There was no DAO hack

[iCEBREAKER]

One may not hack that which has never been secured.

"We must not forget that it is not our [computing scientists'] business to make programs, it is our business to design classes of computations that will display a desired behaviour."

-Edsger Dijkstra, The Humble Programmer, 1972

[1715332650]

1715332650

[1715332650]

1715332650

[1715332650]

1715332650

[1715332650]

1715332650

[BitUsher]

[tmzn32]

We need litecoin right next to bitcoin both enjoying the popcorn lol

[smooth]

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.

Satoshi had a term for that, he called it attacking the network:

As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network ...
  - Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf)

So, no, there has been no "hack" or "attack" so far, but Vitalik, Tual, and their cronies are working on one.

Soft forks are 51% attacks. At best, when done for relatively-benign upgrade purposes, they demonstrate a vulnerability of the network and should still raise some level of concern that the developers and miners are able to conspire to pull off a 51% attack. When done transfer control over coins, that is outright theft.

[iamnotback]

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.

Satoshi had a term for that, he called it attacking the network:

As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network ...
  - Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf)

So, no, there has been no "hack" or "attack" so far, but Vitalik, Tual, and their cronies are working on one.

Soft forks are 51% attacks. At best, when done for relatively-benign upgrade purposes, they demonstrate a vulnerability of the network and should still raise some level of concern that the developers and miners are able to conspire to pull off a 51% attack. When done transfer control over coins, that is outright theft.

Smooth if forks are authorized by a protocol that was designed in the coin from the start, i.e. an ability to vote on changes by stake holders for a PoS coin (e.g. DASH), then that appears to not be a 51% attack. But otherwise I agree with you, and when you have the same group of devs from the ICO able to control the politik then they are essentially running the enterprise.

There is a grey area where someone from the outside creates a fork and the users and miners spontaneously decide to switch over to it. This can be argued to be a feature of decentralization and open source, and necessary to correct deficiencies. Yet it is still a 51% attack. If done with proof-of-burn, then it is not a 51% attack.

But your analysis of the issues here seems to be oversimplified because the law interacts with all this to create more complex scenarios. Please read this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.msg15271289#msg15271289

[galaxiekyl]

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.

i think, you would not better now that a scammer..maybe more, if i ask 20$ at atm and i receive more the bank does going not run after me..it will  stop the blood flow and do jumped up  the champagne to the next season..isn't a hack is just a feat.

[smooth]

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.

Satoshi had a term for that, he called it attacking the network:

As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network ...
  - Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf)

So, no, there has been no "hack" or "attack" so far, but Vitalik, Tual, and their cronies are working on one.

Soft forks are 51% attacks. At best, when done for relatively-benign upgrade purposes, they demonstrate a vulnerability of the network and should still raise some level of concern that the developers and miners are able to conspire to pull off a 51% attack. When done transfer control over coins, that is outright theft.

Smooth if forks are authorized by a protocol that was designed in the coin from the start, i.e. an ability to vote on changes by stake holders for a PoS coin (e.g. DASH), then that appears to not be a 51% attack. But otherwise I agree with you, and when you have the same group of devs from the ICO able to control the politik then they are essentially running the enterprise.

There is a grey area where someone from the outside creates a fork and the users and miners spontaneously decide to switch over to it. This can be argued to be a feature of decentralization and open source, and necessary to correct deficiencies. Yet it is still a 51% attack. If done with proof-of-burn, then it is not a 51% attack.

But your analysis of the issues here seems to be oversimplified because the law interacts with all this to create more complex scenarios. Please read this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.msg15271289#msg15271289

I'm not really sure that "authorized voting forks" are even compatible with Satoshi's original design at all.

He wrote that the nature of the system required that its core properties be set in stone forever. Probably the ideas of governance and voting were considered by Satoshi(s) during the years of development, as they are pretty obvious ones to consider.

A reasonable conclusion (and one I have reached somewhat independently) is that "set in stone" is required because there is no good way to differentiate between good changes and bad changes. Allow changes (e.g. by "voting") and the structure collapses in on itself.

Limited time to read or comment more, will do so later.

[darkagentx]

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it that is why the dao attacker was able to have enough time and planning to do the heist. And I do not think this is just a one man team effort, it may compose of some group that has hidden agenda to thwart DAO as they have their own digital currency on their back.

[J1mb0]

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it

I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork.

[darkagentx]

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it

I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork.

A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end.

[iamnotback]

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.

Satoshi had a term for that, he called it attacking the network:

As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network ...
  - Satoshi Nakamoto (bitcoin.pdf)

So, no, there has been no "hack" or "attack" so far, but Vitalik, Tual, and their cronies are working on one.

Soft forks are 51% attacks. At best, when done for relatively-benign upgrade purposes, they demonstrate a vulnerability of the network and should still raise some level of concern that the developers and miners are able to conspire to pull off a 51% attack. When done transfer control over coins, that is outright theft.

Smooth if forks are authorized by a protocol that was designed in the coin from the start, i.e. an ability to vote on changes by stake holders for a PoS coin (e.g. DASH), then that appears to not be a 51% attack. But otherwise I agree with you, and when you have the same group of devs from the ICO able to control the politik then they are essentially running the enterprise.

There is a grey area where someone from the outside creates a fork and the users and miners spontaneously decide to switch over to it. This can be argued to be a feature of decentralization and open source, and necessary to correct deficiencies. Yet it is still a 51% attack. If done with proof-of-burn, then it is not a 51% attack.

But your analysis of the issues here seems to be oversimplified because the law interacts with all this to create more complex scenarios. Please read this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.msg15271289#msg15271289

I'm not really sure that "authorized voting forks" are even compatible with Satoshi's original design at all.

He wrote that the nature of the system required that its core properties be set in stone forever. Probably the ideas of governance and voting were considered by Satoshi(s) during the years of development, as they are pretty obvious ones to consider.

A reasonable conclusion (and one I have reached somewhat independently) is that "set in stone" is required because there is no good way to differentiate between good changes and bad changes. Allow changes (e.g. by "voting") and the structure collapses in on itself.

Limited time to read or comment more, will do so later.

You are raising the point that PoS has security flaws, but I was treating that as an orthogonal concern.

[GetVisaCoin]

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it that is why the dao attacker was able to have enough time and planning to do the heist. And I do not think this is just a one man team effort, it may compose of some group that has hidden agenda to thwart DAO as they have their own digital currency on their back.

could The DAO creators be sued for negligence, for ...

1- the bug itself
2- publishing it

[darkagentx]

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it that is why the dao attacker was able to have enough time and planning to do the heist. And I do not think this is just a one man team effort, it may compose of some group that has hidden agenda to thwart DAO as they have their own digital currency on their back.

could The DAO creators be sued for negligence, for ...

1- the bug itself
2- publishing it

That is quite a possibility and trust and confidence to these people will be withdrawn unless they do the correct solution for this problem.

[BitcoinEXpress]

People, take from someone who actually understands exploits.

This was no hack.

This was built into the code and it executed as designed.

It was there from the second it was launched.

It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug.

Don't be stupid.

This was an inside job.


~BCX~

[fairglu]

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it

I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork.

A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end.

Code ALWAYS has bugs. Even very trivial innocuous looking code can have bugs. Even heavily peer reviewed code still has bugs. In the end code is written by humans...

More interesting questions are whether this was a bug, a poorly thought out feature or a back door hidden in plain sight.

And beyond: how can smart contracts be made more resilient to bugs ? Smart contracts being code, they will have bugs.

[Spoetnik]

People, take from someone who actually understands exploits.

This was no hack.

This was built into the code and it executed as designed.

It was there from the second it was launched.

It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug.

Don't be stupid.

This was an inside job.


~BCX~

I really wonder myself but am not 100% sure on that..
i DO find it suspicious it happened during a period of time
i would view s a lull in the action where it had no place to go but down.
I'd say the ETH & DAO hit it's high point and the "attacker" made his move at a strategic point in time for a reason.

How inside of a job though ?
Like a guy that seen ETH and thought hey maybe i can cook up an ICO money making scheme
then thought oh hell wait a minute i found something here to exploit ?
This hypothetical ETH "user" would have to be pretty damns mart to have spotted the potential.
And did so in a fairly quick time frame.

OR..

I sit more likely the person or person(s) behind it were the main ETH dev's or main DAO dev's ?
(i have no idea how many of those class of coders are out there)
They would know the code better than anyone i would have to guess.

Hmm
Maybe if the attacker is getting chatty with one of us we can simply ASK HIM !
Ask him.. hey so how did this happen ? How did you get the idea to do this and were you alone on it ?

Hey attacker if you want to tell me some Info head over to Freenode #Ethereum
I will go there right now.. i can hang out and FUD all those mETH heads while i wait for you to show up ROFL

[funbitcoins]

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it

I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork.

A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end.

Code ALWAYS has bugs. Even very trivial innocuous looking code can have bugs. Even heavily peer reviewed code still has bugs. In the end code is written by humans...

More interesting questions are whether this was a bug, a poorly thought out feature or a back door hidden in plain sight.

And beyond: how can smart contracts be made more resilient to bugs ? Smart contracts being code, they will have bugs.

Minor bugs are acceptable.

For most coin holders, serious bugs that can ruin a coin should not be acceptable.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it?

How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it?

[boomboom]

People, take from someone who actually understands exploits.

This was no hack.

This was built into the code and it executed as designed.

It was there from the second it was launched.

It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug.

Don't be stupid.

This was an inside job.


~BCX~

if it's an inside job someone will squeal eventually, TPTB will put their balls in a vice, so a conspiracy like this will fall over. professional criminals know how to perform in an interview with the cops, The DAO guys are computer nerds, and only one would have to fail under the blow torch

[fairglu]

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it

I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork.

A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end.

Code ALWAYS has bugs. Even very trivial innocuous looking code can have bugs. Even heavily peer reviewed code still has bugs. In the end code is written by humans...

More interesting questions are whether this was a bug, a poorly thought out feature or a back door hidden in plain sight.

And beyond: how can smart contracts be made more resilient to bugs ? Smart contracts being code, they will have bugs.

Minor bugs are acceptable.

For most coin holders, serious bugs that can ruin a coin should not be acceptable.

Minor or major is a human judgement, it cannot be automated, and it being a human judgement it is susceptible to bugs... What is judged a minor bug can later prove as a major vulnerability, and a fix to a perceived major flaw led to disaster because the fix was worse than the bug.

There is no easy trick out of this I'm afraid, especially when millions are at risk and everything happens in real time...