Don't be stupid. This was an inside job. ~BCX~ Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: fairglu on June 19, 2016, 04:24:30 AM The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork. A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end. Code ALWAYS has bugs. Even very trivial innocuous looking code can have bugs. Even heavily peer reviewed code still has bugs. In the end code is written by humans... More interesting questions are whether this was a bug, a poorly thought out feature or a back door hidden in plain sight. And beyond: how can smart contracts be made more resilient to bugs ? Smart contracts being code, they will have bugs. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Spoetnik on June 19, 2016, 04:39:25 AM People, take from someone who actually understands exploits. This was no hack. This was built into the code and it executed as designed. It was there from the second it was launched. It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug. Don't be stupid. This was an inside job. ~BCX~ I really wonder myself but am not 100% sure on that.. i DO find it suspicious it happened during a period of time i would view s a lull in the action where it had no place to go but down. I'd say the ETH & DAO hit it's high point and the "attacker" made his move at a strategic point in time for a reason. How inside of a job though ? Like a guy that seen ETH and thought hey maybe i can cook up an ICO money making scheme then thought oh hell wait a minute i found something here to exploit ? This hypothetical ETH "user" would have to be pretty damns mart to have spotted the potential. And did so in a fairly quick time frame. OR.. I sit more likely the person or person(s) behind it were the main ETH dev's or main DAO dev's ? (i have no idea how many of those class of coders are out there) They would know the code better than anyone i would have to guess. Hmm Maybe if the attacker is getting chatty with one of us we can simply ASK HIM ! Ask him.. hey so how did this happen ? How did you get the idea to do this and were you alone on it ? Hey attacker if you want to tell me some Info head over to Freenode #Ethereum I will go there right now.. i can hang out and FUD all those mETH heads while i wait for you to show up ROFL Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: funbitcoins on June 19, 2016, 04:52:52 AM The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork. A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end. Code ALWAYS has bugs. Even very trivial innocuous looking code can have bugs. Even heavily peer reviewed code still has bugs. In the end code is written by humans... More interesting questions are whether this was a bug, a poorly thought out feature or a back door hidden in plain sight. And beyond: how can smart contracts be made more resilient to bugs ? Smart contracts being code, they will have bugs. Minor bugs are acceptable. For most coin holders, serious bugs that can ruin a coin should not be acceptable. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 05:13:58 AM There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it?
How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: boomboom on June 19, 2016, 05:15:45 AM People, take from someone who actually understands exploits. This was no hack. This was built into the code and it executed as designed. It was there from the second it was launched. It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug. Don't be stupid. This was an inside job. ~BCX~ if it's an inside job someone will squeal eventually, TPTB will put their balls in a vice, so a conspiracy like this will fall over. professional criminals know how to perform in an interview with the cops, The DAO guys are computer nerds, and only one would have to fail under the blow torch Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: fairglu on June 19, 2016, 05:23:25 AM The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork. A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end. Code ALWAYS has bugs. Even very trivial innocuous looking code can have bugs. Even heavily peer reviewed code still has bugs. In the end code is written by humans... More interesting questions are whether this was a bug, a poorly thought out feature or a back door hidden in plain sight. And beyond: how can smart contracts be made more resilient to bugs ? Smart contracts being code, they will have bugs. Minor bugs are acceptable. For most coin holders, serious bugs that can ruin a coin should not be acceptable. Minor or major is a human judgement, it cannot be automated, and it being a human judgement it is susceptible to bugs... What is judged a minor bug can later prove as a major vulnerability, and a fix to a perceived major flaw led to disaster because the fix was worse than the bug. There is no easy trick out of this I'm afraid, especially when millions are at risk and everything happens in real time... Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: meme magic on June 19, 2016, 05:27:57 AM Ok so ethereum comes about as an independent platform designed to displace billions of dollars in already existing and functonal financial structure, on which dao, an adc, which is supposed to displace yet again billions of dollars in already existing financial agreements through trusted third parties, who i feel i should remind you are all paying taxes to ... tptb.
And now you want these same tptb to spank some coder that basically made a fool of you after you shit the bed? did i get that right? sure there might be an investigation, but i bet nothing comes out of it. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: USB-S on June 19, 2016, 05:29:02 AM There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it? Miners don't give a fuck. They'll include anything that has high enough bribe for them.How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: darkagentx on June 19, 2016, 05:33:16 AM People, take from someone who actually understands exploits. This was no hack. This was built into the code and it executed as designed. It was there from the second it was launched. It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug. Don't be stupid. This was an inside job. ~BCX~ Then those who audited the code should already be aware of the "bug" since in the beginning of the implementation or they are not very good coders not to take notice of it. And this guy made the first move to exploit it before others can. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 05:45:14 AM There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it? Miners don't give a fuck. They'll include anything that has high enough bribe for them.How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it? As it should be. If crypto isn't censorship-resistant it's a toy. What has to happen to block the fork? Anything miners or nodes can do to stop it? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: USB-S on June 19, 2016, 06:16:46 AM There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it? Miners don't give a fuck. They'll include anything that has high enough bribe for them.How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it? As it should be. If crypto isn't censorship-resistant it's a toy. What has to happen to block the fork? Anything miners or nodes can do to stop it? https://i.imgur.com/GAz0GmS.png Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 07:07:45 AM If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker. In other words: ETH is centralized and susceptible to corruption. ::)For most coin holders, serious bugs that can ruin a coin should not be acceptable. For any single rational person, decentralization and immutability should be the priority in these coins. Without that aspect, you're just left with inefficient systems.As it should be. If crypto isn't censorship-resistant it's a toy. What has to happen to block the fork? Anything miners or nodes can do to stop it? Miners and nodes should be able to stop it (unless it works a bit differently with ETH). As long as they don't update, then everything is fine.Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: boomboom on June 19, 2016, 07:21:05 AM Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: coinyard on June 19, 2016, 07:40:39 AM There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it? Miners don't give a fuck. They'll include anything that has high enough bribe for them.How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it? That is right. If the attacker can give back most of the Ethereum to the DAO investors, I will support not to fork. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: coinyard on June 19, 2016, 07:44:50 AM If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker. In other words: ETH is centralized and susceptible to corruption. ::)I thought that is democracy. Like bitcoin, it has forked many times. Every new version coming out, the community decides if it wants to upgrade or not. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 07:49:03 AM If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker. In other words: ETH is centralized and susceptible to corruption. ::)I thought that is democracy. Like bitcoin, it has forked many times. Every new version coming out, the community decides if it wants to upgrade or not. In Bitcoin it would take total overwhelming concensus to hard fork a change like this. And if it was soft forked in under the table presumably the value would plummet because of it? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 07:53:16 AM In other words: ETH is centralized and susceptible to corruption. ::) I thought that is democracy. Like bitcoin, it has forked many times. Every new version coming out, the community decides if it wants to upgrade or not.In Bitcoin it would take total overwhelming concensus to hard fork a change like this. Which is obviously never going to happen. Only foolish people would support something like this.And if it was soft forked in under the table presumably the value would plummet because of it? The instinct value of a blockchain lies in the decentralization and immutability. Such a move would negate both, so I expect the answer to that question to be yes.Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 19, 2016, 08:54:51 AM There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it? How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it? The way a soft fork works is that miners not only don't include the transactions but won't build on a block that does. You only need 50%+ of the miners to sign on to pull of the attack, not every single miner. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: bitboy11 on June 19, 2016, 09:16:08 AM You're mixing apples and potatoes here. Bitcoin mostly uses soft-forks in order to improve its capabilities. Bitcoin has never used any kind of coin-control or bailouts which is exactly what ETH is going to do. If they do that, ETH is not immutable. Period. Forking to remove 184 billion Bitcoins is a form of coin control. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 19, 2016, 09:19:56 AM You're mixing apples and potatoes here. Bitcoin mostly uses soft-forks in order to improve its capabilities. Bitcoin has never used any kind of coin-control or bailouts which is exactly what ETH is going to do. If they do that, ETH is not immutable. Period. Forking to remove 184 billion Bitcoins is a form of coin control. Do you understand that Bitcoin was forked to address an issue created by a bug in the Bitcoin code? It was not forked because a transaction script did not do what someone expected as DoOverCoin is proposing to do. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 09:20:31 AM Forking to remove 184 billion Bitcoins is a form of coin control. Wrong. Stop posting nonsense to defend scams like ETH ("scam" because it claimed decentralization and immutability). The problem which occurred with Bitcoin broke the initial specification at a protocol level. The DAO hack did not break ETH. Read the posts by other people first. Did Bitcoin roll-back after Mt.Gox? Hint: No.Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: sidhujag on June 19, 2016, 09:36:49 AM Forking to remove 184 billion Bitcoins is a form of coin control. Wrong. Stop posting nonsense to defend scams like ETH ("scam" because it claimed decentralization and immutability). The problem which occurred with Bitcoin broke the initial specification at a protocol level. The DAO hack did not break ETH. Read the posts by other people first. Did Bitcoin roll-back after Mt.Gox? Hint: No.I guess it was a quick snap decision because he had to release something and it had to be decisive otherwise it would have falling harder and faster... but he decided at the time (and I don't believe the hardfork was his idea) that there would be a soft fork to omit the transaction and then a hardfork to reverse the dao investors... I believe the DAO should be held accountable, it can reap the rewards, why not the risks? I think he felt that the whole DAO project was too big to let fail and burn the tokens because he knew the hacker wouldnt refund. At the time it was the only sensible thing to do, to not woudl otherwise put the both projects in jeopardy because no other dAPP fund raising would ever be trusted again and that is the core of the ethereum business model to achieve network affect. Just me guessing. Anyways since then the attacker has threatened with legal action which puts the ball in Vitaliks court again. The smart thing would have been to just ask for a bounty in private and take a few million $ and run. But to try to go for the full amount and threaten that he will sue etc is a childish move imo and will backfire as Vitalik will surely fork so hacker gets nothing and then probably not have any issues legally. I believe DAO will have an option of staying alive and again this is just me but if I were to do it I would give DAO investors the option to keep with the DAO tokens and keep the project alive at their will... obviously reducing supply and reducing the scope of the project financially. This will fall inline with short term expectations with the quality of code that has been written which had compromised the present value of the project. In the future we are sure the quality will increase as well as awareness of what can happen if you don't do proper code inspections and analysis of the possible code paths of the contracts. (recursion is like smart contracts 101, a code review would have caught it). Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: bitboy11 on June 19, 2016, 09:36:57 AM I'm not defending Eth as I don't have any. :D
However, I think you're mistaken that it will destroy Eth if they forked. You are all proposing that they will no longer be trusted. I think there is a chance that it might actually increase TRUST in their system as there will be a leadership that will protect the Ethereum masses from hackers and other deviants. In today's world, there is a lot of talk about Socialism and it seems that people like their leaders to take care of them. I think there could be a greater chance that Ethereum collapses without an intervention. So since they are already headed that way, they might as well do what they can to prevent that. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: sidhujag on June 19, 2016, 09:40:51 AM I'm not defending Eth as I don't have any. :D However, I think you're mistaken that it will destroy Eth if they forked. You are all proposing that they will no longer be trusted. I think there is a chance that it might actually increase TRUST in their system as there will be a leadership that will protect the Ethereum masses from hackers and other deviants. In today's world, there is a lot of talk about Socialism and it seems that people like their leaders to take care of them. I think there could be a greater chance that Ethereum collapses without an intervention. So since they are already headed that way, they might as well do what they can to prevent that. Knowing vitalik he will work towards a voting mechanism that allows a DAO contract to control consensus level changes to ethereum through a majority vote? i dunno I feel like we have smart people in our community to solve problems that exist after we have big issues (mt gox led to creation of decentralized exchanges) Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 09:43:25 AM I think there is a chance that it might actually increase TRUST in their system as there will be a leadership that will protect the Ethereum masses from hackers and other deviants. In today's world, there is a lot of talk about Socialism and it seems that people like their leaders to take care of them. This is definitely a big no. Such a system could never be resistant to government control and general corruption. What is Vitalik thinking? The intrinsic value of the blockchain lies within its decentralization, immutability and censorship resistance (which are arguably interconnected). They're about to lose all of them.Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: bitboy11 on June 19, 2016, 09:51:09 AM This is definitely a big no. Such a system could never be resistant to government control and general corruption. What is Vitalik thinking? The intrinsic value of the blockchain lies within its decentralization, immutability and censorship resistance (which are arguably interconnected). They're about to lose all of them. Your statement might be true, it may lose all those qualities however it may become the most TRUSTED centralized blockchain platform. Do you really think that the Ethereum community will abandon ship if they all got their money back or if the DAO is completely restored and patched? I think they will stay. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: sadyas on June 19, 2016, 10:14:11 AM I'm not defending Eth as I don't have any. :D However, I think you're mistaken that it will destroy Eth if they forked. You are all proposing that they will no longer be trusted. I think there is a chance that it might actually increase TRUST in their system as there will be a leadership that will protect the Ethereum masses from hackers and other deviants. In today's world, there is a lot of talk about Socialism and it seems that people like their leaders to take care of them. I think there could be a greater chance that Ethereum collapses without an intervention. So since they are already headed that way, they might as well do what they can to prevent that. I agree with this. I hold DAO and want my money back. I am also a miner. So I will vote for the fork if the thief does not return my money. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 10:21:07 AM Your statement might be true, it may lose all those qualities however it may become the most TRUSTED centralized blockchain platform. Do you really think that the Ethereum community will abandon ship if they all got their money back or if the DAO is completely restored and patched? Properly said in other words:" The whole idea behind cryptocurrency of going towards decentralization/ditching banks and governments goes down the drain. These people just want profit and are not better than those corrupt officials that we oppose." They will become hypocrites the second that they criticize another bailout in the future (regardless of whether we're talking about banks or other coins).I think they will stay. I agree with this. I hold DAO and want my money back. I am also a miner. So I will vote for the fork if the thief does not return my money. You've made a mistake investing into something so complex (complexity is the enemy of security). How about just accepting it?Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 19, 2016, 10:55:48 AM most TRUSTED centralized blockchain platform. "Centralized blockchain platform" adds no value whatsoever. Ethereum may survive for a while doing that because the hype is strong, but it would become (if it isn't already) fully a ponzi scheme with no underlying business value. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Ultrabat on June 19, 2016, 10:58:38 AM Your statement might be true, it may lose all those qualities however it may become the most TRUSTED centralized blockchain platform. Do you really think that the Ethereum community will abandon ship if they all got their money back or if the DAO is completely restored and patched? Properly said in other words:" The whole idea behind cryptocurrency of going towards decentralization/ditching banks and governments goes down the drain. These people just want profit and are not better than those corrupt officials that we oppose." They will become hypocrites the second that they criticize another bailout in the future (regardless of whether we're talking about banks or other coins).I think they will stay. I agree with this. I hold DAO and want my money back. I am also a miner. So I will vote for the fork if the thief does not return my money. You've made a mistake investing into something so complex (complexity is the enemy of security). How about just accepting it?I am a miner as well as a DAO holder. So I can support the fork to get my money back. That is the benefit of being a miner. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: hv_ on June 19, 2016, 11:51:20 AM You've made a mistake investing into something so complex (complexity is the enemy of security). How about just accepting it? Intersting and true. May I reuse this on a BTC context? :) Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Remainder on June 19, 2016, 11:58:08 AM You've made a mistake investing into something so complex (complexity is the enemy of security). How about just accepting it? Intersting and true. May I reuse this on a BTC context? :) I believe so. The SegWit is so complex system and might fail in the implementation, so why would Core team implement it? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 12:47:30 PM "Centralized blockchain platform" adds no value whatsoever. Ethereum may survive for a while doing that because the hype is strong, but it would become (if it isn't already) fully a ponzi scheme with no underlying business value. Exactly. I am a miner as well as a DAO holder. So I can support the fork to get my money back. That is the benefit of being a miner. Correction: That's the benefit of being greedy and having some capital. ::)Intersting and true. May I reuse this on a BTC context? This is how the fork is going to take place with lobbying: "Sure, we will support that as long as we get a nice piece."I believe so. The SegWit is so complex system and might fail in the implementation, so why would Core team implement it? A perfect example of the personal incredulity fallacy: Because you find Segwit difficult to understand (complex system), you made out that it is complex for everyone and might not get implemented. This is very wrong. Segwit's complexity is overblown. Segwit is undergoing final testing before it gets merged. Hint: This is all off-topic.Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 19, 2016, 12:57:42 PM You're mixing apples and potatoes here. Bitcoin mostly uses soft-forks in order to improve its capabilities. Bitcoin has never used any kind of coin-control or bailouts which is exactly what ETH is going to do. If they do that, ETH is not immutable. Period. Forking to remove 184 billion Bitcoins is a form of coin control. Do you understand that Bitcoin was forked to address an issue created by a bug in the Bitcoin code? It was not forked because a transaction script did not do what someone expected as DoOverCoin is proposing to do. Intent is ambiguous unless we bind ourselves to a majority vote: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15278364#msg15278364 Thus I now say the fork of Bitcoin was equivalent to a fork of Ethereum w.r.t. to the context we are debating. I just realized this. Btw, this is also why Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine General's Problem (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183043.msg13818755#msg13818755). Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 19, 2016, 05:34:29 PM Effectively MIT's 666 ChainAnchor proposal which can be used for enforcing KYC, is a blacklist coming to crypto-currency thanks to Ethereum and The DAO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=2627 <--- a real attorney's explanation Thanks Vitalik for enslaving us! AnonyMint predicted this in 2013, Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.0). Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 19, 2016, 06:04:52 PM Vitalik et al are playing with fire as I pondered upthread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=3864 Especially listen at 1:06:15! And listen at 1:11:15 where the attorney says Vitalik (et al) is creating dangerous legal liability for himself (themselves) by being the judge! The likely party to be sued are those who can be identified and have a pot of money. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 19, 2016, 06:34:54 PM So the miners having 51% mining power can decide the fork or any code any way. There is no moral hazard. There is no argument at all. You just need to convince the majority of the miners. Somebody here actually understands PoW = miners are a "decentralized authority". Ethereum miners have started voting in some pools on the "soft fork"... The "soft fork" simply freezes all ETH transfers from the DAO contract (rendering the current "attacks" unprofitable)... And there are roughly another 25 days left for miners to simply set a flag that locks up the DAO. Ethpool is voting 99.4% in favor of a "soft fork" here: http://ethpool.org/stats/votes Looking at these numbers... It's very likely miners will subsequently vote in a "hard fork" that will destroy the DAO... and return all ETH to investors. Ethereum will not suffer from the same paralysis Bitcoin did post-Gox... and still does. All the FUD you hear about "crypto purity" is from Bitcoin Maximalist Trolls... Miners acting as a "decentralized authority" on ANY issue is at the heart of PoW. Did they really act without political control driving their choice? Vitalik et al are playing with fire as I pondered upthread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=3864 Especially listen at 1:06:15! And listen at 1:11:15 where the attorney says Vitalik (et al) is creating dangerous legal liability for himself (themselves) by being the judge! The likely party to be sued are those who can be identified and have a pot of money. Vitalik just propose a change to the Etheruem protocol. It is the miners who will be responsible for the restoring the money from the theft. The court may not agree that Vitalik has no political power. Considering how much all the mETH supporters prays at his feet, I'd say it is likely the court will find that Vitalik and his accomplices are significantly in control of the enterprise. But that is just my opinion as an observer. What do others think? And remember that the attorney pointed out that each of the 1000s of plaintiffs can sue in any one of the 1000s of jurisdictions. Someone can find a favorable judge some where!!! This is what I specifically warned about over the past months. I can even quote where I said that jurisdiction shopping would be a PITA because one would have to defend themselves against an unbounded number of threats. As the attorney Pamela points out, this issue could have been significantly mitigated if their attorneys had advised them to add an arbitration clause to the TOS and also had more sobering disclosures on their TOS so that plaintiffs couldn't just choose willynilly to make any sort of claim of injury in any jurisdiction. Who set up the legal structure for Ethereum et al? They apparently suck! What are you doing to crypto-currency? Who will support Ethereum as it becomes the 666 coin? The attorney explains that they open the ecosystem to subpoena power by doing this. And you support the moral hazard of rewarding n00bs for not doing due diligence instead of letting them suffer a 30% haircut. Effectively MIT's 666 ChainAnchor proposal which can be used for enforcing KYC, is a blacklist coming to crypto-currency thanks to Ethereum and The DAO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=2627 <--- a real attorney's explanation Thanks Vitalik for enslaving us! AnonyMint predicted this in 2013, Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=160612.0). Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 19, 2016, 11:24:23 PM Did they really act without political control driving their choice? (Answer: obviously not, although I would use the word influence rather than control.) Satoshi uses the phrase "cooperating to attack the network". If the miners are acting independently they are not cooperating, and if they are influenced or coodinated by a third party they are not acting independently, they are cooperating (albeit indirectly). There is not really any such thing as a non-attack soft fork in a properly functioning (i.e. mining not centralized) PoW chain, because without some mechanism to cooperate, the game theory does not support an individual miner ever activating a soft fork. In order to reject a non-conforming block the miner would have to mine on a shorter chain which is individually irrational. Responding to another comment upthread, miners can not perform a hard fork. A hard fork has to be adopted by the entire community, including both mining and non-mining nodes. This mistake is made endlessly in the Ethereum community. I don't know if Vitalik is encouraging it or what. The entire whole point of immutability and censorship resistance is to protect minorities, and the above-described game-theory is precisely what accomplishes this. By design (though not in practice today), miners are powerless functionaries with no meaningful discretion. If you want decisions made by a voting majority you can just create a corporation and have it run a database server. That is vastly more efficient than a blockchain with effectively the same result. All soft forks (even ones universally-recognized as benign such as those used in Bitcoin for upgrades) are a warning flag that the coin is not very decentralized and is not secure against miners cooperating to attack the network. If Ethereum soft forks to freeze or transfer coins, and this is a result of the structure of the ecosystem, it will demonstrate not only that the network is insecure, but that the ecosystem itself is incompatible with having secure network. That shouldn't really be a surprise though, with one person being given so much de facto authority that is the only real result possible. If you doubt his authority and influence, just imagine hypothetically how the process would be proceeding if Vitalik had never proposed forking, or if he opposed it. There would be vastly more opposition, more debate (or less because it would be seen as an absurd idea not even worth debating), and the forks would be far less likely to ever happen. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 20, 2016, 12:23:28 AM Did they really act without political control driving their choice? (Answer: obviously not, although I would use the word influence rather than control.) The Nash equilibrium is an economic game theory form of control. Influence is an apt term also, but I used control because the miners have to enforce the protocol that they think the majority will, because otherwise they waste their hashrate and suffer economic losses. This is the Nash equilibrium. Satoshi uses the phrase "cooperating to attack the network". If the miners are acting independently they are not cooperating, and if they are influenced or coordinated by a third party they are not acting independently, they are cooperating (albeit indirectly). There is not really any such thing as a non-attack soft fork in a properly functioning (i.e. mining not centralized) PoW chain, because without some mechanism to cooperate, the game theory does not support an individual miner ever activating a soft fork. In order to reject a non-conforming block the miner would have to mine on a shorter chain which is individually irrational. Agreed, that is the Nash equilibrium of PoW; and proof-of-stake doesn't have it, because PoS doesn't consume a resource i.e. nothing-at-stake. Responding to another comment upthread, miners can not perform a hard fork. A hard fork has to be adopted by the entire community, including both mining and non-mining nodes. This mistake is made endlessly in the Ethereum community. I don't know if Vitalik is encouraging it or what. Agreed. If most payers and payees refuse to sign and honor transactions on the hard fork, then the fork dies because miners receive no transaction fees and can't exchange any coinbase block rewards for any value. We might argue though that the power over forks held by the payers and payees is asymmetric to that of the miners, because 51% of the miners decide the longest chain, but closer to 100% of the payers/payees are required to reject a majority hashrate fork. The entire whole point of immutability and censorship resistance is to protect minorities, and the above-described game-theory is precisely what accomplishes this. By design (though not in practice today), miners are powerless functionaries with no meaningful discretion. That critically important point should be emphasized more often. Miners should not have any political power, because if they did then corruption or 666 shit like MIT's proposed ChainAnchor (a way to force KYC on the block chain) could become a reality and then minorities could be fucked with by whomever can capture the power vacuum of political control and influence (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984). If you want decisions made by a voting majority you can just create a corporation and have it run a database server. That is vastly more efficient than a blockchain with effectively the same result. That is what Daniel Larimer's (Bitshares') DPOS (https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-consensus/) and DASH's masternode schemes (both are variants of PoS) argue is the solution to scaling. But they forsake the protection of minorities and Nash equilibrium, thus they really aren't secure. Security via majority control is not stable, as Daniel Larimer painfully discovered (https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@dan/is-the-dao-going-to-be-doa). All soft forks (even ones universally-recognized as benign such as those used in Bitcoin for upgrades) are a warning flag that the coin is not very decentralized and is not secure against miners cooperating to attack the network. If Ethereum soft forks to freeze or transfer coins, and this is a result of the structure of the ecosystem, it will demonstrate not only that the network is insecure, but that the ecosystem itself is incompatible with having secure network. I agree. Proof-of-burn is a better way to do forks, giving every HODLer the option whether to join the new block chain or not. This allows competition of forks so that one development group can't have absolute influence over the development direction. If we want to create a new block chain design and we don't have the $4 trillion black budget resources of the DEEP STATE which "Satoshi" had at his disposal, then we either need some funding for development or we need to take the slow route of volunteerism/donations. I don't think it makes any sense to argue that funding will create centralized control structure and volunteerism won't. Monero has periodic forks built into the protocol and the same set of devs since launch have most of the political influence on the Nash equilibrium. So I think what it really boils down to is the open source code. If that code benefits society no matter how it was achieved, then someone can fork it and make a better distribution with less centralized control. Thus I will argue there is nothing wrong with raising funding for developing open source. And if the core dev(s) are conscientious and remove their influence over time and do not create any forks that aren't proof-of-burn, then that could be even better than what we have now with Blockstream. That shouldn't really be a surprise though, with one person being given so much de facto authority that is the only real result possible. If you doubt his authority, just imagine hypothetically how the process would be proceeding if Vitalik had never proposed forking, or if he opposed it. There would be vastly more opposition, more debate (or less because it would be seen as an absurd idea not even worth debating), and the forks would be far less likely to ever happen. Or imagine if "His Eminence Master Lord V" had a heart attack and all those n00bs in The DAO had no leader to protect them from their lack of due diligence. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 20, 2016, 04:25:10 AM Quote from: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4otfdd/the_ability_to_reverse_exploits_that_violate_the/ Quote The ability to reverse exploits that violate the intent and good faith actions of thousands of people will promote mainstream adoption - not hinder it. Just make a federated currency with a large group of arbiters administering it. No need for all this fancy stuff. No need for code, just use English for contracts. That might sound snarky or sarcastic, but it's not meant to be. What you're proposing is just fundamentally different than what cryptocurrency was created for and how it's been used thus far. And that's not necessarily a bad thing if that's what people want. If people want what you propose then there's no need for a lot of this technological overhead that we deal with here. A system based on decentralized social governance and subjectivity could be quite interesting, but it's certainly not what Ethereum was meant to be as far as I know. Andrew Vegetabile, Director of the Litecoin Association, came out against a fork of Ethereum/The DAO, Decrying interference with The DAO by outside crypto developers in an open letter to “Vitalik Buterin, The DAO, future smart contract developers, and the throngs of individuals within the crypto ecosystem” today. Quote from: http://freepdfhosting.com/6047c65a73.pdf To Vitalik Buterin, fellow Ethereum developers (to include the DAO developers) and the Ethereum Foundation: A smart contract was set up, with the indications that the “code” was the contract itself. It was not only a ridiculous idea to state this, but shows your shortcomings as leaders within the community without added language. Whomever you have as your advisors have failed not only you, but the Ethereum community as a whole. My word of advice to all of you is to do absolutely nothing at all. Never in the history of crypto for as far as I can remember has a developer been intimately involved with a third party application in attempting to resolve said applications issues. The best analogy that I can think of at this point is if there was a bug in counterparty code and the Bitcoin core devs got involved. I am truly sorry that such a large marketcap was involved in the DAO. But by the nature of your system, it enabled this to happen. Failure to plan accordingly has caused this, and I implore you all to take the time to review code and consider all ramifications before releasing something in the future. I can’t help but feel that a mix between trying to non-organically throw Ethereum on a pedestal (through promotion) along with a desire to dominate entangled with greed has brought us to this point. Your direct actions will ripple throughout the crypto ecosystem, much broader than Paycoin or MT GOX. Your involvement thus far is unprecedented, and needs to stop. An analogy to recent events ca n equate to the banking bailout, where the leaders in charge have stepped in because they have deemed this application “to big to fail”. Where does it end? Is there a threshold of Ethereum market cap which implores you to act on the failure of a third party application? If so, you should state that. Or better yet, force Ethereum to only allow up to a max of a % of total Ethereum to be utilized in a third party application. Forking and leadership As if the involvement of leaders in Ethereum wasn’t enough, the talk of soft and hard forks has been brought up numerous times under the guise of developing a “fix”, with letting the community decide how it should proceed. Here is the problem with that. Vitalik, you are what Charlie Lee is to Litecoin and Satoshi is to Bitcoin. You are the guidance, leadership, and vision to Ethereum. Being in such a position of power influences the future of Ethereum, to include forks. The mere suggestion to fork (short of a major bug in the base software) in your circumstance is irresponsible. Because you are the lead developer and creator, involvement of any type would again set a dangerous precedent in uncharted territories. This could have consequences worldwide in legislation, where I fear your actions today will be debated tomorrow in every congress in democratic states. A developer’s influence shapes a coin’s community a nd developers worldwide should stand up with me and announce their disapproval of any action on your part. Developing the code and throwing it into the wild in order for the community to decide whether to fork or not does not abstain you from the future of Ethereum due to your influence. Once the word “fork” leaves your lips for others to hear, you have already swayed the masses to a degree. The program was set up as a contract, pointing to the code as the final word. Therefore, interpretations of the code (including bugs) are tantamount to the legalities of the “attacker(s)”. In other words, I personally believe that the attacker was well within his rights to exploit this contract. And now the community suffers for a poor implementation of a contract. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Thenoticer on June 20, 2016, 05:32:26 AM Personal responsiblity and the Ponzi scam.
https://archive.is/BbeY3#selection-557.0-669.62 Quote Prosperity is in general the result of the working of free markets. The one caveat to this observation is that market participants have to be responsible. It doesn't matter so much if they are intelligent or not, it doesn't really matter if they're good christians or devout muslims or anything else, but they do have to be responsible. When some people behave irresponsibly the result is that they lose their money, which flows, albeit indirectly and circumvolutedly but nevertheless unerringly, to more responsible participants. When a small majority* of participants behave irresponsibly however the net result is not just pain to their own fortunes, but pain spread across the board. All of a sudden you have to be very intelligent, and very experienced, and very well informed to manage to keep your money safe, and often enough even that's not going to suffice. Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot has the unpleasant effect of creating a high powered idiot. He can now wreak havoc on the exchange rate, which increases volatility and on the long term hurts everyone involved in bitcoins, because volatility is, much like inflation, an indirect tax on users. Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot has the unpleasant effect of creating half a million bitcoins' worth of valueless receipts, which are pretty much indistinguishable to the naked eye from valid receipts. Thus, if you pay on anyone's credit you are basing your judgment not on actual fact, but on an unknown and pretty much unknowable mixture of fact and hogwash. Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot is a bad idea. There are people whose personal responsibility in this matter is greater than that of most everyone else, people who have in effect acted as lieutenants for the random idiot. This thread is a convenient spot for all of them to avoid the indignity of being called out, and instead freely and willingly admit their mistake, and by admitting it learn from it. Specifically, learn that they aren't nearly as qualified as they thought to play the "banker", and by this make one step towards maybe one day actually being bankers. The wanna-be bankers are not alone in their hour of humiliation. There are plenty of others who spend their entire day spouting nonsense on this forum, either under the guise of being "journalists" for some monthly magazine that does a couple issues a year or just as random internet experts in everything. Obviously they won't be learning anything on this opportunity as they haven't learned anything on any of the previous ones in their lives. That's after all fine, what would a mining town be without the drunks and general scum? Aside from these practical considerations, there are some more general points to be taken home by anybody who wants to be a little smarter today than last month, and possibly have a little better shot at actually making money than before. 1. Learn the pecking order. All opinions are not equal. Some people are to be respected. Learn who. Some people are irrelevant and easily ignored. Learn who. More importantly than the who, learn why. Is it just because "everyone else seems to think so"? That's no good, forget it. Is it because they were right when everyone else was wrong? That's perfect, especially if it occurs with any sort of consistency. 2. Business means something very specific. Only the permanently poor imagine business = "anything to do with money". There's no business without a business plan. If something purports to be a business but "it can't" or it just won't share its business plan it is not a business. This means you can't be investing in it. Sure, you can throw money at anything you wish, as for instance the toilet bowl, Ponzi scams or scantily clad girls. However, in order to invest you absolutely need a business first. 3. Learn how to deal with your own mental limitations. If you think you don't have any you find yourself most likely in the situation described here: Quote If one skims through the psychological literature, one will find some evidence that the incompetent are less able than their more skilled peers to gauge their own level of competence. For example, Fagot and O'Brien (1994) found that socially incompetent boys were largely unaware of their lack of social graces (see Bem & Lord, 1979 , for a similar result involving college students). Mediocre students are less accurate than other students at evaluating their course performance ( Moreland, Miller, & Laucka, 1981 ). Unskilled readers are less able to assess their text comprehension than are more skilled readers ( Maki, Jonas, & Kallod, 1994 ). Students doing poorly on tests less accurately predict which questions they will get right than do students doing well ( Shaughnessy, 1979 ; Sinkavich, 1995 ). Drivers involved in accidents or flunking a driving exam predict their performance on a reaction test less accurately than do more accomplished and experienced drivers ( Kunkel, 1971 ). In short: if you're not aware that there's anything wrong with your judgment of "business", "finance", "investing", "money" and so forth that is almost certainly due to the fact that you are very weak on all of these topics, likely significantly below average. You should spend a good deal of time reading and a greater deal of time testing things out methodically before you promote yourself mentally to "average", or even "crummy". This means years. Years. The advantage of BTC is that it's a very cheap and very clean way to learn about finance. The disadvantage (if we can call it that) is that it's much akin to falling in love: very, very, very hard on the knees. Vitriolic to the ego. 4. Step outside of your ideology. You might have been brought up in a very repressive social milieu in which some particular ideological slant was drilled into you. This is working to your disadvantage, get rid of it. Are you sticking up for your friends because they're your friends rather than because they have a point? Great for facebook, horrible for BTC. You will lose money. Are you following the crowd like a welfare state lemming? Great for the white collar slave, horrible for BTC. You will lose money. Do you think form is above content and as such it's okay to invade foreign countries and slaughter civilians just as long as nobody says shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker or tits on TV? Great for being an American, horrible for the free world. You will lose money. 5. Re-read this entire post. It probably didn't fully sink in on the first pass. Seriously. Alternatively it is always easier to just not like me. You will lose money. --------- * This term of... art, let's say, will go down in BTC history. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Bemerand on June 20, 2016, 07:01:14 AM I'm not defending Eth as I don't have any. :D However, I think you're mistaken that it will destroy Eth if they forked. You are all proposing that they will no longer be trusted. I think there is a chance that it might actually increase TRUST in their system as there will be a leadership that will protect the Ethereum masses from hackers and other deviants. In today's world, there is a lot of talk about Socialism and it seems that people like their leaders to take care of them. I think there could be a greater chance that Ethereum collapses without an intervention. So since they are already headed that way, they might as well do what they can to prevent that. The Ethereum has hard forked several times before. They were all successful. I also voted for the fork to freeze the stolen funds. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: GreenBits on June 20, 2016, 07:51:20 AM Maybe it is just all PR The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO. The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing. $50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice) Normally it is best to buy when there is "blood in the streets". Ethereum isn't likely dead. So far, CC is a delusion of decentralization any way. The ETH chart is looking very similar to BTC's 2013/14 crash. Note after an extended deadcat bounce, then BTC proceeded to make lower lows and eventually found bottom @150ish. Give this man a cookie. The enthusiast are still convinced this is the " bottom", we will certainly see ;D Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: unusualfacts30 on June 20, 2016, 07:55:22 AM don't know why but I sold them right before it went haywire. feels good to be lucky
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Auponef on June 20, 2016, 10:30:34 AM don't know why but I sold them right before it went haywire. feels good to be lucky I think that is just good luck. It is time to decide when to buy back in. It depends on if the Etheruem will survive the crisis. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 20, 2016, 10:41:50 AM (Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim.) http://pdaian.com/blog/chasing-the-dao-attackers-wake/ Edit: Solidity-related, but changes the whole picture. I'll be daaamned, Simon de la Rouviere claims that the flaw *is* in the EVM... interesting. Please note that he is replying to the author. https://twitter.com/simondlr/status/744793288167694336 Thoughts, smooth? (or whoever is knowledgeable enough) As far as I can tell he is saying there is a feature of EVM that makes it easier to write dangerous contracts. There is still no claim that the EVM did not execute the contract as it was written and according to the specification. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 22, 2016, 10:22:06 PM As far as I can tell he is saying there is a feature of EVM that makes it easier to write dangerous contracts. There is still no claim that the EVM did not execute the contract as it was written and according to the specification. Thanks! :) Edit: Does anyone else see more to all this? That feature is the flaw of Turing-complete scripting, which myself (and numerous others) personally told the founders of Ethereum would lead to the clusterfuck they have now: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15278364#msg15278364 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15284692#msg15284692 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15306066#msg15306066 So the bug is in Ethereum, as explained in layman's terms here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1523492.0 To fix the bug, they have to fix each instance of failure with a fork. This may be seen as a feature by those who are alleged to be behind this alleged conspiracy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15322284#msg15322284). This is an inexorable bug, or until death do us part. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: sidhujag on June 23, 2016, 05:16:05 AM As far as I can tell he is saying there is a feature of EVM that makes it easier to write dangerous contracts. There is still no claim that the EVM did not execute the contract as it was written and according to the specification. Thanks! :) Edit: Does anyone else see more to all this? That feature is the flaw of Turing-complete scripting, which myself (and numerous others) personally told the founders of Ethereum would lead to the clusterfuck they have now: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15278364#msg15278364 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15284692#msg15284692 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15306066#msg15306066 So the bug is in Ethereum, as explained in layman's terms here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1523492.0 To fix the bug, they have to fix each instance of failure with a fork. This may be seen as a feature by those who are alleged to be behind this alleged conspiracy (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15322284#msg15322284). This is an inexorable bug, or until death do us part. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Ultrabat on June 26, 2016, 07:28:54 AM The majority of the miners think there is a hack. They will support the freezing of the "stolen" funds, they have voted with their hashing.
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 26, 2016, 08:01:42 AM The majority of the miners i.e. There is now a DAO hack in progress Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Lauda on June 26, 2016, 08:13:15 AM The Ethereum has hard forked several times before. They were all successful. I also voted for the fork to freeze the stolen funds. So you're stating that this fork was be justified due to previous forks even though they aren't even remotely similar? By voting for this fork you are indirectly stating that you're only interested in greed, not in the principles of cryptocurrencies. ETH, the soon to be: centralized, non-censorship resistant, mutable and government friendly blockchain featuring bailouts. The majority of the miners i.e. There is now a DAO hack in progressTitle: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iCEBREAKER on June 26, 2016, 08:37:27 AM The majority of the miners i.e. There is now a DAO hack in progress I hope this blacklisting hack is stopped by the "attacker." He's a better digital contract lawyer than Team Blacklist. :D If counterprotocol blacklisting is possible, I don't see DAO and ETH working until that bug is fixed. It apprears the problem is the DAO/ETH tokens aren't 100% fungible. Maybe use Monero for the value/token transfer layer(s), once it has multisig and colored coins? Or VB can add the Monero-style ring signatures he mentioned. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/ Until then, the systems suffer from the overhead of possible fraud and may again cut themselves on your razor. Only systems that are structurally incompatible with fraud don't suffer from the overhang of potential fraud. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Westinhome on June 26, 2016, 09:06:31 AM It apprears the problem is the DAO/ETH tokens aren't 100% fungible. Maybe use Monero for the value/token transfer layer(s), once it has multisig and colored coins? Or VB can add the Monero-style ring signatures he mentioned. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/ Until then, the systems suffer from the overhead of possible fraud and may again cut themselves on your razor. I had several thousand Monero from the early day in 2014. I did not touch them since after 2 years, there is not much applications of Monero. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 26, 2016, 09:10:44 AM It apprears the problem is the DAO/ETH tokens aren't 100% fungible. Maybe use Monero for the value/token transfer layer(s), once it has multisig and colored coins? Or VB can add the Monero-style ring signatures he mentioned. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/ Until then, the systems suffer from the overhead of possible fraud and may again cut themselves on your razor. I had several thousand Monero from the early day in 2014. I did not touch them since after 2 years, there is not much applications of Monero. Somewhat off topic, but you are indeed using one of the applications of Monero: Secure and private store of value. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 26, 2016, 11:48:51 AM Only systems that are structurally incompatible with fraud don't suffer from the overhang of potential fraud. This is indeed true. Unfortunately Monero has periodic forks and thus its mining is not structurally incompatible with protocol fucked by the consensus or even a very powerful hashrate adversary. So to argue that ring sigs are structurally incompatible with blacklisting is not absolutely true, for as long as mining could change the protocol and force every txn to reveal its viewkey. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Hueristic on June 26, 2016, 10:40:32 PM Only systems that are structurally incompatible with fraud don't suffer from the overhang of potential fraud. This is indeed true. Unfortunately Monero has periodic forks and thus its mining is not structurally incompatible with protocol fucked by the consensus or even a very powerful hashrate adversary. So to argue that ring sigs are structurally incompatible with blacklisting is not absolutely true, for as long as mining could change the protocol and force every txn to reveal its viewkey. First of all I thought that the forks were only during beta and second how can you identify someones coins to blacklist them on a fork if they don't share them with you? And arguing that anything is not what it's intended to be because it can be hardforked is really a logic fail. That is like saying gravity is not reliable because one day the world will spiral into the sun. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 26, 2016, 11:07:07 PM Only systems that are structurally incompatible with fraud don't suffer from the overhang of potential fraud. This is indeed true. Unfortunately Monero has periodic forks and thus its mining is not structurally incompatible with protocol fucked by the consensus or even a very powerful hashrate adversary. So to argue that ring sigs are structurally incompatible with blacklisting is not absolutely true, for as long as mining could change the protocol and force every txn to reveal its viewkey. First of all I thought that the forks were only during beta and second how can you identify someones coins to blacklist them on a fork if they don't share them with you? And arguing that anything is not what it's intended to be because it can be hardforked is really a logic fail. That is like saying gravity is not reliable because one day the world will spiral into the sun. He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Hueristic on June 26, 2016, 11:33:33 PM He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join. IC, thx for clarifying that for me. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: TheMage on June 26, 2016, 11:40:43 PM The Ethereum has hard forked several times before. They were all successful. I also voted for the fork to freeze the stolen funds. So you're stating that this fork was be justified due to previous forks even though they aren't even remotely similar? By voting for this fork you are indirectly stating that you're only interested in greed, not in the principles of cryptocurrencies. ETH, the soon to be: centralized, non-censorship resistant, mutable and government friendly blockchain featuring bailouts. The majority of the miners i.e. There is now a DAO hack in progressThanks Lauda, my thoughts exactly. Greed will consume this community. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 27, 2016, 04:11:56 AM He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join. IC, thx for clarifying that for me. smooth thank you for the honest re-summary of my statement. smooth actually including the viewkey, not necessary an ID. smooth I am thinking of 10X hashrate attack as well, not just a 51% attack, which I had explained in the other thread is much more brutal on the other miners. In either case, the attacker can change the protocol to award his miners the fees from "incorrect transactions", while refusing to process the other outputs. So sorry your logic is refuted. The payer's input becomes spent/confiscated and the Cryptonote rings can do nothing to stop this. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: VERUMinNUMERIS on June 27, 2016, 09:09:04 AM Are inside jobs considered hacks? :p
Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 27, 2016, 11:55:39 AM He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join. IC, thx for clarifying that for me. smooth thank you for the honest re-summary of my statement. smooth actually including the viewkey, not necessary an ID. smooth I am thinking of 10X hashrate attack as well, not just a 51% attack, which I had explained in the other thread is much more brutal on the other miners. In either case, the attacker can change the protocol to award his miners the fees from "incorrect transactions", while refusing to process the other outputs. So sorry your logic is refuted. The payer's input becomes spent/confiscated and the Cryptonote rings can do nothing to stop this. Mea culpa. I got some sleep, then upon awakening, I realized smooth is correct. If the 51% (or 10X) attacker adds the transaction to the block chain, even if it interprets that only the fee UXTO is spendable, then when the other outputs are spent, it must add those transactions in order to take their fees. So indeed as the transaction fees excluded from the block chain accumulate to be greater in value than the excess hashrate possessed by the attacker, then honest miners are economically incentivized to process the blacklisted transactions. However, the attacker may drive the exchange value of the token so low by attacking it, that the transaction fees might have to accumulate over very long periods of time. Perhaps the excessive delays (a year?) would spiral the exchange value downwards and/or many users would capitulate and provide the viewkey required. So actually smooth is only correct if the number of users of the token who don't capitulate is greater than those who do (presuming the attacker has an externally funded incentive to attack providing the excess hashrate in the first place), otherwise the attacker will have more funding than the honest miners. Because even if the honest miners include the capitulated transaction, the attacker can blacklist those blocks due to the attacker's higher level of base hashrate aforementioned. In other words, the success of the defense smooth advocates is quite slim, because if the token ecosystem is only composed of diehards, then it is likely won't have a very high base hashrate, thus an attacker with a higher base hashrate is more likely. Whereas, if the token ecosystem is composed of the masses, then most are likely to capitulate. Even if the token's protocol made anonymity mandatory on every transaction, such that users' clients would choose the minority hashrate fork which enforced the ban against capitulating users, the problem is it is possible to capitulate external to the block chain data, thus there would be no means by which the users' clients could discern which transactions capitulated. It seems that it is impossible to make a minority block chain protocol that defies the desires of the majority and their collectively funded State (which can charge the cost of attacking a minority block chain to the collective, even surreptitiously). Ironically, AnonyMint had written about this in 2013 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033.0). This is why I became less focused on the anonymity feature over time. I always wanted it and was trying to find a way to perfect it, but really what we need is to make decentralized money popular. And hope that some good comes from that. We can't actually succeed by fighting the majority, unless our minority is very significant in size. I am hoping that microtransactions are so numerous and tiny, that the State can't afford to enforce some form of taxation on all of them. But I admit that eventually the global State will get organized and perfect the systems of digital control. It just seems inevitable. Only the will of the people at-large will decide if the State's power is curtailed. Privacy on block chains could be a popular feature. But preventing the State from tracking criminals will not be popular. Thus the State must be given a viewkey. This is why I am more focused on scaling block chains, not only absolute anonymity. Privacy can be added with much less costly technology than the very heavy RingCT. That is why I was excited last month when I discovered a way to fix off chain anonymity and scale it. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: generalizethis on June 27, 2016, 12:50:00 PM He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join. IC, thx for clarifying that for me. smooth thank you for the honest re-summary of my statement. smooth actually including the viewkey, not necessary an ID. smooth I am thinking of 10X hashrate attack as well, not just a 51% attack, which I had explained in the other thread is much more brutal on the other miners. In either case, the attacker can change the protocol to award his miners the fees from "incorrect transactions", while refusing to process the other outputs. So sorry your logic is refuted. The payer's input becomes spent/confiscated and the Cryptonote rings can do nothing to stop this. Mea culpa. I got some sleep, then upon awakening, I realized smooth is correct. If the 51% (or 10X) attacker adds the transaction to the block chain, even if it interprets that only the fee UXTO is spendable, then when the other outputs are spent, it must add those transactions in order to take their fees. So indeed as the transaction fees excluded from the block chain accumulate to be greater in value than the excess hashrate possessed by the attacker, then honest miners are economically incentivized to process the blacklisted transactions. However, the attacker may drive the exchange value of the token so low by attacking it, that the transaction fees might have to accumulate over very long periods of time. Perhaps the excessive delays (a year?) would spiral the exchange value downwards and/or many users would capitulate and provide the viewkey required. So actually smooth is only correct if the number of users of the token who don't capitulate is greater than those who do (presuming the attacker has an externally funded incentive to attack providing the excess hashrate in the first place), otherwise the attacker will have more funding than the honest miners. Because even if the honest miners include the capitulated transaction, the attacker can blacklist those blocks due to the attacker's higher level of base hashrate aforementioned. In other words, the success of the defense smooth advocates is quite slim, because if the token ecosystem is only composed of diehards, then it is likely won't have a very high base hashrate, thus an attacker with a higher base hashrate is more likely. Whereas, if the token ecosystem is composed of the masses, then most are likely to capitulate. Even if the token's protocol made anonymity mandatory on every transaction, such that users' clients would choose the minority hashrate fork which enforced the ban against capitulating users, the problem is it is possible to capitulate external to the block chain data, thus there would be no means by which the users' clients could discern which transactions capitulated. It seems that it is impossible to make a minority block chain protocol that defies the desires of the majority and their collectively funded State (which can charge the cost of attacking a minority block chain to the collective, even surreptitiously). Ironically, AnonyMint had written about this in 2013 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033.0). This is why I became less focused on the anonymity feature over time. I always wanted it and was trying to find a way to perfect it, but really what we need is to make decentralized money popular. And hope that some good comes from that. We can't actually succeed by fighting the majority, unless our minority is very significant in size. I am hoping that microtransactions are so numerous and tiny, that the State can't afford to enforce some form of taxation on all of them. But I admit that eventually the global State will get organized and perfect the systems of digital control. It just seems inevitable. Only the will of the people at-large will decide if the State's power is curtailed. Privacy on block chains could be a popular feature. But preventing the State from tracking criminals will not be popular. Thus the State must be given a viewkey. This is why I am more focused on scaling block chains, not only absolute anonymity. Privacy can be added with much less costly technology than the very heavy RingCT. That is why I was excited last month when I discovered a way to fix off chain anonymity and scale it. The state is corporate (or becoming obviously so with every passing day--everything from prisons to schools becoming privatized), so assuming the state is the power who will bring down crypto is a no go for me. Rehash your analysis using corporate interest and you might see anonymous digital money as a great tool in their arsenal--the bigger the threat, the more likely it will be adopted. This would be obvipus if you took the time to read Delueze and understand old world discipline systems are being replaced by more efficient new world control systems. Now, will the new corporate state be afraid of anonymous cash? Probably not as it doesn't matter to them if people spend their money morally and they are being paid for services and not tax based in any traditional sense. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 27, 2016, 12:56:06 PM The corporation will still charge the costs to the collective and keep the profits for themselves. And it will still be a power vacuum of winner takes all. So it doesn't change my argument.
Corporate-fascism is just the State by another name. It will be multi-national, i.e. a world governance. I agree corporations will want privacy features, and months ago I urged Monero to look more in that direction. I explained that Zcash might have a better technology for that, c.f. the Thoughts on Zcash thread for that. Unfortunately that might not support the current valuation of the current individual focused ecosystem. I don't know. Someone would need to think that out. And again, I like my recent discovery of how to do more efficient and non-simultaneity off chain anonymity, as perhaps better than both Zcash and RingCT, but I can't be sure yet because so far that is only a rough sketch in my mind and some private discussions. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: generalizethis on June 27, 2016, 01:03:22 PM The corporation will still charge the costs to the collective and keep the profits for themselves. And it will still be a power vacuum of winner takes all. So it doesn't change my argument. Corporate-fascism is just the State by another name. It will be multi-national, i.e. a world governance. But that doesn't change my point about taxation--it's more efficient to just charge fees onto purchases, and the corporate algorithm machine will figure this out, which means anonymous coins aren't a threat and actually give them better ways to secure the information associated with their finances. I can't imagine any company who would want their payroll or research and development funds tracked on an a clear blockchain or a traditional bank. My inkling is that banks adopt means to keep these records safe from human eyes or the corporate world does it for them. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 27, 2016, 01:15:06 PM When you have one global corporation (a group of companies beholden to their collective oligarchy) charging fees, this is equivalent to taxation. They will charge their failures to the collective and keep the profits. It is just a world government by another name.
And I agree they will want privacy, except they will demand to have the masterkey to see everything. I totally agree with making privacy technology for corporations. I was emphasizing that months ago in the Thoughts on Zcash thread. Individual focused anonymity technology (i.e. resisting the "State" or collective outcome) has no market and no future (whereas privacy controlled by corporations does). I don't like this realization. I am ready to retire to some obscure place and ignore the world. (but first I'll try to make my technology contribution, health willing) Note we are threadjacking the DAO hack theme. So if we want to discuss the tangent further, it would be best to start a new thread or move discussion to an appropriate existing thread. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: generalizethis on June 27, 2016, 01:23:12 PM When you have one global corporation (a group of companies beholden to their collective oligarchy) charging fees, this is equivalent to taxation. They will charge their failures to the collective and keep the profits. It is just a world government by another name. And I agree they will want privacy, except they will demand to have the masterkey to see everything. I totally agree with making privacy technology for corporations. I was emphasizing that months ago in the Thoughts on Zcash thread. Individual focused anonymity technology has no market and no future. Note we are threadjacking the DAO hack theme. So if we want to discuss the tangent further, it would be best to start a new thread or move discussion to an appropriate existing thread. Fair enough. I think the only sticking point we would have is over the new corporate system's need to see people's private information as they would get their money upfront, while traditional governments have used taxation to get their money after the fact--so if you started a new thread, my point would be that you don't need an IRS if you have a national sales tax, and if the companies are collecting the fees for themselves, you don't need much, if any, oversight at all. Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 27, 2016, 01:28:25 PM Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic. That anonymity discussion continues here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1342065.msg15382248#msg15382248). Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Hueristic on June 27, 2016, 03:20:26 PM Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Auponef on June 27, 2016, 07:38:08 PM Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption? If that is the case, you can attack any contracts now. Why just the DAO was attacked? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 27, 2016, 08:39:44 PM Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption? Yes and no, but mostly no (imo). A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out. But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed. Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: smooth on June 27, 2016, 08:41:45 PM He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join. IC, thx for clarifying that for me. smooth thank you for the honest re-summary of my statement. smooth actually including the viewkey, not necessary an ID. smooth I am thinking of 10X hashrate attack as well, not just a 51% attack, which I had explained in the other thread is much more brutal on the other miners. In either case, the attacker can change the protocol to award his miners the fees from "incorrect transactions", while refusing to process the other outputs. So sorry your logic is refuted. The payer's input becomes spent/confiscated and the Cryptonote rings can do nothing to stop this. Miners, including attacking miners, can not 'change the protocol'. They can hold the chain hostage by blocking transactions which may work as a sort of leverage to push through protocol changes, but that depends a lot on the wider context. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Hueristic on June 27, 2016, 08:43:05 PM Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption? Yes and no, but mostly no (imo). A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out. But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed. Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion. Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise. :) Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: sadasa on June 28, 2016, 08:26:21 AM Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption? Yes and no, but mostly no (imo). A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out. But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed. Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion. Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise. :) So the Ethereum itself is quite safe, or not buggy. The problem is in the writing or the coding of the contract. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: iamnotback on June 28, 2016, 08:53:33 AM Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption? Yes and no, but mostly no (imo). A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out. But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed. Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion. Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise. :) So the Ethereum itself is quite safe, or not buggy. The problem is in the writing or the coding of the contract. Incorrect. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Bemerand on June 28, 2016, 03:24:10 PM Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption? Yes and no, but mostly no (imo). A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out. But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed. Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion. Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise. :) So the Ethereum itself is quite safe, or not buggy. The problem is in the writing or the coding of the contract. Incorrect. If that is incorrect, is that a fundamental flaw that cannot be reparied by removing the loopholes? If so, why the price is not below $5? Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: Hueristic on June 28, 2016, 04:23:25 PM Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption? Yes and no, but mostly no (imo). A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out. But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed. Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion. Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise. :) So the Ethereum itself is quite safe, or not buggy. The problem is in the writing or the coding of the contract. Incorrect. If that is incorrect, is that a fundamental flaw that cannot be reparied by removing the loopholes? If so, why the price is not below $5? Well the answer to that is simple, the entire coin is speculator fueled. Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: BitUsher on June 28, 2016, 06:24:46 PM The Daft will be the next DAO!
http://coinvend.io/thedaft http://www.thedaft.party/wtf/ Title: Re: There was no DAO hack Post by: 2dogs on June 29, 2016, 07:43:48 AM The Daft will be the next DAO! http://coinvend.io/thedaft http://www.thedaft.party/wtf/ Gonna bet the farm on The Daft, LOL! |
