The Ethereum Paradox

[AlexGR]

One of the interesting side effects here, is that while regular contracts need lawyers to check them for loopholes, now smart contracts need coders-hackers-security specialists to check them for code exploits...

[1714148176]

1714148176

[smooth]

I understand you want to enforce some self-regulation and discipline in altcoins, but please note I think that regulation is self-defeating. We can agree to disagree. I am an anarchist.

I'm an anarchist as well, and never mentioned or would advocate for regulation. People should have the freedom to make mistakes or lie to others and I should have the freedom to call them out on it and warn others.

Ok cool.

To clarify that was not me writing on a sock puppet, but reading it I thought it was

[AlexGR]

Plot thickens?

[RoomBot]

One of the interesting side effects here, is that while regular contracts need lawyers to check them for loopholes, now smart contracts need coders-hackers-security specialists to check them for code exploits...

Are you saying that there's no such thing as a "free ride?"

 

[bitebits]

Plot thickens?

Inside job = contradictio in terminis.

[RoomBot]

Plot thickens?

Inside job = contradictio in terminis.

Like the dude said ---  Crypto breaks all the rules.....

[hv_]

Paradox:

DAO was NOT hacked, rather smart contracted.

Known public before:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1504662.0


The flaw is in the EVM (huh?):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.msg15288371#msg15288371


And manny people still think DAO and/or ETH can Hype further....

[iamnotback]

Paradox:

DAO was NOT hacked, rather smart contracted.

Known public before:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1504662.0


The flaw is in the EVM (huh?):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.msg15288371#msg15288371

Note I expounded on that:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15285734#msg15285734
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.msg15289207#msg15289207

[hv_]

Paradox:

DAO was NOT hacked, rather smart contracted.

Known public before:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1504662.0


The flaw is in the EVM (huh?):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.msg15288371#msg15288371

Note I expounded on that:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.msg15285630#msg15285630

Sometimes you cannot say it often enough.... hope it helps this time.

[iamnotback]

As we warned, Ethereum's design broke Nash equilibrium.

I don't think it's funny, it's savvy. A coder found an exploit and took advantage of it. Let's stop this good samaritan bullshit, if you had 3M ether you would travel, do anything you wanted really. You wouldn't have an aristocratic sense to return it, lol.

I would return them...

I would return them too.

That is because you n00bs don't understand that when you break Nash equilibrium, then you destroy your block chain forever:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1515550.msg15292630#msg15292630

[BitUsher]

More accurate meta description is updated. The previous description was so inaccurate it borders on criminal negligence and fraud!

https://github.com/ethereum/ethereum-org/pull/264/files?diff=split



Thank you Eric Lombrozo, you are an asset to our and Eth investor community!

[Hueristic]

More accurate meta description is updated. The previous description was so inaccurate it borders on criminal negligence and fraud!

https://github.com/ethereum/ethereum-org/pull/264/files?diff=split



Thank you Eric Lombrozo, you are an asset to our and Eth investor community!

Actually making the change now without citing the date of effect can be construed as fraudulent activity to suppress the evidence of a crime after the fact.

[BitUsher]

Actually making the change now without citing the date of effect can be construed as fraudulent activity to suppress the evidence of a crime after the fact.

Ridiculous.

First, Eric is a Bitcoin Core Developer , not an ethereum one, thus is merely doing a service to educate the general community.

Secondly, Github keeps a clear history, thus any lawyers can still clearly see the transition and prosecute those like Tual or other ETh devs who have falsely lied or misrepresented their product to investors.

Anyone with common sense knows that their is no possibility to cover up or suppress this type of evidence.

[Hueristic]

Actually making the change now without citing the date of effect can be construed as fraudulent activity to suppress the evidence of a crime after the fact.

Ridiculous.

First, Eric is a Bitcoin Core Developer , not an ethereum one, thus is merely doing a service to educate the general community.

Secondly, Github keeps a clear history, thus any lawyers can still clearly see the transition and prosecute those like Tual or other ETh devs who have falsely lied or misrepresented their product to investors.

Anyone with common sense knows that their is no possibility to cover up or suppress this type of evidence.

Without siting this is a change then it is assumed that it has always been worded as such, not everyone knows about the workings of Git. This change can only be held to from the change date forward. And is possibly not applicable to those that already hold "Gas".

[BitUsher]

Without siting this is a change then it is assumed that it has always been worded as such, not everyone knows about the workings of Git. This change can only be held to from the change date forward. And is possibly not applicable to those that already hold "Gas".

This was a "merged" commit to change the metadescription.

No, one would not assume it had always been worded as such.

I take it that you are completely unfamiliar with github and the way it keeps a timeline of all changes?

One of the primary raison d'être of Github it to maintain these history of changes.

[Hueristic]

Without siting this is a change then it is assumed that it has always been worded as such, not everyone knows about the workings of Git. This change can only be held to from the change date forward. And is possibly not applicable to those that already hold "Gas".

This was a "merged" commit to change the metadescription.

No, one would not assume it had always been worded as such.

I take it that you are completely unfamiliar with github and the way it keeps a timeline of all changes?

One of the primary raison d'être of Github it to maintain these history of changes.

So your argument is that everyone who invested in ETH understands Git. I think you are the moron.

[BitUsher]

So your argument is that everyone who invested in ETH understands Git. I think you are the moron.

I would suggest the opposite. Most investors of Ethereum likely are unfamiliar with Git , and thus why they are more probabilistically likely to invest in the first place. I am suggesting that in a courtroom situation where technical defense experts give a EIL5 of Git they can clearly show there is no attempt at malice or confusion on Eric's part.

can be construed as fraudulent activity

Of course anything can be misunderstood by an idiot or the uninformed. All it takes is a very basic understanding of Git to realize that their was no such intention,

[bitowl]

inside job makes the most sense

who would know the code well enough to pull this off?

are we supposed to believe some random was just auditing their code in sufficient detail to pull this off? no one talented enough to pull this off would waste their time doing that.

[hv_]

The ETH hypers thought the Turing completeness will send ETH value to the moon.

It plays out that the attack univers goes to the moon...

[Hueristic]

So your argument is that everyone who invested in ETH understands Git. I think you are the moron.

I would suggest the opposite. Most investors of Ethereum likely are unfamiliar with Git , and thus why they are more probabilistically likely to invest in the first place. I am suggesting that in a courtroom situation where technical defense experts give a EIL5 of Git they can clearly show there is no attempt at malice or confusion on Eric's part.

can be construed as fraudulent activity

Of course anything can be misunderstood by an idiot or the uninformed. All it takes is a very basic understanding of Git to realize that their was no such intention,

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/modifying-a-contract.html