There was no DAO hack

[Spoetnik]

Bitcoin survived well from previous problems and correction hard forks. So did the Monero. I think Etheruem will also survive.

Stop posting nonsense and read the thread. fluffypony has already explained why the situation with Bitcoin can not be compared to this one. Bitcoin was broken at the protocol level and a fix was applied. ETH is not broken at the protocol level. Reverting anything means that they are rewriting history and that the blockchain is not immutable, nor decentralized. I can't say anything about Monero as I'm not familiar with their situation (past).

Hysterical lunacy or simply out right deceitful commentary ?

Honesty & Reality has been long gone around here for years.

Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda.

You can tell them i have proof 1+1=2 and here it is.
and they ignore you and create 10 more accounts to say it equals 3  

sad 

In other words i agree with the sensible and honest comments i quoted.

[1713243214]

1713243214

[iamnotback]

(Checkmate)²

GTFO:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516913.msg15266162#msg15266162

it is hype for scam purpose only

In the case of DAO, Slock.it, and Augur, then that seems to be the case. There is no valid use case which isn't game theory broken for those. Expect The DAO to eventually collapse in a massive clusterfuck of theft and waste with most losing their money. Wise people would get the hell out of The DAO as fast as they can, because the DAO is broken in the sense that you can be jammed from exiting.

Decentralized crowd funding might be viable.

[bitebits]

smooth? Brilliant: http://pastebin.com/CcGUBgDG

And a very weak comment by Buterin. It really does not matter whether this message is by "The Attacker" or not:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4oo35k/signed_message_from_the_ethereum_hacker/d4e7qi3

[BitUsher]

The  "daoattacker"is really giving out a ton of free BTC - Example - https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE

Thus if he is merely a troll, he is a well funded troll with deep pockets looking to support the attacker and prevent a HF.

[MySecondCunt]

The  "daoattacker"is really giving out a ton of free BTC - Example - https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE

Thus if he is merely a troll, he is a well funded troll with deep pockets looking to support the attacker and prevent a HF.

Arguably, doing so falls under "enlightened self-interest" for individuals/consortia invested in BTC/BTC mining.

[BitUsher]

[Minecache]

So the attacker is running scared. All those threats of legal action are either fake or bluff.

[xxxgoodgirls]

What channel of slack is that?

[BitUsher]

So the attacker is running scared. All those threats of legal action are either fake or bluff.

Have you visited your own slack? The user awarded those ETH is brazingly out in the open and handing out BTC.
He/She already has made almost 1 million on ETh shorts and could care less about those ETH but is willing to carry on this game to educate naive investors. He is doing a fantastic service for your community removing the spell of Dunning–Kruger.

What channel of slack is that?

DAO slack but now you can find him here-

[leopard2]

NO.

http://www.coindesk.com/sue-dao-hacker/

Others have suggested that the hacker can't be liable as they only did what the contract allowed. It's an interesting argument but, simply stated, code vulnerability doesn't equal consent.

As a defense, it’s pretty weak tea. Theft is theft, off chain or on.

In fact the hacker, if caught, would not only lose his gains, but be liable for the losses of many ETH owners. He is heading for bankruptcy and jailtime.

[BitUsher]

NO.

http://www.coindesk.com/sue-dao-hacker/

Others have suggested that the hacker can't be liable as they only did what the contract allowed. It's an interesting argument but, simply stated, code vulnerability doesn't equal consent.

As a defense, it’s pretty weak tea. Theft is theft, off chain or on.

In fact the hacker, if caught, would not only lose his gains, but be liable for the losses of many ETH owners. He is heading for bankruptcy and jailtime.

Assuming that we ignore the contract that the " hacker" agreed to which shows that he merely was a DAO client.

There is almost no chance the "hacker" will get caught. You understand that even if there was only 1 person shorting ETH , it is simply circumstantial evidence. In this case there may be several people they can believe to be suspects , and that is when they will hit a dead end.

[hv_]

Just turing complete...

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4op2es/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/

[Minecache]

NO.

http://www.coindesk.com/sue-dao-hacker/

Others have suggested that the hacker can't be liable as they only did what the contract allowed. It's an interesting argument but, simply stated, code vulnerability doesn't equal consent.

As a defense, it’s pretty weak tea. Theft is theft, off chain or on.

In fact the hacker, if caught, would not only lose his gains, but be liable for the losses of many ETH owners. He is heading for bankruptcy and jailtime.

Assuming that we ignore the contract that the " hacker" agreed to which shows that he merely was a DAO client.

There is almost no chance the "hacker" will get caught. You understand that even if there was only 1 person shorting ETH , it is simply circumstantial evidence. In this case there may be several people they can believe to be suspects , and that is when they will hit a dead end.

If it's down to 500 devs then look for the one suddenly taken early retirement.

[BitUsher]

If it's down to 500 devs then look for the one suddenly taken early retirement.

Multiple will be taking early retirement after this is over , and even if its just one , what are you or any court going to do ? All circumstantial.

[onemd]

If it's down to 500 devs then look for the one suddenly taken early retirement.

Multiple will be taking early retirement after this is over , and even if its just one , what are you or any court going to do ? All circumstantial.

After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see.

[Lauda]

Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda.

That's what the ETH supporters are currently doing.

After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see.

You do realize that ETH will lose all the value that the underlying technology (the blockchain) has? If they take back those coins, they are no better than the Fed and they lose decentralization and immutability. This suggestion is horrible. Nobody should have any right nor power to take anyone's coins in a decentralized system regardless of whether they are legit, stolen or whatever.

[hv_]

Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda.

That's what the ETH supporters are currently doing.

After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see.

You do realize that ETH will lose all the value that the underlying technology (the blockchain) has? If they take back those coins, they are no better than the Fed and they lose decentralization and immutability. This suggestion is horrible. Nobody should have any right nor power to take anyone's coins in a decentralized system regardless of whether they are legit, stolen or whatever.

Correct. After this HF you must call it VBCoin, not ETH.

[jeffthebaker]

Bitcoin survived well from previous problems and correction hard forks. So did the Monero. I think Etheruem will also survive.

Stop posting nonsense and read the thread. fluffypony has already explained why the situation with Bitcoin can not be compared to this one. Bitcoin was broken at the protocol level and a fix was applied. ETH is not broken at the protocol level. Reverting anything means that they are rewriting history and that the blockchain is not immutable, nor decentralized. I can't say anything about Monero as I'm not familiar with their situation (past).

Exactly, this is quite the predicament for Ethereum. If they do nothing about the event that has taken place, they have just forfeited a very, very significant amount of ether to a 'theft'. If they do roll it back via a fork, they disprove any value Ethereum was alleged to have.

[anthonydar]

Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda.

That's what the ETH supporters are currently doing.

After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see.

You do realize that ETH will lose all the value that the underlying technology (the blockchain) has? If they take back those coins, they are no better than the Fed and they lose decentralization and immutability. This suggestion is horrible. Nobody should have any right nor power to take anyone's coins in a decentralized system regardless of whether they are legit, stolen or whatever.

Correct. After this HF you must call it VBCoin, not ETH.

If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker.

[iamnotback]

Just turing complete...

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4op2es/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/

I haven't studied the specific vulnerability in this case[1], but I think it has to do with the contract code doing mutability aliasing on global state. So this is an issue of synchronizing mutability aliasing.

For example, imagine if some intended to be atomic operation[1] of a check for sending of ETH out of the contract had not set a global count of sent before some recursion which enabled sending more ETH out, thus exceeding the threshold.

So the Reddit post seems to be somewhat clueless about the actual issue. Functional programming and static typing is orthogonal to the issue of dealing with global state and mutability aliasing. I had just finished analyzing this issue at the Rust-lang forum and in my private discussion with keane recently. Although Rust can statically check mutability aliasing, this is restricted to disjoint data structures. We concluded that some semantics can't be modelled with a static checker. Mutability aliasing is thorny issue and I am not familiar enough with Coq to know if it can model it. I would need to really dig into the details of this and study it before I can comment with high degree of confidence.

[1]

http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/18/analysis-of-the-dao-exploit/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=730 https://github.com/LeastAuthority/ethereum-analyses/blob/master/GasEcon.md#case-study-the-crowfunding-contract-example https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/06/19/thinking-smart-contract-security/ http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/16/scanning-live-ethereum-contracts-for-bugs/#what-about-the-recursive-race-problem-in-thedao