This seems pretty simple to me.
Decentralized crypto-currencies are all about consensus.
Vitalik suggested a hard fork rollback.
The majority seem to want it...that's consensus!
Now roll it back.
Note - I was not affected by this DAO/ETH situation.
You go into the casino and win legally 50 Million with a new technique. Not the true story, true story: A crew of people invest 150 Million into a new casino with all new technique, someone finds a flaw in the code and cheats out 50 Million of the casino... What to do ? Of course roll back, fix the code, and "restart" the new technique casino... You didn't understand the image... the new technique was not the blockchain... but the different call of the contract by the attacker... That still doesn't change anything on the situation The point is, that we are not allowed to go back in time, just because we can. You always have side effects you don't foresee. We're not going back in time, we're fixing a flaw of a new technique/program. You cannot simply say "hey, this is anarchism, this is the free world, the attacker stole 50 mills because a human programmed something not 100% accurate." There will always be flaws in any kind of program which will always be fixed .. There will always be Versions and Revisions.. 1.0 -> 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.3 etc... This is consensus, this is democracy. you go back in time... you just don't see it OK then we go back in time - still doesn't change anything.. You don't understand what this is about. and you are 100% sure, that you do? Yes, but after all it doesn't matter as long as i'm with the consensus. (hint: this is what cryptos are all about) We all know, that the consensus is not yet final. There are pers and cons, that have to be discussed. 90% of the people are manipulated by such discussions... Thats why I want to make clear, that there ARE cons. Please make sure, that everyone notes them... |
|
|
|
This seems pretty simple to me.
Decentralized crypto-currencies are all about consensus.
Vitalik suggested a hard fork rollback.
The majority seem to want it...that's consensus!
Now roll it back.
Note - I was not affected by this DAO/ETH situation.
You go into the casino and win legally 50 Million with a new technique. Not the true story, true story: A crew of people invest 150 Million into a new casino with all new technique, someone finds a flaw in the code and cheats out 50 Million of the casino... What to do ? Of course roll back, fix the code, and "restart" the new technique casino... You didn't understand the image... the new technique was not the blockchain... but the different call of the contract by the attacker... That still doesn't change anything on the situation The point is, that we are not allowed to go back in time, just because we can. You always have side effects you don't foresee. We're not going back in time, we're fixing a flaw of a new technique/program. You cannot simply say "hey, this is anarchism, this is the free world, the attacker stole 50 mills because a human programmed something not 100% accurate." There will always be flaws in any kind of program which will always be fixed .. There will always be Versions and Revisions.. 1.0 -> 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.3 etc... This is consensus, this is democracy. you go back in time... you just don't see it OK then we go back in time - still doesn't change anything.. You don't understand what this is about. and you are 100% sure, that you do? |
|
|
|
This seems pretty simple to me.
Decentralized crypto-currencies are all about consensus.
Vitalik suggested a hard fork rollback.
The majority seem to want it...that's consensus!
Now roll it back.
Note - I was not affected by this DAO/ETH situation.
You go into the casino and win legally 50 Million with a new technique. Not the true story, true story: A crew of people invest 150 Million into a new casino with all new technique, someone finds a flaw in the code and cheats out 50 Million of the casino... What to do ? Of course roll back, fix the code, and "restart" the new technique casino... You didn't understand the image... the new technique was not the blockchain... but the different call of the contract by the attacker... That still doesn't change anything on the situation The point is, that we are not allowed to go back in time, just because we can. You always have side effects you don't foresee. We're not going back in time, we're fixing a flaw of a new technique/program. You cannot simply say "hey, this is anarchism, this is the free world, the attacker stole 50 mills because a human programmed something not 100% accurate." There will always be flaws in any kind of program which will always be fixed .. There will always be Versions and Revisions.. 1.0 -> 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.3 etc... This is consensus, this is democracy. you go back in time... you just don't see it |
|
|
|
This seems pretty simple to me.
Decentralized crypto-currencies are all about consensus.
Vitalik suggested a hard fork rollback.
The majority seem to want it...that's consensus!
Now roll it back.
Note - I was not affected by this DAO/ETH situation.
You go into the casino and win legally 50 Million with a new technique. Not the true story, true story: A crew of people invest 150 Million into a new casino with all new technique, someone finds a flaw in the code and cheats out 50 Million of the casino... What to do ? Of course roll back, fix the code, and "restart" the new technique casino... You didn't understand the image... the new technique was not the blockchain... but the different call of the contract by the attacker... That still doesn't change anything on the situation The point is, that we are not allowed to go back in time, just because we can. You always have side effects you don't foresee. For example if you go back and kill hitler you save millions of people. But maybe the russians may have taken lead of the world and bombed usa with an atomic bomb and killed even more... |
|
|
|
This seems pretty simple to me.
Decentralized crypto-currencies are all about consensus.
Vitalik suggested a hard fork rollback.
The majority seem to want it...that's consensus!
Now roll it back.
Note - I was not affected by this DAO/ETH situation.
You go into the casino and win legally 50 Million with a new technique. Not the true story, true story: A crew of people invest 150 Million into a new casino with all new technique, someone finds a flaw in the code and cheats out 50 Million of the casino... What to do ? Of course roll back, fix the code, and "restart" the new technique casino... You didn't understand the image... the new technique was not the blockchain... but the different call of the contract by the attacker... |
|
|
|
This seems pretty simple to me.
Decentralized crypto-currencies are all about consensus.
Vitalik suggested a hard fork rollback.
The majority seem to want it...that's consensus!
Now roll it back.
Note - I was not affected by this DAO/ETH situation.
Thats more or less true with a soft fork, but a hard fork, is like going back in time an change the law. Example: You go into the casino and win legally 50 Million with a new technique. The casino owner is bankruped and the stock is dropping by 50%. He and his stock owners decide to go back in time and change the casino rules, so that the one, that wins the 50 Million at this day doesn't have to be payed out. Fair? But even the soft fork can be somehow discussable: The winner won the 50 Million, that can only be payed out a month later. But the Casino owner closes the casino, and sets all escrow funds on hold. In a casino, if you exploit to win, you're thrown out and blacklisted at every casino in town. yea if you scam. but this was a legal move. It was implicitly written in their rules. Something like "you roll the dice as you want". But now you come with a new throwing technique, that is legal... |
|
|
|
This seems pretty simple to me.
Decentralized crypto-currencies are all about consensus.
Vitalik suggested a hard fork rollback.
The majority seem to want it...that's consensus!
Now roll it back.
Note - I was not affected by this DAO/ETH situation.
Thats more or less true with a soft fork, but a hard fork, is like going back in time an change the law. Example: You go into the casino and win legally 50 Million with a new technique. The casino owner is bankruped and the stock is dropping by 50%. He and his stock owners decide to go back in time and change the casino rules, so that the one, that wins the 50 Million at this day doesn't have to be payed out. Fair? But even the soft fork can be somehow discussable: The winner won the 50 Million, that can only be payed out a month later. But the Casino owner closes the casino, and sets all escrow funds on hold. |
|
|
|
Zum Beispiel hab ich 80% in andere Coins investiert. Wenn es sie nicht gäbe, hätte ich 100% in BTC, würde aber diese nicht verkaufen.
Deswegen investiere ich aber auch nicht noch mehr in Cryto...
80% find ich aber schon ziemlich viel. Bei mir ist die Grenze bei ca 10% und Fiat brauch ich auch immer auf den Börsen um auf bestimmte Situationen reagieren zu können. Da BTC in gewissem Sinne auch Risikokapital ist (zugegeben etwas sicherer als andere Coins, aber sooo sicher nun auch wieder nicht), ist denke ich 10% zu wenig. Wenn man schon sieht, dass eth allein 10% marketcap von BTC hat. Und inzwischen sind andere Coins auf dem Weg, die dem BTC meiner Ansicht nach bald einiges von seiner 80% Marktdurchdringung nehmen werden. (IOTA, WAVES, LISK, XEM, NXT 2.0...) Sicher werden davon ein paar eingehen, aber auch die Altcoins lernen dazu ;-) |
|
|
|
...
.edit: Erklärung, dass es um DAO und ETH geht, eingefügt. Habe schon ganz vergessen, dass wir uns hier eigentlich im Bitcoin-Preisthread befinden. ^^
Ich finde das schon relevant. Letztendlich wird das Ding auch wieder durch die Medien gehen, O-Ton: "Cryptowährung gehackt ...sind nicht sicher... Bitcoin...bla...", ohne jegliche Differenzierung. Ob die Schadenfreude von einigen hier angebracht ist, wage ich zu bezweifeln. Von den (zwar teilweise zurecht verachteten) Altcoins und ihren Communities profitiert der Bitcoin m.E. mittlerweile ungemein. Sehe ich auch so. Allein die Waves IPO hat fast 30.000BTC erstmal aus dem Markt gezogen, die erstmal bei den Entwicklern auf hold liegen. Das ist allein soviel, wie Bearwhale damals auf Bitstamp verkauft hat und ein riesen Loch im Chart hinterlassen hat. Je mehr erfolgreiche Altcoins es gibt, desto besser für BTC Das seh ich anders. Diese IPOs, Donations, whatsoever werden denke ich zum großteil mit BTC bezahlt, die normalerweise den Markt gar nicht sehen würden... Die Empfänger cachen diese aber aus... Zum Beispiel hab ich 80% in andere Coins investiert. Wenn es sie nicht gäbe, hätte ich 100% in BTC, würde aber diese nicht verkaufen. Deswegen investiere ich aber auch nicht noch mehr in Cryto... |
|
|
|
Let's make this clear, to the hacker:Being decentralized means being in the power of people, not a directive board or in the code, you just stole 3.6 million ether but for nothing because you will not be able to withdraw you dumb, you can't take any legal action because people (51%) did not authorized your theft, and you said you will sue? LOL yes, sue us all 10k investors, you are speaking only fantasies. 
Then to slock it and ethereum team:Ethereum should make a hard fork and return all ether to DAO holders, that was just a buggy code giving away money to a robber without a reason, the people behind this DAO (investors) never authorized that DAO split, otherwise I would think of an INSIDE job and I would call you all scammers, slock.it and Ethereum, and with more reason now that slock it is closing, if you don't make the roll back this will look like an scam by you. you are the dumb. The attacker won already. because he has a 3k put on ethereum. And if we hard fork, ethers price will never recover... I can just repeat myself. offer him the option to give 90% back. What means your "3k put on ethereum" ?? you are more dumb than the attacker, those bugs should affect the price for sure as any other bug on technologies but thats all, your "eth price will never recover" is only your proofless especulation opinion, as any other on the speculation topic. People don't make deals with thieves, he will get 0 ether. 90% back?, if someone gets into your hause and takes your 5 childs, you will say "hey just return me 4 of them"?? , you are very idiot. Put means, that he actually gains, if ether drops. It was not a bug of ethereum. The action of the attacker was not against the ethereum law. The DAO had the bad code. If we change ether because of this, the developers/miners are setting an authority, which it is not supposed to have. DAO was the decentralized authority code, but it was written wrong. And with the child... What a comparison. We are talking about money here. Not life. So would you give your child for half a million ether? This is negotiating. Every stakeholder will be fine with a 10% loss. I am... at the moment we lost already more than 50% of ALL funds by price decrease anyway, so what do you want... this is more than the attacker even took... The atacker is clearly not doing it only for the money, he wants to kill DAO (which succeded) and hurt Ethereum, if he receives the funds stolen he will not return anything, I only stated than negotiating with thieves is wrong in crypto, outside life and any other environment just like the governments do (the few correct things governments do), this is what can really kill ethereum if they start making deals with a supposed hacker putting us down to a cryptsy scammy exchange level. of course that is not like we let him take the money and hope, that he gives 90%. We are on a smart contract platform... |
|
|
|
Let's make this clear, to the hacker:Being decentralized means being in the power of people, not a directive board or in the code, you just stole 3.6 million ether but for nothing because you will not be able to withdraw you dumb, you can't take any legal action because people (51%) did not authorized your theft, and you said you will sue? LOL yes, sue us all 10k investors, you are speaking only fantasies.
Then to slock it and ethereum team:Ethereum should make a hard fork and return all ether to DAO holders, that was just a buggy code giving away money to a robber without a reason, the people behind this DAO (investors) never authorized that DAO split, otherwise I would think of an INSIDE job and I would call you all scammers, slock.it and Ethereum, and with more reason now that slock it is closing, if you don't make the roll back this will look like an scam by you. you are the dumb. The attacker won already. because he has a 3k put on ethereum. And if we hard fork, ethers price will never recover... I can just repeat myself. offer him the option to give 90% back. What means your "3k put on ethereum" ?? you are more dumb than the attacker, those bugs should affect the price for sure as any other bug on technologies but thats all, your "eth price will never recover" is only your proofless especulation opinion, as any other on the speculation topic. People don't make deals with thieves, he will get 0 ether. 90% back?, if someone gets into your hause and takes your 5 childs, you will say "hey just return me 4 of them"?? , you are very idiot. Put means, that he actually gains, if ether drops. It was not a bug of ethereum. The action of the attacker was not against the ethereum law. The DAO had the bad code. If we change ether because of this, the developers/miners are setting an authority, which it is not supposed to have. DAO was the decentralized authority code, but it was written wrong. And with the child... What a comparison. We are talking about money here. Not life. So would you give your child for half a million ether? This is negotiating. Every stakeholder will be fine with a 10% loss. I am... at the moment we lost already more than 50% of ALL funds by price decrease anyway, so what do you want... this is more than the attacker even took... |
|
|
|
Let's make this clear, to the hacker:Being decentralized means being in the power of people, not a directive board or in the code, you just stole 3.6 million ether but for nothing because you will not be able to withdraw you dumb, you can't take any legal action because people (51%) did not authorized your theft, and you said you will sue? LOL yes, sue us all 10k investors, you are speaking only fantasies.
Then to slock it and ethereum team:Ethereum should make a hard fork and return all ether to DAO holders, that was just a buggy code giving away money to a robber without a reason, the people behind this DAO (investors) never authorized that DAO split, otherwise I would think of an INSIDE job and I would call you all scammers, slock.it and Ethereum, and with more reason now that slock it is closing, if you don't make the roll back this will look like an scam by you. you are the dumb. The attacker won already. because he has a 3k put on ethereum. And if we hard fork, ethers price will never recover... I can just repeat myself. offer him the option to give 90% back. |
|
|
|
Cmon guys negotiate with the attacker for 90% return. That will be a win for both...
90% return!?!? Are you jocking ? Nothing should be given to this fuck face. He made a damage of hunderds of milions. Eth yesterday 20$+ and today 13$ and falling, that is close to 500 milions lost in a day, not counting the DAO. All togehther probably a billion $. And if he returns everything the damage has been done. Who knows when and if it will be back to normal. The guy/team that did this has to be identified and tracked down like an animal. And then punished.... Vitalik and company should make a hard fork. ETH and theDAO are great projects that can change history, but they have to be more carefull, after all this is not a game anymore, billions of $ are not to be played with. if he gets 10% price will raise again, because he can't dump that much. But he will be still rich. Just accept, that he won, we can't help anyway. If we hard fork, ETH is fucked as well... |
|
|
|
neuer PLOT-twist:
Der Attacker bietet im DAO-slack Minern Bitcoin an sollten sie eine HF ablehnen.
edit: neuer plot-twist, jetzt bietet er minern 1mio eth + 100BTC. drama baby.
warum denn nicht im gegenzug dem attacker anbieten 90% zurückzugeben... |
|
|
|
|
Cmon guys negotiate with the attacker for 90% return. That will be a win for both...
|
|
|
|
Hello.!!! Good news for Lisk. !!! At the end of next week will have a value 0.00080-0.00090 . Trust me...!!!!!! Confirmed by the safely source. !!! Growth starts on Sunday evening . Lisk , Lisk , Lisk   ... !!!! Translation: I am in fear, that lsk will drop even more. Please make the price grow a little, that I can get rid of my investment with less losses. Advice from me: Hold! It will grow really... but not so fast... you have to sit it out... |
|
|
|
|
I suggest to offer the hacker the opportunity to return 90% of the stolen eth in order to NOT hard fork. Hard forking would hurt ETH a lot so we should try to avoid it. Every dao owner can live with a small loss and learns his lesson and the hacker is still rich, so he could accept...
If we manage that fast, there even doesn't have to be a softfork...
|
|
|
|
Eher: Der Vertrag ist in chinesisch geschrieben, aber die Unterzeichner verstehen leider nur Deutsch/Englisch. Geheim war da nichts. Ok, aber es wurde ein chinesisches Wort genutzt, das als selbes Zeichen auch im Japanischen mit einer komplett anderen Bedeutung existiert und es wurde dann japanisch ausgelegt... Vertrag erfüllt. Ich will nur verdeutlichen, dass es sich nicht um so einen "glasklaren" Sachverhalt handelt, wie du hier postulierst... Das Problem bei Software ist, dass sie Dir, vorgegeben durch ihren Aufbau, sagt, was sie kann. Das lässt sich alles wunderbar nachvollziehen. Was sie Dir nicht sagt ist, was sie nicht kann. Wo die Anfälligkeiten etc sind. Da muss man sich als Entwickler eine komplett andere Denkweise aneignen. Ein Vertrag, der in Deutsch, Englisch, Chinesisch etc geschrieben hat, macht das, was die Worte, die ihn formulieren, sagen. Im Quellcode allerdings muss man Probleme manuell ausschließen (Stichwort Exception handling etc). Man muss alle Möglichkeiten durchgehen, wie aus dem Ding etwas herausgeholt werden könnte, was eben nicht vorhergesehen ist. Um in die Allegorie zurück zu fallen wäre das eher vergleichbar mit einem schwammig formulierten Vertrag, wo Wörter verwendet werden, die den Sachverhalt nicht genau definieren oder eingrenzen, sondern auf verschiedene Art und Weise ausgelegt werden können. So wie es dem, der es liest, eben gerade gefällt. ALLE Eventualitäten zu berücksichtigen ist nur bedingt möglich und sogar fast schon "Glückssache", dass man nichts übersieht. Es wurde nach langer Nutzung noch Bugs in OpenSSH gefunden, was eigentlich als SICHER galt. Es kann auch passieren, dass Bitcoin noch einen solchen "Bug" hat und wir gehen Mitte 2017 alle einfach so baden... Aber wollen wirs mal nicht hoffen ;-) |
|
|
|
Eher: Der Vertrag ist in chinesisch geschrieben, aber die Unterzeichner verstehen leider nur Deutsch/Englisch. Geheim war da nichts. Ok, aber es wurde ein chinesisches Wort genutzt, das als selbes Zeichen auch im Japanischen mit einer komplett anderen Bedeutung existiert und es wurde dann japanisch ausgelegt... Vertrag erfüllt. Dabei haben vorher 100erte chinesische native Speaker Rechtsanwälte (dabei auch ein paar, die Japanisch Studiert haben) den Vertrag öffentlich für gut befunden. Ich will nur verdeutlichen, dass es sich nicht um so einen "glasklaren" Sachverhalt handelt, wie du hier postulierst... |
|
|
|
Ja, wobei ich es da da als Software Entwickler sicher leichter habe, als reine Anwender. Ich habe aber auch mit aus diesem Grund (neben ein paar Eigenschaften, die mir grundsätzlich missfallen) Ethereum bisher nicht mal mit der Kneifzange angefasst, da ich das System (noch) nicht (vollständig) verstanden habe und aktuell auch keinen Bedarf für Turing-Vollständige Smart Contracts sehe. Nebenbei wurden die Leute auch in dieser Beziehung gewarnt, haben aber (aus Gier?) alle Warnungen in den Wind geschlagen.
Ich kann beide Seiten irgendwo nachvollziehen. Das beste dürfte wohl ein Mittelweg sein. Kein Hardfork aber ein Softfork und dann versuchen sich mit dem Hacker zu einigen, dass er 90% oder so zurückgibt... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
