When we go to The MOON?  Not anymore. I think there are better projects out like wings. witepaper ? coming soon? how it works ? comeing soon? why are you sure it is better then the dao ? have insider infos ? i checked the page https://wings.ai/?ref=Cryptorialsbut every link faq for example tells info comes soon so why do you think this is better ? |
|
|
|
has the "taker" of the dao given signs again?
beside that open letter ?
I do not see any. Most miner will vote for the hard fork to return the Ethereum to the original DAO holders. but will there be a voting ? i dont see any voting pages yet in a perfect world the hf would solve it elegant but lifeexperiance shows its often different lets hope the best |
|
|
|
^^ meiner meinung nach ist ein bitcoin verbot keine gefahr mehr. 2013 haben viele (mich eingeschlossen) grosse angst davor gehabt. das ist passe`.
mir fällt jetzt auf anhieb auch keine technologie ein, die in diesem fortgeschrittenen stadium verboten worden wäre.
Die Gefahr ist gerade jetzt im Endstadium von FIAT am grössten, ebend weil viele fliehen. Das gilt für alle alternativ Währungen, auch für EM. verbieten wollen schon aber können nicht wie durchsetzen ? jeden pc lapi und smartphone einziehen? |
|
|
|
|
has the "taker" of the dao given signs again?
beside that open letter ?
|
|
|
|
Great article http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/07/05/eth-is-more-resilient-to-censorship/We received many notes of support from the community. A very human, but completely flawed, response would have been to deny the problem, to minimize its potential severity, and to attack the researchers. In contrast, the Ethereum community has been amazingly science-driven, open and forthright. The civilness of their response should be a shining example to other communities. We are greatly encouraged by the Ethereum community, happy to have helped avert a potential disaster, and even happier to have stumbled onto an accidental but turns-out-to-be fundamental property of Ethereum, namely, that it is resilient to censorship, even by a majority of its miners. this hd page give really good info i wonder what they say about the slockit hf ideas what i read so far it is a patchwork solution not a elegant one and it might carry new bugs or holes in it |
|
|
|
..... and maybe this tag have a geolocation also and "THEY" can see where r u all the time......
rofl id never buy |
|
|
|
Any hardfork that invalidates transactions destroys reputation and trust. Period. These two concepts are the cornerstone if you are trying to break into the financial big league.
If anther contract has a flaw tomorrow, who plays God that will decide who lives and who dies?
I tend to not agree on the whole " reputation " and " trust " negative shove on things. ALL I SEE - Is positive turn on things presented in front of us. They would be cleaning up their " reputation" by stopping a hacker from stealing the communities coins. They would be also building the " trust " of the community, proving they wont let the bad guys get away with junk like this. You seem to just be assuming this and that Jc12345. Not clear and focused thoughts my man. Cheers, MasterTrader777 Unfortunately it is not about what you think (or I for that matter) but what the world's businesses, financial systems and markets think. The world's financial system is built on trust and robustness and reputation is the name of the game. Things that threaten the integrity and stability of the financial system is frowned upon. The system hates uncertainty and will avoid it like the plague. Business wants to know that if a transaction is done and a contract is created, irrespective of if it is a good transaction or a bad, that the "system" cannot be manipulated to change that. A robust financial system will have controls in place to be able to stop a transaction from happening or to block funds before it is too late. If the money is gone though then it is gone, unless there are other ways to recover it through law enforcement or if the hacker can be convinced to pay it back. If a theft in a financial system exposes a flaw, then improve the system going forward to prevent it from re-occurring which is fine. If you get caught with your pants down, take one for the team and the system moves on with integrity, trust and robustness intact. Even if one argues it is a good thing that people get their money back, it is not the best in the bigger scheme of things. Once mega business sees that the past can be changed, they will lose trust in the system. Remember that a party takes a position based on inforamtion at hand. If they want to take a serious position to the one side they need strong assurances that underlying things will not happen that pushes the outcome to the other side. Otherwise they will just take positions that sits on the fence or move elsewhere. If eth wants to compete with the mega word financial systems and markets, then the DAO funds is a drop in the ocean. it is not worth it to sacrifice the war to win a battle. I dont think it can be clearer and more focused than that. totaly agree and id ad the"can" option that is added right now will also do damage in the future big biz that is maybe to big to fail ? might ask for a folk too ? what then? The point is that the 4% "stolen" funds can do a lot damage to the Ethereum ecosystem. So it is better to take it away. you are right its also to consider what i say is the comunity has to condisder what impact the decition has for the future |
|
|
|
Any hardfork that invalidates transactions destroys reputation and trust. Period. These two concepts are the cornerstone if you are trying to break into the financial big league.
If anther contract has a flaw tomorrow, who plays God that will decide who lives and who dies?
I tend to not agree on the whole " reputation " and " trust " negative shove on things. ALL I SEE - Is positive turn on things presented in front of us. They would be cleaning up their " reputation" by stopping a hacker from stealing the communities coins. They would be also building the " trust " of the community, proving they wont let the bad guys get away with junk like this. You seem to just be assuming this and that Jc12345. Not clear and focused thoughts my man. Cheers, MasterTrader777 Unfortunately it is not about what you think (or I for that matter) but what the world's businesses, financial systems and markets think. The world's financial system is built on trust and robustness and reputation is the name of the game. Things that threaten the integrity and stability of the financial system is frowned upon. The system hates uncertainty and will avoid it like the plague. Business wants to know that if a transaction is done and a contract is created, irrespective of if it is a good transaction or a bad, that the "system" cannot be manipulated to change that. A robust financial system will have controls in place to be able to stop a transaction from happening or to block funds before it is too late. If the money is gone though then it is gone, unless there are other ways to recover it through law enforcement or if the hacker can be convinced to pay it back. If a theft in a financial system exposes a flaw, then improve the system going forward to prevent it from re-occurring which is fine. If you get caught with your pants down, take one for the team and the system moves on with integrity, trust and robustness intact. Even if one argues it is a good thing that people get their money back, it is not the best in the bigger scheme of things. Once mega business sees that the past can be changed, they will lose trust in the system. Remember that a party takes a position based on inforamtion at hand. If they want to take a serious position to the one side they need strong assurances that underlying things will not happen that pushes the outcome to the other side. Otherwise they will just take positions that sits on the fence or move elsewhere. If eth wants to compete with the mega word financial systems and markets, then the DAO funds is a drop in the ocean. it is not worth it to sacrifice the war to win a battle. I dont think it can be clearer and more focused than that. totaly agree and id ad the"can" option that is added right now will also do damage in the future big biz that is maybe to big to fail ? might ask for a folk too ? what then? |
|
|
|
|
can someone explain how "the dao" token can survive if the HF happens ?
with the HF they will refound the original holders of the ether and the dao is history thats the last i read.
but arent thedao tokens traded ?
what will happen with them
|
|
|
|
Lol, comparing ETH to a bank isn't going to win me over. The only thing holding the banks up is confidence and trust. This confidence comes from the fact that the currency they hold was backed by real money (gold and silver) at one time. That ended decades ago, so now all currency is is a paper promise. How this confidence and trust is maintained is beyond me at this point. Most peeps have no clue that when you deposit currency into a bank, it's no longer yours. You effectively loan them your dollars and then they go gamble it away. Go try to actually take a sizable sum of physical cash out (not a check, but physical currency) and see how you're treated. I have no confidence in ETH or a bank any longer. If the code is god, as Vitalik has stated, then the hacker should keep his ETH. Anything less makes ETH just as centralized as the banks. Plain and simple Its not a comparison to a bank. I used banking as an example to show how trust is EARNED and kept. Those who think because the code allowed him to take the ETH its all okay do not understand the laws governing computer systems. Saying the code "allowed him" is like saying a hole in a firewall allowed a hacker to breach a system and therefore he did nothing wrong. Except he did and every court in the western world would agree on that. The point is, if you take something against the wishes of the owners, it is called theft. How you took it is irrelevant. In any case, it worries me that so many vocal people seem to want this thief to keep the money he stole. To me that is more worrisome than the bug in the code that allowed the thief to steal. no one wants him to keep it and do nothing but selfjustic is not the way to deal with it we cant steel it back becouse we can thats moraly wrong and the hf is just that stealing back becouse one can |
|
|
|
Downvoting of important and relevant info is strong in the eth-reddit, i must say.
Yes, eth reddit works like this: -click topic -read op -scroll all the way down to find the comments voted into oblivon -read them -close the tab All interesting info downvoted. Only moontalk and pro-fork allowed. censorship ?  thats why i walk around reddit |
|
|
|
|
question:
if the hf happens and all ether are transfered to the original holders
what happens to the dao tokens that are now traded on exchanges ?
how will that be managed ?
i know the dao is history with the hf
am i right ?
|
|
|
|
Welcome to ethereum, where what the majority of the 'community' says is more important than the code.
democracy ? lol, now let's all vote to redistribute funds of the largest 10 holders on the richlist to the rest of us  I think we can get a majority going for that. Welcome to the communist Dunning-Kruger-coin because "democrataaay"  o boy that was good dont worry they are just finding out that they cant do anything about the dao and thats a good thing for the ether |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
