|
question:
like i ask pumpy and like i understand it( and i am not a superbrain like vitalik) if there is a fork and the outcome is 2 chains that is not a success ? right ?
thats a failed hardfork? and blockchain techniques are clear if you use both you are suporting both coins. the only way to have a chain die is to not touch that coin. as a holder you have to choose ? and not get tempted by the extra money ? right ? so far ?
well i read in that skype leak that devs. didnt expect extra coins saw them got happy and sold them . right ?
a bit greedy but also not smart ? if sold they creat a market for the enemy ? right ?
i thought ethereum developers and foundation are soooooo samrt guys . super brains that know how to design the future?
they keep telling between teh lines that we depend on them there smartnes . but it feels like the emprers new clothes .
so now my question:
if eth loses and etc is the new dominant chain. can vitalik and the core devs ( up there discribed ) demand to be the etereum clsissis foundation ?
|
|
|
|
cheap etc ...buy buy lol
I did when you sold yours a week ago at the lows LOL want to buy them back or are you waiting for the price to go higher ?? Hahahaha eh? yea i sold..and i bought and i got plenty of coins on other exchanges and in cold wallets ( from my ETH )..i got too much etc tbh...but i see you guys have alot of BTC...so why sell cheap ! afaik most of the support for etc is from myself and bitpoop...under 0.0003....  i heard the walls are gona move up...no more cheap etc, best buy asap
told y'all lol now heres comes..... 
sorry break this to you, but i became a major etc holder without buying any, (on day1, the first few hours of listing i 10x my etc from my polo account alone  )i had no choice and you guys helped me get the etc, so thanks for the $$ long live etc, now buy buy hmm pumpy let me ask you something: if you sell etc are you helping to establish a market ? couse only if etc is traded etc is alive? so you are a suporter of etc ? right ? if you are not why are you helping etc ? was it greed ? couldnt you have this extra money lay there untouchted ? no the tempt was big isnt it pumpy ? now we smile and welcome your help thanks pumpy |
|
|
|
UPDATE: http://51pool.org/#/miners hashrate climbing fast again. 4 miners joined in the last 15 min 51% attack hashrate: 7 GH/s and 14 miners ETC network hashrate: 567.8 GH/s China markets open shortly. Lets hope they want to buy some ETC and sell ETH smile : how long do you think it will take for them to get 51% i guess it was a try of them to collect protectors of the eth chain. to have there pool grow. yesterday it was down for a while error 522 its up now Miners Online: 13 Pool Hash Rate: 6.83 GH |
|
|
|
Barry shilbert and Peter toad...thanks for damaging crypto and BTC.
Why not blame Vitalik? He is the one that started this. He is the one that supported the DAO insecure code. If they were very careful none of this would have happened. Vitalik should look in the mirror and look at the man who is to blame. Nah don't blame the people who wrote the code then decided (with the vote of a small percentage of the community) that the world supercomputer that can't be tampered with actually is just a time machine in disguise that can undo their mistakes with absolutely no impact on the blockchain or crypto in general. Blame these other guys that I'm sure have no issue with reversing time or undoing transactions since you know, bitcoin never had any issues hackers or missing money and all that. I'm sure they are secretly the ones behind all of this... sarcasm? i am just sitting here reading and i am thrilled with whats going on. game of clones lol ether ! |
|
|
|
|
wow
if it will be a legal case
and reported
this guys are all known by name.
what will be there defence ?
it was no crime `?
we followed the code ?
gosh what a joke
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering if the DAO White Hat Hackers can return the funds to the DAO token holders on the Ethereum Classic chain?
wow thats a interesting question. and if not will it be a legal problem ? law and order `? |
|
|
|
|
little peoples point of vew on this:
as i have a few friends with ether prefork they keep asking me . do you have infos ? what happens now?
can i move the coins ?
they do have just a few its not a lot - wallets with just 40 to 100 coins each - but they liked the world computer - the promises of vitalik.
now they are both eth and etc
all they wish is move this coins and get out save.
and they feel betrayed
|
|
|
|
pumpy what i wonder is all this genius devs why didnt they do the fork without that replay attack option ? and why dont they help now little people how lose there coins ? arnt they interested in little people ? i mean the coin holders? to buy and sell the coin ? doesnt a coin stay alive becouse of that people ? did this ethereum innovaton people mention how to fix the bugs and desaster after this fork ? is indeed an interesting question. One theory is: They hoped the replay attacks would hurt ETC but not ETH. Somebody would move ETH and also move ETC unintentionally while the ETH-team believed, ETC would be and stay worthless and die soon after the Hard fork. They didn't anticipate that exchanges would list it as reaction on the replay attacks and that ppl would buy it and miners would mine it. So, if the theory should be right that ETH-folks believed that not to prevent replay attacks would damage ETC, it was a really bad strategy. But totally in line with some of their moves before, from DAO until the rushed out HF and their intentions to do both. The more I think about it all the more I believe that ETH won't need more bad news regarding the tech to be doomed. It is as if they are willing to do everything to damage all credibility of the project and of the team and to bring themselves into a position without any choice to make a good decision. And ETC - if it survives it will most likely become Ethereum again, while ETH will be called ETHF. Spot on as always in your speculation. As for what comes in the future the only certainty is uncertainty. The theory about replay attacks is not mine. I've read it in an article. But an interesting conclusion is very simple: If they could have prevented it: 1. they did not because they believe it wouldn't be necessary 2. they did not because they believed it would even be advantageous Both conclusions would be wrong. So, it's still possible that they did not because it would have been hard to prevent it or would have opened the door for other problems and time was running out. But in all scenarios it's correct to say that one "rush-out" lead into more mistakes and the need to rush out more and to make more mistakes and so on. And this could lead into the next fail: http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/07/31/51pool-attack-plans-51-network-attack-ethereum-classic/It's said, and I agree: "If this ever were to be the case – and the Ethereum community would better hope it won’t be – 51Pool will attempt to 51% attack ETC as many times as necessary.
(...)
It is evident for everyone to see this is not an effort representing the entire Ethereum community. Unfortunately, every single supporter will be caught in the crossfire of repercussions that will undoubtedly follow these attacks, if they are ever executed. The Ethereum developers can prevent all of this mess from happening if they wanted to. It will be interesting to see if they decide to intervene or not."It's another situation for the team without a good choice. If they step in to prevent that, it would look even more as if control too much. But if the attack should happen there are only two scenarios and while only one would be bad for ETC, both would be bad for ETH. At least in short-term. And if ETC should be able to defend an attack it would even strengthen ETC and weaken ETH. What I believe is: At least a lot of Bitcoiners never really liked Ethereum. So it's possible that ETC is also used to damage ETH. And to prepare such an attack needs too much time, so it's possible and maybe even likely that there are already miners in line to defend ETC, but not visible yet. Under the line it's a gamble and not a smart one. And it's right what is stated in the article: The pool doesn't represent the community or the team. But of course the public won't differ much. hmmm i tryed the 51pool page but first this showed This pool is to raise enough hash rate to perform a 51% consensus attack on ETC. It is currently working as a normal pool on the ETH block chain. Once enough hash rate is reached, it will be temporarily moved to perform 51% consesus attack on the ETC chain Stats API Temporarily Down Usually it's just a temporal issue and mining is not affected. and now there is a error 522 |
|
|
|
pumpy what i wonder is all this genius devs why didnt they do the fork without that replay attack option ? and why dont they help now little people how lose there coins ? arnt they interested in little people ? i mean the coin holders? to buy and sell the coin ? doesnt a coin stay alive becouse of that people ? did this ethereum innovaton people mention how to fix the bugs and desaster after this fork ? is indeed an interesting question. One theory is: They hoped the replay attacks would hurt ETC but not ETH. Somebody would move ETH and also move ETC unintentionally while the ETH-team believed, ETC would be and stay worthless and die soon after the Hard fork. They didn't anticipate that exchanges would list it as reaction on the replay attacks and that ppl would buy it and miners would mine it. So, if the theory should be right that ETH-folks believed that not to prevent replay attacks would damage ETC, it was a really bad strategy. But totally in line with some of their moves before, from DAO until the rushed out HF and their intentions to do both. The more I think about it all the more I believe that ETH won't need more bad news regarding the tech to be doomed. It is as if they are willing to do everything to damage all credibility of the project and of the team and to bring themselves into a position without any choice to make a good decision. And ETC - if it survives it will most likely become Ethereum again, while ETH will be called ETHF. Spot on as always in your speculation. As for what comes in the future the only certainty is uncertainty. That's a great theory and all but the thing is there was no intention to create etc when they forked and did the rollback that corrupted the blockchain. They hardforked to bail out their big holders and assumed the shorter fork would just go away and be a non issue. People who value what the blockchain stands for and recognize the importance of not tampering with transactions for any reason decided to keep the shorter chain alive. Eventually it became etc, but it was never something the bailout foundation thought about, created or planned for. Sorry not going to give them credit for creating etc. Facts are facts, you may be able to rollback reality at some point but not right now. i was told it is basic blockchain technology knowledge that in a hardfork it is always the risk that there is then a second chain. even more if the consensus is not all the way down to the basis. but what do i know |
|
|
|
pumpy what i wonder is all this genius devs why didnt they do the fork without that replay attack option ? and why dont they help now little people how lose there coins ? arnt they interested in little people ? i mean the coin holders? to buy and sell the coin ? doesnt a coin stay alive becouse of that people ? did this ethereum innovaton people mention how to fix the bugs and desaster after this fork ? |
|
|
|
I have geth v1.4.7 (opposed fork)
then I sent to ETC address...
my geth v1.4.10 (support fork different machine)
also moved...
why is that? Did I just lost my ETH?
yes replay attack. the fork wasnt proper done , thats what i heard. sorry for your loss |
|
|
|
Vitalik said " Casper will make rollbacks infeasible due to its economic finality mechanism in any case.". So there will not be roll back in the future.
I believe him...NOT hmmm why should one believe his promises ? he has this on his page Build unstoppable applications Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference.
These apps run on a custom built blockchain, an enormously powerful shared global infrastructure that can move value around and represent the ownership of property. This enables developers to create markets, store registries of debts or promises, move funds in accordance with instructions given long in the past (like a will or a futures contract) and many other things that have not been invented yet, all without a middle man or counterparty risk. The project was crowdfunded during August 2014 by fans all around the world. It is developed by the Ethereum Foundation, a Swiss nonprofit, with contributions from great minds across the globe. and did a rollback. |
|
|
|
|
didnt another one try a 51% attack and failed ?
|
|
|
|
does he really say what i read here ? moral hazard? overblown? in this case ?(fork) in his opinion? 4) Concerns about moral hazard are, in this case, IMO overblown; on the contrary, despite the fork, I have been extremely impressed by the sheer number of formal verification and other secure contract programming projects that have recently emerged in academia. Writing this from inside the middle of an Ethereum research workshop in Cornell, I am very optimistic that the number of bugs in code will decrease greatly over the next year. and is this the vlad he refers to ? did they know of the replay risk ? https://twitter.com/VladZamfir/status/759552287157133313 |
|
|
|
|
vitalik says here :
ii) There has been a medium amount of ether that has been sent to unspendable addresses because users were using buggy ethereum-js libraries that created the address from the public key incorrectly. I would be OK with a change, for example as part of metropolis, that adds a new transaction type that effectively makes the most common categories of such unspendable addresses spendable by their cryptographically provable rightful owners (but I would only be ok with this with broad consensus and even still it's dependent on technical feasibility and tradeoffs in code complexity)
does anyone know how many ether got lost in this buggy ethereum-js libaries?
when was this?
how many users where affected?
|
|
|
|
ROFL.
..
..
..
You actually read and care what cryptopia does? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yes becouse a wise man cares what his critics say you know slockit just arogantly laught about the warnings. and see what a mess it is now. |
|
|
|
https://etherscan.io/address/0x32be343b94f860124dc4fee278fdcbd38c102d88Address 0x32be343b94f860124dc4fee278fdcbd38c102d88 Home Normal AccountsAddress Overview | Poloniex Wallet ETH Balance: 52,078.68675456 Ether ($666,607.19) woa...i checked this 2weeks ago it was $6mill+ then last week it was $3mill+ a few days ago till today it was $1mill+ and now almost half a mill! guess ETH traders dont like/trust polo anymore....we got better places to buy and trade now Why should ETH-traders don't like/trust Polo? In my opinion it's by far the best exchange. polo didnt do siding i think exchanges should stay neutral and not take sides. |
|
|
|
imagine both coins survive..
will one always be ahead with development ? and the otherone will just copy ,if its a good feature and its tested on chain A?
we might see debats like: how long till we will also do pos ?
or will the coins separet in total different directions ?
There is an interesting "paradox" and it could turn out as very bad for ETH: If ETC should survive, ETC will copy everything what will be developed for ETH. At least that's the plan: At the initial stage, maintaining 100 percent compatibility with Ethereum is a high priority for us. This also means that we don't really need to do much development, we simply fork the code from the Ethereum repository and update accordingly. But, of course, if current Ethereum developers want to join us — now or in the future — they are more than welcome to do so. We are aiming for the same thing here: building a better future for humankind, where smart contract platforms provide a mechanism for social and economic cooperation on a truly global scale.https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@ghostyeti/interview-with-arvicco-developer-of-ethereum-classicWhat's interesting about that situation is: The Ethereum-team would do the development, but ETC could become the project to trust! If it survives potential problems because of the DAO-hack etc. --> ETC will be more Ethereum than Ethereum. Because it will be the same tech on the original chain and without a bail-out-decision to secure funds of friends. What I mean becomes clear if you read this: More and more companies are openly showing their support for Ethereum Classic. To the majority of enterprises in the cryptocurrency world, supporting ETC may not make much sense. But Stampery feels there is a good reason to support the pre-hard fork Ethereum initiative. After all, the company wants to let anyone create verifiable records of their data.http://themerkle.com/stampery-drops-forked-ethereum-blockchain-support-due-to-censorship-concerns/Why Stampery supports Ethereum Classic(...)
For transactions to be final and unmodifiable, blockchains need to be immune to third party interference. This promise was completely broken by Ethereum. Hard forks should only happen when a catastrophic bug puts in danger the core values of the technology. In this case the consensus mechanism worked just fine. The blockchain was modified simply because a group of people lost too much money and they decided to bail themselves out.
This is completely unacceptable for Stampery because it creates a dangerous precedent. A powerful government might now decide to push for a hard fork that changes blocks in which we anchored data. They could claim “national interest” for doing so. Or a “too big too fail” corporation could force a fork because it wants to wipe all proof of some questionable process recorded on the blockchain. Because of this we prefer to anchor our data to a blockchain in which hard forks happen only when a protocol-level bug needs to be fixed.
(...)https://medium.com/@Stampery/why-stampery-supports-ethereum-classic-4c86ec7cca17#.2ufi5ptwmThe problem for Ethereum could become: - Why should companies trust ETH instead of ETC if ETC will be technically the same as ETH?
- Why shouldn't they use ETC if it's the same as ETH if they can trust ETC more than ETH?
- Why should anybody trust the original team and not the original chain? And if there should be a tendency for such a situation: At least some Ethereum-Dev's would leave ETH and join ETC --> ETC would become stronger and Ethereum weaker. In the end it could be ETC which will become the real Ethereum again, and in fact it always was the original. In fact the Ethereum-team abandoned the original chain! Why? Because of their bad job with TheDAO! Because of the high funding of theDAO! And what was theDAO about? Speculation, but I believe it was to fund Ethereum-guys - slock.it and so on. I never believed in theDAO because for me it looked too shady. But, just my personal opinion. Under the line I'm not sure how good the chances are that ETC will survive, but if, I expect it to become stronger than ETH and ETH to die. And I'm not joking here. And I'm not saying it because I'm against ETH or for ETC - no Investment. Btw: I'm mainly in Factom. And Factom also announced in march: Factom Plans To Anchor Into Ethereum Blockchain
http://themerkle.com/factom-plans-to-anchor-into-ethereum-blockchain/And I don't know what they'll decide but it doesn't make much sense to secure a system into a blockchain if it's immutability is a question of submissive decisions with a focus on bailing out Investors. I mean: If the DAO would have been funded just with $10 Mio and not with team-money, would there be two chains now? Never. And yesterday Factom announced a partnership with smartcontract.com, and on their site: Ethereum Smart Oracles
Give your Ethereum smart contracts access to external resources like data feeds, your internal systems, additional blockchains and traditional banks/payment networks.https://smartcontract.comAnd it's not about Factom what will happen with data they'll provide to Ethereum, but they can provide it to all Smart Contract projects, ETC included. What I want to say with that: There is no reason to ignore ETC out of perspective of other companies. They won't feel loyal to Ethereum because they like Vitalik and his team. There is some possibility that in future ppl will say that the original team abandoned the original Ethereum while ETC will be Ethereum. Because there are not that many reasons to trust the original team which injured the original chain because of own interest as a result of bad code before. It's like a step-by-step but lastly total damage of credibility. very good sumary you did. i agree with you. i think eth is then the testnet for etc if something is clean of bugs etc can add it. the next weeks will show how bad the set back in price will be for etc. but thats not a bad thing either. time solves that . i got my eth in the crowdsale i guess it was a few cends for each. if the "taker" sells off all the dao etc we will see what kind of person that is. a white hat? or a thief? someone who was pissed off with the arogance of the slockit? worried about it? or a greedy person? |
|
|
|
Hi
Are my eth in mist wallet safe from replay attak when i do not split them?
If it's a balance from before the fork you should split it otherwise you risk losing ETH or ETC. This isn't really an "attack", i.e. someone else can't just take your ETH or ETC. But you need to be careful with your transactions. If you send ETH your ETC will move as well, and vice-versa. Splitting and using different addresses on each chain is the only way to avoid this. Aslong you will not move your coins there are safe without splitt normally what is the point in a coin that you cant move ? |
|
|
|
|
imagine both coins survive..
will one always be ahead with development ? and the otherone will just copy ,if its a good feature and its tested on chain A?
we might see debats like: how long till we will also do pos ?
or will the coins separet in total different directions ?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
