ETH hardfork incoming.

[dinofelis]

No, law is law. And a thief will always be a thief.

"theft" is a legal concept, and hence, whether an action is theft, depends obviously on the law system under which it is considered.

But in case you don't know, it is a legal property of free open source code that copying it is NOT theft.

[1714946334]

1714946334

[Auponef]

No, law is law. And a thief will always be a thief.

"theft" is a legal concept, and hence, whether an action is theft, depends obviously on the law system under which it is considered.

But in case you don't know, it is a legal property of free open source code that copying it is NOT theft.

I wish the DAO hacker will sue the miners responsible for the hard fork, so that we will know if he "steal".

[raphma]

All ETH developers are automatically also, whether they want or not, ETC developers, given that it is essentially identical open source code.

So what you are saying is that ETC being the Criminals coin they are stealing all the ETH devs hard work.

Visibly, you didn't understand the concept of smart contract and "code is law", and now you don't understand the concept of "free open source code".

he probably understand, but since he is a mETH head he will keep spaming "ETC criminal" for whatever you say.

[Auponef]

All ETH developers are automatically also, whether they want or not, ETC developers, given that it is essentially identical open source code.

So what you are saying is that ETC being the Criminals coin they are stealing all the ETH devs hard work.

Visibly, you didn't understand the concept of smart contract and "code is law", and now you don't understand the concept of "free open source code".

he probably understand, but since he is a mETH head he will keep spaming "ETC criminal" for whatever you say.

So do not think it is also legal for somebody to 51% attack a crypto currency and hacking due to a bug in a software?

[EastSound]

There is discussion about ETC hardfork:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4vfeif/we_should_hardfork_to_prevent_replay_attacks_on/?st=iraj1ct3&sh=d1c05768

[vapourminer]

And all that with no devs? lol

All ETH developers are automatically also, whether they want or not, ETC developers, given that it is essentially identical open source code.

So what you are saying is that ETC being the Criminals coin they are stealing all the ETH devs hard work.

thats what "open source" means.

do you know how much in cryptoland is open source and build on or with common code? miners, pools, coins?

[Auponef]

And all that with no devs? lol

All ETH developers are automatically also, whether they want or not, ETC developers, given that it is essentially identical open source code.

So what you are saying is that ETC being the Criminals coin they are stealing all the ETH devs hard work.

thats what "open source" means.

do you know how much in cryptoland is open source and build on or with common code? miners, pools, coins?

So there is no problems that the ETC is 51% attacked by some people as that is built in the protocol?

[EastSound]

And all that with no devs? lol

All ETH developers are automatically also, whether they want or not, ETC developers, given that it is essentially identical open source code.

So what you are saying is that ETC being the Criminals coin they are stealing all the ETH devs hard work.

thats what "open source" means.

do you know how much in cryptoland is open source and build on or with common code? miners, pools, coins?

So there is no problems that the ETC is 51% attacked by some people as that is built in the protocol?

According to code is law theory, you can do anything wit the codes, you can explore the bugs without being arrested.

[vapourminer]

And all that with no devs? lol

All ETH developers are automatically also, whether they want or not, ETC developers, given that it is essentially identical open source code.

So what you are saying is that ETC being the Criminals coin they are stealing all the ETH devs hard work.

thats what "open source" means.

do you know how much in cryptoland is open source and build on or with common code? miners, pools, coins?

So there is no problems that the ETC is 51% attacked by some people as that is built in the protocol?

children will be children..

[dinofelis]

According to code is law theory, you can do anything wit the codes, you can explore the bugs without being arrested.

No, "code is law" is a specific property of smart contracts, when the code, and only the code, is the contract.
Most, not to say, all, other code running is not a contract, and is supposed to implement intend, can hence contain bugs and exploits (= deviations from intend).

The funny thing is that the people crying about the absurd concept of "code is law" are the ETH guys, who were in fact promoting ETH because.... it proposed smart contracts and "code is law".  Nowhere else, code is law.  Not even the Ethereum or bitcoin system.  There, code is trying to implement intend (of white paper protocol), like everywhere else.

It is hugely, mightily, ironic and funny that people crying "thief", "bug", "exploit", are the ONLY ONES that were touting "code is law" as the superior property of their baby, ethereum !  Nobody else in his right mind was ever considering "code is law".

On the other hand, a 51% attack on a block chain is also a rightful thing to do in a certain respect, because a block chain is supposed to be an emergent property of mutually antagonistic entities.  The theory is that the emerging block chain will be immutable and respect the protocol, but that's nothing else but a hope for an emergent property.  A 51% attack is nothing else but that hope failing.  But a 51% attack is perfectly "legit" in the framework of block chains, as the goal of such a system is that every agent in the system tries to rip off every other agent.  If some succeed, that's their good "right".    A block chain is simply postulated to be the right thing that emerges from a war zone.  If that theory fails (the "51% attack") that's a pity, but not unlegit in a war zone.

[Rastanan]

According to code is law theory, you can do anything wit the codes, you can explore the bugs without being arrested.

No, "code is law" is a specific property of smart contracts, when the code, and only the code, is the contract.
Most, not to say, all, other code running is not a contract, and is supposed to implement intend, can hence contain bugs and exploits (= deviations from intend).

The funny thing is that the people crying about the absurd concept of "code is law" are the ETH guys, who were in fact promoting ETH because.... it proposed smart contracts and "code is law".  Nowhere else, code is law.  Not even the Ethereum or bitcoin system.  There, code is trying to implement intend (of white paper protocol), like everywhere else.

It is hugely, mightily, ironic and funny that people crying "thief", "bug", "exploit", are the ONLY ONES that were touting "code is law" as the superior property of their baby, ethereum !  Nobody else in his right mind was ever considering "code is law".

On the other hand, a 51% attack on a block chain is also a rightful thing to do in a certain respect, because a block chain is supposed to be an emergent property of mutually antagonistic entities.  The theory is that the emerging block chain will be immutable and respect the protocol, but that's nothing else but a hope for an emergent property.  A 51% attack is nothing else but that hope failing.  But a 51% attack is perfectly "legit" in the framework of block chains, as the goal of such a system is that every agent in the system tries to rip off every other agent.  If some succeed, that's their good "right".    A block chain is simply postulated to be the right thing that emerges from a war zone.  If that theory fails (the "51% attack") that's a pity, but not unlegit in a war zone.

Does it also mean that double spend is allowed as if you have 51%+ mining power, you can do whatever you want?

[dinofelis]

Does it also mean that double spend is allowed as if you have 51%+ mining power, you can do whatever you want?

Everything is allowed.  That's fundamental in the "trustless" world.  It is a Darwinist fight.

If not, then you need only to put in sufficient safeguards so that any mischievous action is difficult enough for it to be able to be taken to court and justice, and you wouldn't need to spend 400 million dollars a year on wasting PoW on bitcoin for instance.  Much less PoW would be sufficient to limit the number of attacks to a reasonable number so that "justice" (whatever power game THAT is) can handle it.

It is the difference between putting a lock on your door to make life more difficult for a burglar, but the real protection against burglars is the law and police, on one hand, and an old sea pirate hiding his treasure on an island in the Pacific, with no legal protection at all.

[bbc.reporter]

According to code is law theory, you can do anything wit the codes, you can explore the bugs without being arrested.

No, "code is law" is a specific property of smart contracts, when the code, and only the code, is the contract.
Most, not to say, all, other code running is not a contract, and is supposed to implement intend, can hence contain bugs and exploits (= deviations from intend).

The funny thing is that the people crying about the absurd concept of "code is law" are the ETH guys, who were in fact promoting ETH because.... it proposed smart contracts and "code is law".  Nowhere else, code is law.  Not even the Ethereum or bitcoin system.  There, code is trying to implement intend (of white paper protocol), like everywhere else.

It is hugely, mightily, ironic and funny that people crying "thief", "bug", "exploit", are the ONLY ONES that were touting "code is law" as the superior property of their baby, ethereum !  Nobody else in his right mind was ever considering "code is law".

On the other hand, a 51% attack on a block chain is also a rightful thing to do in a certain respect, because a block chain is supposed to be an emergent property of mutually antagonistic entities.  The theory is that the emerging block chain will be immutable and respect the protocol, but that's nothing else but a hope for an emergent property.  A 51% attack is nothing else but that hope failing.  But a 51% attack is perfectly "legit" in the framework of block chains, as the goal of such a system is that every agent in the system tries to rip off every other agent.  If some succeed, that's their good "right".    A block chain is simply postulated to be the right thing that emerges from a war zone.  If that theory fails (the "51% attack") that's a pity, but not unlegit in a war zone.

It is ironic that they coined the term "the code is law" and yet if it goes against them they throw the concept under the table and roll back the transactions. This made them look like fools trying to act like geniuses. The only fix that can be done is to continue with the original chain.

[dinofelis]

According to code is law theory, you can do anything wit the codes, you can explore the bugs without being arrested.

No, "code is law" is a specific property of smart contracts, when the code, and only the code, is the contract.
Most, not to say, all, other code running is not a contract, and is supposed to implement intend, can hence contain bugs and exploits (= deviations from intend).

The funny thing is that the people crying about the absurd concept of "code is law" are the ETH guys, who were in fact promoting ETH because.... it proposed smart contracts and "code is law".  Nowhere else, code is law.  Not even the Ethereum or bitcoin system.  There, code is trying to implement intend (of white paper protocol), like everywhere else.

It is hugely, mightily, ironic and funny that people crying "thief", "bug", "exploit", are the ONLY ONES that were touting "code is law" as the superior property of their baby, ethereum !  Nobody else in his right mind was ever considering "code is law".

On the other hand, a 51% attack on a block chain is also a rightful thing to do in a certain respect, because a block chain is supposed to be an emergent property of mutually antagonistic entities.  The theory is that the emerging block chain will be immutable and respect the protocol, but that's nothing else but a hope for an emergent property.  A 51% attack is nothing else but that hope failing.  But a 51% attack is perfectly "legit" in the framework of block chains, as the goal of such a system is that every agent in the system tries to rip off every other agent.  If some succeed, that's their good "right".    A block chain is simply postulated to be the right thing that emerges from a war zone.  If that theory fails (the "51% attack") that's a pity, but not unlegit in a war zone.

It is ironic that they coined the term "the code is law" and yet if it goes against them they throw the concept under the table and roll back the transactions. This made them look like fools trying to act like geniuses. The only fix that can be done is to continue with the original chain.

Indeed, and that with a system that is, by definition, not verifiable, because Turing complete.

The only smart contracts, where code = law can make any sense, are those where the full tree of possibilities can be explored (which means it has to be a tree of reasonable size, and not a graph, hence not Turing complete).

I think smart contracts and code=law can be a great idea, but with SIMPLE contracts that can be totally explored.   If the full tree of all possible behaviours can be analysed, then one can be sure that it doesn't contain "exploits" and "bugs" - somewhat similar to the safety analysis of code in airplanes or in nuclear power plants. 

[EastSound]

Does it also mean that double spend is allowed as if you have 51%+ mining power, you can do whatever you want?

Everything is allowed.  That's fundamental in the "trustless" world.  It is a Darwinist fight.

If not, then you need only to put in sufficient safeguards so that any mischievous action is difficult enough for it to be able to be taken to court and justice, and you wouldn't need to spend 400 million dollars a year on wasting PoW on bitcoin for instance.  Much less PoW would be sufficient to limit the number of attacks to a reasonable number so that "justice" (whatever power game THAT is) can handle it.

It is the difference between putting a lock on your door to make life more difficult for a burglar, but the real protection against burglars is the law and police, on one hand, and an old sea pirate hiding his treasure on an island in the Pacific, with no legal protection at all.

That is right. You can ask for the 400 confirmation instead of 6 confirmations to determine a transaction is valid.

[Zosuda]

Does it also mean that double spend is allowed as if you have 51%+ mining power, you can do whatever you want?

Everything is allowed.  That's fundamental in the "trustless" world.  It is a Darwinist fight.

If not, then you need only to put in sufficient safeguards so that any mischievous action is difficult enough for it to be able to be taken to court and justice, and you wouldn't need to spend 400 million dollars a year on wasting PoW on bitcoin for instance.  Much less PoW would be sufficient to limit the number of attacks to a reasonable number so that "justice" (whatever power game THAT is) can handle it.

It is the difference between putting a lock on your door to make life more difficult for a burglar, but the real protection against burglars is the law and police, on one hand, and an old sea pirate hiding his treasure on an island in the Pacific, with no legal protection at all.

That is right. You can ask for the 400 confirmation instead of 6 confirmations to determine a transaction is valid.

That will make the transaction too slow. So basically the coin cannot be used a any kind of normal business.

[Cakalasia]

Does it also mean that double spend is allowed as if you have 51%+ mining power, you can do whatever you want?

Everything is allowed.  That's fundamental in the "trustless" world.  It is a Darwinist fight.

If not, then you need only to put in sufficient safeguards so that any mischievous action is difficult enough for it to be able to be taken to court and justice, and you wouldn't need to spend 400 million dollars a year on wasting PoW on bitcoin for instance.  Much less PoW would be sufficient to limit the number of attacks to a reasonable number so that "justice" (whatever power game THAT is) can handle it.

It is the difference between putting a lock on your door to make life more difficult for a burglar, but the real protection against burglars is the law and police, on one hand, and an old sea pirate hiding his treasure on an island in the Pacific, with no legal protection at all.

That is right. You can ask for the 400 confirmation instead of 6 confirmations to determine a transaction is valid.

That will make the transaction too slow. So basically the coin cannot be used a any kind of normal business.

Many Ethereum developers have stated that they will support the Ethereum ETC only. So there will be less development for the ETC.

[Rastanan]

Does it also mean that double spend is allowed as if you have 51%+ mining power, you can do whatever you want?

Everything is allowed.  That's fundamental in the "trustless" world.  It is a Darwinist fight.

If not, then you need only to put in sufficient safeguards so that any mischievous action is difficult enough for it to be able to be taken to court and justice, and you wouldn't need to spend 400 million dollars a year on wasting PoW on bitcoin for instance.  Much less PoW would be sufficient to limit the number of attacks to a reasonable number so that "justice" (whatever power game THAT is) can handle it.

It is the difference between putting a lock on your door to make life more difficult for a burglar, but the real protection against burglars is the law and police, on one hand, and an old sea pirate hiding his treasure on an island in the Pacific, with no legal protection at all.

That is right. You can ask for the 400 confirmation instead of 6 confirmations to determine a transaction is valid.

That will make the transaction too slow. So basically the coin cannot be used a any kind of normal business.

Many Ethereum developers have stated that they will support the Ethereum ETC only. So there will be less development for the ETC.

Maybe the ETC supporters will have enough money and employ developers to do the development.

[Juhagic]

Does it also mean that double spend is allowed as if you have 51%+ mining power, you can do whatever you want?

Everything is allowed.  That's fundamental in the "trustless" world.  It is a Darwinist fight.

If not, then you need only to put in sufficient safeguards so that any mischievous action is difficult enough for it to be able to be taken to court and justice, and you wouldn't need to spend 400 million dollars a year on wasting PoW on bitcoin for instance.  Much less PoW would be sufficient to limit the number of attacks to a reasonable number so that "justice" (whatever power game THAT is) can handle it.

It is the difference between putting a lock on your door to make life more difficult for a burglar, but the real protection against burglars is the law and police, on one hand, and an old sea pirate hiding his treasure on an island in the Pacific, with no legal protection at all.

That is right. You can ask for the 400 confirmation instead of 6 confirmations to determine a transaction is valid.

That will make the transaction too slow. So basically the coin cannot be used a any kind of normal business.

Many Ethereum developers have stated that they will support the Ethereum ETC only. So there will be less development for the ETC.

Maybe the ETC supporters will have enough money and employ developers to do the development.

If the DAO hacker declare that he will not dump his coins, the price of ETC will rise a lot. And he will have enough to support the development.

[mining1]

Anyone could claim theyre "the attacker" and that they either dump / support ETC to manipulate the price. And he only atacked dao to get rich, not because he has a kind heart and cares about eTC, don't be naive and stupid. I mean, i do expect alot of messages from hacker / manipulators to try and manipulate the price further by telling something and doing the opposite, like chandler guo guy who threatened to atack ETC and then mined on it because the difficulty was so low, it was profitable. Better play lottery than invest in ETC, you'll never have inside information about the manipulations ahead.