There was no DAO hack

[sadyas]

I'm not defending Eth as I don't have any.

However, I think you're mistaken that it will destroy Eth if they forked. You are all proposing that they will no longer be trusted.

I think there is a chance that it might actually increase TRUST in their system as there will be a leadership that will protect the Ethereum masses from hackers and other deviants. In today's world, there is a lot of talk about Socialism and it seems that people like their leaders to take care of them.

I think there could be a greater chance that Ethereum collapses without an intervention. So since they are already headed that way, they might as well do what they can to prevent that.

I agree with this. I hold DAO and want my money back. I am also a miner. So I will vote for the fork if the thief does not return my money.

[Lauda]

Your statement might be true, it may lose all those qualities however it may become the most TRUSTED centralized blockchain platform. Do you really think that the Ethereum community will abandon ship if they all got their money back or if the DAO is completely restored and patched?

I think they will stay.

Properly said in other words:" The whole idea behind cryptocurrency of going towards decentralization/ditching banks and governments goes down the drain. These people just want profit and are not better than those corrupt officials that we oppose." They will become hypocrites the second that they criticize another bailout in the future (regardless of whether we're talking about banks or other coins).

I agree with this. I hold DAO and want my money back. I am also a miner. So I will vote for the fork if the thief does not return my money.

You've made a mistake investing into something so complex (complexity is the enemy of security). How about just accepting it?

[smooth]

most TRUSTED centralized blockchain platform.

"Centralized blockchain platform" adds no value whatsoever. Ethereum may survive for a while doing that because the hype is strong, but it would become (if it isn't already) fully a ponzi scheme with no underlying business value.

[Ultrabat]

Your statement might be true, it may lose all those qualities however it may become the most TRUSTED centralized blockchain platform. Do you really think that the Ethereum community will abandon ship if they all got their money back or if the DAO is completely restored and patched?

I think they will stay.

Properly said in other words:" The whole idea behind cryptocurrency of going towards decentralization/ditching banks and governments goes down the drain. These people just want profit and are not better than those corrupt officials that we oppose." They will become hypocrites the second that they criticize another bailout in the future (regardless of whether we're talking about banks or other coins).

I agree with this. I hold DAO and want my money back. I am also a miner. So I will vote for the fork if the thief does not return my money.

You've made a mistake investing into something so complex (complexity is the enemy of security). How about just accepting it?

I am a miner as well as a DAO holder. So I can support the fork to get my money back. That is the benefit of being a miner.

[hv_]

You've made a mistake investing into something so complex (complexity is the enemy of security). How about just accepting it?

Intersting and true. May I reuse this on a BTC context?

 

[Remainder]

You've made a mistake investing into something so complex (complexity is the enemy of security). How about just accepting it?

Intersting and true. May I reuse this on a BTC context?

 

I believe so. The SegWit is so complex system and might fail in the implementation, so why would Core team implement it?

[Lauda]

"Centralized blockchain platform" adds no value whatsoever. Ethereum may survive for a while doing that because the hype is strong, but it would become (if it isn't already) fully a ponzi scheme with no underlying business value.

Exactly.

I am a miner as well as a DAO holder. So I can support the fork to get my money back. That is the benefit of being a miner.

Correction: That's the benefit of being greedy and having some capital.

Intersting and true. May I reuse this on a BTC context?

This is how the fork is going to take place with lobbying: "Sure, we will support that as long as we get a nice piece."

I believe so. The SegWit is so complex system and might fail in the implementation, so why would Core team implement it?

A perfect example of the personal incredulity fallacy: Because you find Segwit difficult to understand (complex system), you made out that it is complex for everyone and might not get implemented. This is very wrong. Segwit's complexity is overblown. Segwit is undergoing final testing before it gets merged. Hint: This is all off-topic.

[iamnotback]

You're mixing apples and potatoes here. Bitcoin mostly uses soft-forks in order to improve its capabilities. Bitcoin has never used any kind of coin-control or bailouts which is exactly what ETH is going to do. If they do that, ETH is not immutable. Period.

Forking to remove 184 billion Bitcoins is a form of coin control.

Do you understand that Bitcoin was forked to address an issue created by a bug in the Bitcoin code?

It was not forked because a transaction script did not do what someone expected as DoOverCoin is proposing to do.

Intent is ambiguous unless we bind ourselves to a majority vote:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15278364#msg15278364

Thus I now say the fork of Bitcoin was equivalent to a fork of Ethereum w.r.t. to the context we are debating.

I just realized this.

Btw, this is also why Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine General's Problem.

[iamnotback]

Effectively MIT's 666 ChainAnchor proposal which can be used for enforcing KYC, is a blacklist coming to crypto-currency thanks to Ethereum and The DAO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=2627  <--- a real attorney's explanation

Thanks Vitalik for enslaving us!

AnonyMint predicted this in 2013, Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch.

[iamnotback]

Vitalik et al are playing with fire as I pondered upthread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=3864

Especially listen at 1:06:15! And listen at 1:11:15 where the attorney says Vitalik (et al) is creating dangerous legal liability for himself (themselves) by being the judge!

The likely party to be sued are those who can be identified and have a pot of money.

[iamnotback]

So the miners having 51% mining power can decide the fork or any code any way. There is no moral hazard. There is no argument at all. You just need to convince the majority of the miners.

Somebody here actually understands PoW = miners are a "decentralized authority".

Ethereum miners have started voting in some pools on the "soft fork"...
The "soft fork" simply freezes all ETH transfers from the DAO contract (rendering the current "attacks" unprofitable)...
And there are roughly another 25 days left for miners to simply set a flag that locks up the DAO.

Ethpool is voting 99.4% in favor of a "soft fork" here:

http://ethpool.org/stats/votes

Looking at these numbers...
It's very likely miners will subsequently vote in a "hard fork" that will destroy the DAO... and return all ETH to investors.

Ethereum will not suffer from the same paralysis Bitcoin did post-Gox... and still does.

All the FUD you hear about "crypto purity" is from Bitcoin Maximalist Trolls...
Miners acting as a "decentralized authority" on ANY issue is at the heart of PoW.

Did they really act without political control driving their choice?

Vitalik et al are playing with fire as I pondered upthread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=3864

Especially listen at 1:06:15! And listen at 1:11:15 where the attorney says Vitalik (et al) is creating dangerous legal liability for himself (themselves) by being the judge!

The likely party to be sued are those who can be identified and have a pot of money.

Vitalik just propose a change to the Etheruem protocol. It is the miners who will be responsible for the restoring the money from the theft.

The court may not agree that Vitalik has no political power. Considering how much all the mETH supporters prays at his feet, I'd say it is likely the court will find that Vitalik and his accomplices are significantly in control of the enterprise. But that is just my opinion as an observer. What do others think?

And remember that the attorney pointed out that each of the 1000s of plaintiffs can sue in any one of the 1000s of jurisdictions. Someone can find a favorable judge some where!!!

This is what I specifically warned about over the past months. I can even quote where I said that jurisdiction shopping would be a PITA because one would have to defend themselves against an unbounded number of threats.

As the attorney Pamela points out, this issue could have been significantly mitigated if their attorneys had advised them to add an arbitration clause to the TOS and also had more sobering disclosures on their TOS so that plaintiffs couldn't just choose willynilly to make any sort of claim of injury in any jurisdiction.

Who set up the legal structure for Ethereum et al?  They apparently suck!

What are you doing to crypto-currency? Who will support Ethereum as it becomes the 666 coin? The attorney explains that they open the ecosystem to subpoena power by doing this. And you support the moral hazard of rewarding n00bs for not doing due diligence instead of letting them suffer a 30% haircut.

Effectively MIT's 666 ChainAnchor proposal which can be used for enforcing KYC, is a blacklist coming to crypto-currency thanks to Ethereum and The DAO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=2627  <--- a real attorney's explanation

Thanks Vitalik for enslaving us!

AnonyMint predicted this in 2013, Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch.

[smooth]

Did they really act without political control driving their choice?

(Answer: obviously not, although I would use the word influence rather than control.)

Satoshi uses the phrase "cooperating to attack the network". If the miners are acting independently they are not cooperating, and if they are influenced or coodinated by a third party they are not acting independently, they are cooperating (albeit indirectly).

There is not really any such thing as a non-attack soft fork in a properly functioning (i.e. mining not centralized) PoW chain, because without some mechanism to cooperate, the game theory does not support an individual miner ever activating a soft fork. In order to reject a non-conforming block the miner would have to mine on a shorter chain which is individually irrational.

Responding to another comment upthread, miners can not perform a hard fork. A hard fork has to be adopted by the entire community, including both mining and non-mining nodes. This mistake is made endlessly in the Ethereum community. I don't know if Vitalik is encouraging it or what.

The entire whole point of immutability and censorship resistance is to protect minorities, and the above-described game-theory is precisely what accomplishes this. By design (though not in practice today), miners are powerless functionaries with no meaningful discretion. If you want decisions made by a voting majority you can just create a corporation and have it run a database server. That is vastly more efficient than a blockchain with effectively the same result.

All soft forks (even ones universally-recognized as benign such as those used in Bitcoin for upgrades) are a warning flag that the coin is not very decentralized and is not secure against miners cooperating to attack the network. If Ethereum soft forks to freeze or transfer coins, and this is a result of the structure of the ecosystem, it will demonstrate not only that the network is insecure, but that the ecosystem itself is incompatible with having secure network. That shouldn't really be a surprise though, with one person being given so much de facto authority that is the only real result possible.

If you doubt his authority and influence, just imagine hypothetically how the process would be proceeding if Vitalik had never proposed forking, or if he opposed it. There would be vastly more opposition, more debate (or less because it would be seen as an absurd idea not even worth debating), and the forks would be far less likely to ever happen.

[iamnotback]

Did they really act without political control driving their choice?

(Answer: obviously not, although I would use the word influence rather than control.)

The Nash equilibrium is an economic game theory form of control.

Influence is an apt term also, but I used control because the miners have to enforce the protocol that they think the majority will, because otherwise they waste their hashrate and suffer economic losses. This is the Nash equilibrium.

Satoshi uses the phrase "cooperating to attack the network". If the miners are acting independently they are not cooperating, and if they are influenced or coordinated by a third party they are not acting independently, they are cooperating (albeit indirectly).

There is not really any such thing as a non-attack soft fork in a properly functioning (i.e. mining not centralized) PoW chain, because without some mechanism to cooperate, the game theory does not support an individual miner ever activating a soft fork. In order to reject a non-conforming block the miner would have to mine on a shorter chain which is individually irrational.

Agreed, that is the Nash equilibrium of PoW; and proof-of-stake doesn't have it, because PoS doesn't consume a resource i.e. nothing-at-stake.

Responding to another comment upthread, miners can not perform a hard fork. A hard fork has to be adopted by the entire community, including both mining and non-mining nodes. This mistake is made endlessly in the Ethereum community. I don't know if Vitalik is encouraging it or what.

Agreed. If most payers and payees refuse to sign and honor transactions on the hard fork, then the fork dies because miners receive no transaction fees and can't exchange any coinbase block rewards for any value.

We might argue though that the power over forks held by the payers and payees is asymmetric to that of the miners, because 51% of the miners decide the longest chain, but closer to 100% of the payers/payees are required to reject a majority hashrate fork.

The entire whole point of immutability and censorship resistance is to protect minorities, and the above-described game-theory is precisely what accomplishes this. By design (though not in practice today), miners are powerless functionaries with no meaningful discretion.

That critically important point should be emphasized more often. Miners should not have any political power, because if they did then corruption or 666 shit like MIT's proposed ChainAnchor (a way to force KYC on the block chain) could become a reality and then minorities could be fucked with by whomever can capture the power vacuum of political control and influence.

If you want decisions made by a voting majority you can just create a corporation and have it run a database server. That is vastly more efficient than a blockchain with effectively the same result.

That is what Daniel Larimer's (Bitshares') DPOS and DASH's masternode schemes (both are variants of PoS) argue is the solution to scaling.

But they forsake the protection of minorities and Nash equilibrium, thus they really aren't secure. Security via majority control is not stable, as Daniel Larimer painfully discovered.

All soft forks (even ones universally-recognized as benign such as those used in Bitcoin for upgrades) are a warning flag that the coin is not very decentralized and is not secure against miners cooperating to attack the network. If Ethereum soft forks to freeze or transfer coins, and this is a result of the structure of the ecosystem, it will demonstrate not only that the network is insecure, but that the ecosystem itself is incompatible with having secure network.

I agree. Proof-of-burn is a better way to do forks, giving every HODLer the option whether to join the new block chain or not. This allows competition of forks so that one development group can't have absolute influence over the development direction.

If we want to create a new block chain design and we don't have the $4 trillion black budget resources of the DEEP STATE which "Satoshi" had at his disposal, then we either need some funding for development or we need to take the slow route of volunteerism/donations.

I don't think it makes any sense to argue that funding will create centralized control structure and volunteerism won't. Monero has periodic forks built into the protocol and the same set of devs since launch have most of the political influence on the Nash equilibrium.

So I think what it really boils down to is the open source code. If that code benefits society no matter how it was achieved, then someone can fork it and make a better distribution with less centralized control. Thus I will argue there is nothing wrong with raising funding for developing open source. And if the core dev(s) are conscientious and remove their influence over time and do not create any forks that aren't proof-of-burn, then that could be even better than what we have now with Blockstream.

That shouldn't really be a surprise though, with one person being given so much de facto authority that is the only real result possible.

If you doubt his authority, just imagine hypothetically how the process would be proceeding if Vitalik had never proposed forking, or if he opposed it. There would be vastly more opposition, more debate (or less because it would be seen as an absurd idea not even worth debating), and the forks would be far less likely to ever happen.

Or imagine if "His Eminence Master Lord V" had a heart attack and all those n00bs in The DAO had no leader to protect them from their lack of due diligence.

[iamnotback]

The ability to reverse exploits that violate the intent and good faith actions of thousands of people will promote mainstream adoption - not hinder it.

Just make a federated currency with a large group of arbiters administering it. No need for all this fancy stuff. No need for code, just use English for contracts.

That might sound snarky or sarcastic, but it's not meant to be. What you're proposing is just fundamentally different than what cryptocurrency was created for and how it's been used thus far. And that's not necessarily a bad thing if that's what people want. If people want what you propose then there's no need for a lot of this technological overhead that we deal with here. A system based on decentralized social governance and subjectivity could be quite interesting, but it's certainly not what Ethereum was meant to be as far as I know.

Andrew Vegetabile, Director of the Litecoin Association, came out against a fork of Ethereum/The DAO, Decrying interference with The DAO by outside crypto developers in an open letter to  “Vitalik Buterin, The DAO, future smart contract developers, and the throngs of individuals within the crypto ecosystem” today.

To Vitalik Buterin, fellow Ethereum developers (to include the DAO developers) and the Ethereum
Foundation:

A smart contract was set up, with the indications that the “code” was the contract itself. It was not only
a ridiculous idea to state this, but shows your shortcomings as leaders within the community without
added language.

Whomever you have as your advisors have failed not only you, but the Ethereum community as a whole.

My word of advice to all of you is to do absolutely nothing at all.

Never in the history of crypto for as far as I can remember has a developer been intimately involved with
a third party application in attempting to resolve said applications issues.

The best analogy that I can think of at this point is if there was a bug in counterparty code and the Bitcoin
core devs got involved.

I am truly sorry that such a large marketcap was involved in the DAO. But by the nature of your system,
it enabled this to happen. Failure to plan accordingly has caused this, and I implore you all to take the
time to review code and consider all ramifications before releasing something in the future. I can’t help
but feel that a mix between trying to non-organically throw Ethereum on a pedestal (through promotion)
along with a desire to dominate entangled with greed has brought us to this point.

Your direct actions will ripple throughout the crypto ecosystem, much broader than Paycoin or MT GOX.
Your involvement thus far is unprecedented, and needs to stop. An analogy to recent events ca
n equate to the banking bailout, where the leaders in charge have stepped in because they have deemed this
application “to big to fail”.

Where does it end? Is there a threshold of Ethereum market cap which implores you to act on the failure of a
third party application? If so, you should state that. Or better yet, force Ethereum to only allow up to a max
of a % of total Ethereum to be utilized in a third party application.

Forking and leadership

As if the involvement of leaders in Ethereum wasn’t enough, the talk of soft and hard forks has been
brought up numerous times under the guise of developing a “fix”, with letting the community decide
how it should proceed.

Here is the problem with that.

Vitalik, you are what Charlie Lee is to Litecoin and Satoshi is to Bitcoin. You are the guidance, leadership,
and vision to Ethereum. Being in such a position of power influences the future of Ethereum, to include
forks. The mere suggestion to fork (short of a major bug in the base software) in your circumstance is
irresponsible. Because you are the lead developer and creator, involvement of any type would again set
a dangerous precedent in uncharted territories. This could have consequences worldwide in legislation,
where I fear your actions today will be debated tomorrow in every congress in democratic states.

A developer’s influence shapes a coin’s community a nd developers worldwide should stand up with me
and announce their disapproval of any action on your part. Developing the code and throwing it into the
wild in order for the community to decide whether to fork or not does not abstain you from the future
of Ethereum due to your influence. Once the word “fork” leaves your lips for others to hear, you have
already swayed the masses to a degree.

The program was set up as a contract, pointing to the code as the final word. Therefore, interpretations
of the code (including bugs) are tantamount to the legalities of the “attacker(s)”. In other words, I
personally believe that the attacker was well within his rights to exploit this contract. And now the
community suffers for a poor implementation of a contract.

[Thenoticer]

Personal responsiblity and the Ponzi scam.
https://archive.is/BbeY3#selection-557.0-669.62

Prosperity is in general the result of the working of free markets. The one caveat to this observation is that market participants have to be responsible. It doesn't matter so much if they are intelligent or not, it doesn't really matter if they're good christians or devout muslims or anything else, but they do have to be responsible.

When some people behave irresponsibly the result is that they lose their money, which flows, albeit indirectly and circumvolutedly but nevertheless unerringly, to more responsible participants.

When a small majority* of participants behave irresponsibly however the net result is not just pain to their own fortunes, but pain spread across the board. All of a sudden you have to be very intelligent, and very experienced, and very well informed to manage to keep your money safe, and often enough even that's not going to suffice.

Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot has the unpleasant effect of creating a high powered idiot. He can now wreak havoc on the exchange rate, which increases volatility and on the long term hurts everyone involved in bitcoins, because volatility is, much like inflation, an indirect tax on users.

Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot has the unpleasant effect of creating half a million bitcoins' worth of valueless receipts, which are pretty much indistinguishable to the naked eye from valid receipts. Thus, if you pay on anyone's credit you are basing your judgment not on actual fact, but on an unknown and pretty much unknowable mixture of fact and hogwash.

Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot is a bad idea. There are people whose personal responsibility in this matter is greater than that of most everyone else, people who have in effect acted as lieutenants for the random idiot. This thread is a convenient spot for all of them to avoid the indignity of being called out, and instead freely and willingly admit their mistake, and by admitting it learn from it. Specifically, learn that they aren't nearly as qualified as they thought to play the "banker", and by this make one step towards maybe one day actually being bankers.

The wanna-be bankers are not alone in their hour of humiliation. There are plenty of others who spend their entire day spouting nonsense on this forum, either under the guise of being "journalists" for some monthly magazine that does a couple issues a year or just as random internet experts in everything. Obviously they won't be learning anything on this opportunity as they haven't learned anything on any of the previous ones in their lives. That's after all fine, what would a mining town be without the drunks and general scum?

Aside from these practical considerations, there are some more general points to be taken home by anybody who wants to be a little smarter today than last month, and possibly have a little better shot at actually making money than before.

1. Learn the pecking order. All opinions are not equal. Some people are to be respected. Learn who. Some people are irrelevant and easily ignored. Learn who. More importantly than the who, learn why. Is it just because "everyone else seems to think so"? That's no good, forget it. Is it because they were right when everyone else was wrong? That's perfect, especially if it occurs with any sort of consistency.

2. Business means something very specific. Only the permanently poor imagine business = "anything to do with money". There's no business without a business plan. If something purports to be a business but "it can't" or it just won't share its business plan it is not a business. This means you can't be investing in it. Sure, you can throw money at anything you wish, as for instance the toilet bowl, Ponzi scams or scantily clad girls. However, in order to invest you absolutely need a business first.

3. Learn how to deal with your own mental limitations. If you think you don't have any you find yourself most likely in the situation described here:

Quote
If one skims through the psychological literature, one will find some evidence that the incompetent are less able than their more skilled peers to gauge their own level of competence. For example, Fagot and O'Brien (1994) found that socially incompetent boys were largely unaware of their lack of social graces (see Bem & Lord, 1979 , for a similar result involving college students). Mediocre students are less accurate than other students at evaluating their course performance ( Moreland, Miller, & Laucka, 1981 ). Unskilled readers are less able to assess their text comprehension than are more skilled readers ( Maki, Jonas, & Kallod, 1994 ). Students doing poorly on tests less accurately predict which questions they will get right than do students doing well ( Shaughnessy, 1979 ; Sinkavich, 1995 ). Drivers involved in accidents or flunking a driving exam predict their performance on a reaction test less accurately than do more accomplished and experienced drivers ( Kunkel, 1971 ).

In short: if you're not aware that there's anything wrong with your judgment of "business", "finance", "investing", "money" and so forth that is almost certainly due to the fact that you are very weak on all of these topics, likely significantly below average. You should spend a good deal of time reading and a greater deal of time testing things out methodically before you promote yourself mentally to "average", or even "crummy". This means years. Years.

The advantage of BTC is that it's a very cheap and very clean way to learn about finance. The disadvantage (if we can call it that) is that it's much akin to falling in love: very, very, very hard on the knees. Vitriolic to the ego.

4. Step outside of your ideology. You might have been brought up in a very repressive social milieu in which some particular ideological slant was drilled into you. This is working to your disadvantage, get rid of it. Are you sticking up for your friends because they're your friends rather than because they have a point? Great for facebook, horrible for BTC. You will lose money. Are you following the crowd like a welfare state lemming? Great for the white collar slave, horrible for BTC. You will lose money. Do you think form is above content and as such it's okay to invade foreign countries and slaughter civilians just as long as nobody says shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker or tits on TV? Great for being an American, horrible for the free world. You will lose money.

5. Re-read this entire post. It probably didn't fully sink in on the first pass. Seriously. Alternatively it is always easier to just not like me. You will lose money.

---------
* This term of... art, let's say, will go down in BTC history.

[Bemerand]

I'm not defending Eth as I don't have any.

However, I think you're mistaken that it will destroy Eth if they forked. You are all proposing that they will no longer be trusted.

I think there is a chance that it might actually increase TRUST in their system as there will be a leadership that will protect the Ethereum masses from hackers and other deviants. In today's world, there is a lot of talk about Socialism and it seems that people like their leaders to take care of them.

I think there could be a greater chance that Ethereum collapses without an intervention. So since they are already headed that way, they might as well do what they can to prevent that.

The Ethereum has hard forked several times before. They were all successful. I also voted for the fork to freeze the stolen funds.

[GreenBits]

Maybe it is just all PR

The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO.

The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing.

$50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice)

Normally it is best to buy when there is "blood in the streets". Ethereum isn't likely dead. So far, CC is a delusion of decentralization any way.

The ETH chart is looking very similar to BTC's 2013/14 crash.

Note after an extended deadcat bounce, then BTC proceeded to make lower lows and eventually found bottom @150ish.

Give this man a cookie. The enthusiast are still convinced this is the " bottom", we will certainly see

[unusualfacts30]

don't know why but I sold them right before it went haywire. feels good to be lucky

[Auponef]

don't know why but I sold them right before it went haywire. feels good to be lucky

I think that is just good luck. It is time to decide when to buy back in. It depends on if the Etheruem will survive the crisis.

[smooth]

(Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim.)

http://pdaian.com/blog/chasing-the-dao-attackers-wake/

Edit:  Solidity-related, but changes the whole picture.

I'll be daaamned, Simon de la Rouviere claims that the flaw *is* in the EVM...  interesting.  Please note that he is replying to the author.

https://twitter.com/simondlr/status/744793288167694336


Thoughts, smooth?   (or whoever is knowledgeable enough)

As far as I can tell he is saying there is a feature of EVM that makes it easier to write dangerous contracts. There is still no claim that the EVM did not execute the contract as it was written and according to the specification.