There was no DAO hack

[generalizethis]

When you have one global corporation (a group of companies beholden to their collective oligarchy) charging fees, this is equivalent to taxation. They will charge their failures to the collective and keep the profits. It is just a world government by another name.

And I agree they will want privacy, except they will demand to have the masterkey to see everything.

I totally agree with making privacy technology for corporations. I was emphasizing that months ago in the Thoughts on Zcash thread.

Individual focused anonymity technology has no market and no future.

Note we are threadjacking the DAO hack theme. So if we want to discuss the tangent further, it would be best to start a new thread or move discussion to an appropriate existing thread.

Fair enough. I think the only sticking point we would have is over the new corporate system's need to see people's private information as they would get their money upfront, while traditional governments have used taxation to get their money after the fact--so if you started a new thread, my point would be that you don't need an IRS if you have a national sales tax, and if the companies are collecting the fees for themselves, you don't need much, if any, oversight at all.

Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic.

[iamnotback]

Sorry, smooth, for getting this off-topic.

That anonymity discussion continues here.

[Hueristic]

Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption?

[Auponef]

Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption?

If that is the case, you can attack any contracts now. Why just the DAO was attacked?

[smooth]

Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption?

Yes and no, but mostly no (imo).

A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out.

But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed.

Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion.

[smooth]

He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join.

IC, thx for clarifying that for me.

smooth thank you for the honest re-summary of my statement.

smooth actually including the viewkey, not necessary an ID.

smooth I am thinking of 10X hashrate attack as well, not just a 51% attack, which I had explained in the other thread is much more brutal on the other miners. In either case, the attacker can change the protocol to award his miners the fees from "incorrect transactions", while refusing to process the other outputs. So sorry your logic is refuted. The payer's input becomes spent/confiscated and the Cryptonote rings can do nothing to stop this.

Miners, including attacking miners, can not 'change the protocol'. They can hold the chain hostage by blocking transactions which may work as a sort of leverage to push through protocol changes, but that depends a lot on the wider context.

[Hueristic]

Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption?

Yes and no, but mostly no (imo).

A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out.

But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed.

Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion.

Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise.

[sadasa]

Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption?

Yes and no, but mostly no (imo).

A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out.

But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed.

Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion.

Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise.

So the Ethereum itself is quite safe, or not buggy. The problem is in the writing or the coding of the contract.

[iamnotback]

Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption?

Yes and no, but mostly no (imo).

A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out.

But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed.

Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion.

Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise.

So the Ethereum itself is quite safe, or not buggy. The problem is in the writing or the coding of the contract.

Incorrect.

[Bemerand]

Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption?

Yes and no, but mostly no (imo).

A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out.

But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed.

Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion.

Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise.

So the Ethereum itself is quite safe, or not buggy. The problem is in the writing or the coding of the contract.

Incorrect.

If that is incorrect, is that a fundamental flaw that cannot be reparied by removing the loopholes? If so, why the price is not below $5?

[Hueristic]

Well from what I've been able to gather the flaw is built into the "Gas", IOW the ETH language for the contracts is inherently flawed so it matters not if it's DAO or some other contract there will be a (multiple?) flaw/s inherited. Is this a correct assumption?

Yes and no, but mostly no (imo).

A lot of the complexity in the design of Ethereum and in the correct coding of contracts comes as a consequences of the requirement to abruptly terminate execution when gas runs out.

But aside from being complex and perhaps a bad design or even a bad idea from the very beginning, there are no flaws of which I'm aware in how the gas mechanism works. It working as designed.

Whether that constitutes 'inherently flawed' is a matter of opinion.

Always glad your around to clear up misconceptions and cut through all the noise.

So the Ethereum itself is quite safe, or not buggy. The problem is in the writing or the coding of the contract.

Incorrect.

If that is incorrect, is that a fundamental flaw that cannot be reparied by removing the loopholes? If so, why the price is not below $5?

Well the answer to that is simple, the entire coin is speculator fueled.

[BitUsher]

The Daft will be the next DAO!

http://coinvend.io/thedaft
http://www.thedaft.party/wtf/

[2dogs]

The Daft will be the next DAO!

http://coinvend.io/thedaft
http://www.thedaft.party/wtf/

Gonna bet the farm on The Daft, LOL!