Letter from DAO Attacker

[LoyceV]

Absolutely Savage!



Ethereum is doomed!

 Confirmed that he was giving out real BTC - https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE  so if this is merely a  troll, than a troll with a lot of money and ready to use it !

Why sending to 1BitcoinEater? That is $747 gone forever, as nobody will ever have the private key to that address.

[1714968044]

1714968044

[1714968044]

1714968044

[1714968044]

1714968044

[1714968044]

1714968044

[1714968044]

1714968044

[BitUsher]

Why sending to 1BitcoinEater? That is $747 gone forever, as nobody will ever have the private key to that address.

It was a gift to the whole Bitcoin community and to verify that real bitcoins were being handed out.
Charity Exists, and this is the most effective way to efficiently donate to every bitcoin user.

[MySecondCunt]

So is IBM still all in on ethereum?

Will they really be able to save on cost in the future with ethereum without worrying about the tokens at all?

They were never "all in"
They checked it out privately then decided to build their own block-chain system.

and i am sure this will squash the rumors of BANKS etc using ETH in the future LOL

Not defending DAO (see my previous post in this thread), but ELI5 how a miscoded DAO reflects on the future of ETH? Sure, guilt by association (Chernobyl negatively impacting nuclear power, GOX implosion on BTC, "o look! you can do it wrong & bad shit can happen"), but is there something more?
Mind you, I'm not even defending ETH, just want to figure out the connection.

It was a gift to the whole Bitcoin community and to verify that real bitcoins were being handed out.
Charity Exists, and this is the most effective way to efficiently donate to every bitcoin user.

You migh've missed this

[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClPaX-dVEAEb9gU.jpg [ /img]

True Cipherpunk style, code and action speaks louder than words..... And a big fuck you to Craig Wright and your attempts to grift!

Also true troll style. For every bitcoin cultist not burstin' with schadenfreude, I'll give you one who's just itching to capitalize on this. I'll even start: You.
*not defending The[lol]DAO, which is arguably the most ether-frollicky thing ever, just pointing out that posting signed messages that fail to verify does not a cypherpunk make.

[LASERminer]

As far I understand:
- it is called "experiment";
- it is another crypto project where every newbie manual repeats:"high risk investment";
- it is unregulated unprotected digital universe disconnected from real world financial and legal systems;
- it is all involved investors intention to make profit by smart actions at right time;
- "The Attaker" made best smart move and suddenly others want do change rules to reverse his result;
- they would never consider anything wrong if investment would multiply in their favour.

Therefore calling it a theft is like... Bitcoin Pizza buyer asking for refund because he now feel like robbed of millions of $

 

[MySecondCunt]

^^
Devil's advocate here:
>it is called "experiment"
So is Bitcoin

>it is another crypto project where every newbie manual repeats:"high risk investment"
This shit don't fly IRL courts.

>it is unregulated unprotected digital universe disconnected from real world financial and legal systems
Oft-disproved argument; see: BTC

>it is all involved investors intention to make profit by smart actions at right time; "The Attaker" made best smart move and suddenly others want do change rules to reverse his result
Theft and murder may also be "smart actions at the right time," which is not to say "approved by the courts."

>they would never consider anything wrong if investment would multiply in their favour.
True, though irrelevant.

[LASERminer]

^^
Devil's advocate here:
>it is called "experiment"
So is Bitcoin

>it is another crypto project where every newbie manual repeats:"high risk investment"
This shit don't fly IRL courts.

>it is unregulated unprotected digital universe disconnected from real world financial and legal systems
Oft-disproved argument; see: BTC

>it is all involved investors intention to make profit by smart actions at right time; "The Attaker" made best smart move and suddenly others want do change rules to reverse his result
Theft and murder may also be "smart actions at the right time," which is not to say "approved by the courts."

>they would never consider anything wrong if investment would multiply in their favour.
True, though irrelevant.

Sorry but you make no sense to me - comparing to BTC is irrelevant - both projects have pretty same properties in this topic.
You assumed this is case of theft and discussion is about questioning that call.
And you made my description of DAO investors intentions equal to theft and murder? Who is devil then?

[MySecondCunt]

^^^
>comparing to BTC is irrelevant
How come?

>You assumed this is case of theft
What gave you that idea? Please quote, I'd like to correct my mistake.

>description of DAO investors intentions equal to theft and murder?
No. I used an analogy.

>Who is devil then?
English is clearly not your native tongue. Not mine either, so I'll help you out here.

[Bit_Happy]

===== BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE =====
To the DAO and the Ethereum community,
 
I have carefully examined the code of The DAO and decided to participate after finding the feature where splitting is rewarded with additional ether. I have made use of this feature and have rightfully claimed 3,641,694 ether, and would like to thank the DAO for this reward. It is my understanding that the DAO code contains this feature to promote decentralization and encourage the creation of "child DAOs".
 
I am disappointed by those who are characterizing the use of this intentional feature as "theft". I am making use of this explicitly coded feature as per the smart contract terms and my law firm has advised me that my action is fully compliant with United States criminal and tort law. For reference please review the terms of the DAO:
 
"The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation."
 
A soft or hard fork would amount to seizure of my legitimate and rightful ether, claimed legally through the terms of a smart contract. Such fork would permanently and irrevocably ruin all confidence in not only Ethereum but also the in the field of smart contracts and blockchain technology. Many large Ethereum holders will dump their ether, and developers, researchers, and companies will leave Ethereum. Make no mistake: any fork, soft or hard, will further damage Ethereum and destroy its reputation and appeal.
 
I reserve all rights to take any and all legal action against any accomplices of illegitimate theft, freezing, or seizure of my legitimate ether, and am actively working with my law firm. Those accomplices will be receiving Cease and Desist notices in the mail shortly.
 
I hope this event becomes an valuable learning experience for the Ethereum community and wish you all the best of luck.
 
Yours truly,
"The Attacker"
===== END SIGNED MESSAGE =====
 
Message Hash (Keccak): 0xaf9e302a664122389d17ee0fa4394d0c24c33236143c1f26faed97ebbd017d0e
Signature: 0x5f91152a2382b4acfdbfe8ad3c6c8cde45f73f6147d39b072c81637fe81006061603908f692dc 15a1b6ead217785cf5e07fb496708d129645f3370a28922136a32

http://pastebin.com/CcGUBgDG

I read the whole thread and didn't see the most important part:
Has anyone actually verified the message was signed by the "hostile" address, not a fake hash?

[iamnotback]

The DAO "attacker" wouldn't label himself an attacker.

Until he signs something with the "attacker's" key, I assume 'daoattacker' is some Bitcoin Maximalist or ETH short (who piled on short on the deadcat bounce) who is seizing the opportunity to drive ETH down.

[Bit_Happy]

The DAO "attacker" wouldn't label himself an attacker.

Until he signs something with the "attacker's" key, I assume 'daoattacker' is some Bitcoin Maximalist or ETH short (who piled on short on the deadcat bounce) who is seizing the opportunity to drive ETH down.

Right, so has anyone bothered to verify it is a fake hash?

[Minecache]

The DAO "attacker" wouldn't label himself an attacker.

Until he signs something with the "attacker's" key, I assume 'daoattacker' is some Bitcoin Maximalist or ETH short (who piled on short on the deadcat bounce) who is seizing the opportunity to drive ETH down.

agreed. It doesn't add up. Most likely some Spoetniktard.

[LASERminer]

>Who is devil then?
English is clearly not your native tongue. Not mine either, so I'll help you out here.

Your "analogy" between DAO investors and murder (and not the attacker) makes no sense, this is why I'm asking you who devil is - or simply: wth are you talking about.
Regardless of mine (and yours) English - your name, status and tone seams flame seeking troll wannabe to me and therefore I'm done feeding you.

[leopard2]

If he was smart he would get with the major exchanges trading ETH and offer them 1 million USD equivalent each to reject the fork.  The exchanges will decide everything, not the miners, exchanges are the only place to make money with ETH.  Miners go to the exchanges to move profits.  The miners won't move to the new fork if the exchanges are still on the old fork.

Yeah just that you cannot legally give away stolen funds...so the miners would make themselves legally vulnerable.

I can´t believe the logic some people are using:

1. a flaw in the code of something has been found and used to steal funds. This happens all the time. It is the definition of a hack. There is a security gap, a flaw, in some code, and the hacker uses it.
2. some people, just because they hate ETH, claim that this hole in the code is working as designed, and therefore the hack is legal.

That attitude is mental. With the same logic, the BTC malleability hack for example, would have been perfectly fine just like any other (ab?)use of a security flaw in a data processing device worldwide would be.

 

Advice: stop being envious, grab some cheap ETH now.  

In any civilised country, there is a legal and civil framework that would never allow such a stupid idea survive in a court of law, common sense tells us that and so does this guy:

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.

Btw has anyone now verified this guys signature or not?  

[mandica]

The DAO "attacker" wouldn't label himself an attacker.

Until he signs something with the "attacker's" key, I assume 'daoattacker' is some Bitcoin Maximalist or ETH short (who piled on short on the deadcat bounce) who is seizing the opportunity to drive ETH down.

agreed. It doesn't add up. Most likely some Spoetniktard.

The "attacker" has a double quote. So it is not relevant. We need to verify the signature first. If that is false, there is no point to talk.

[Limx Dev]

Absolutely Savage!



Ethereum is doomed!

 Confirmed that he was giving out real BTC - https://blockchain.info/address/1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE  so if this is merely a  troll, than a troll with a lot of money and ready to use it !

Why sending to 1BitcoinEater? That is $747 gone forever, as nobody will ever have the private key to that address.

That is the end?

[BitUsher]

Also true troll style. For every bitcoin cultist not burstin' with schadenfreude, I'll give you one who's just itching to capitalize on this. I'll even start: You.
*not defending The[lol]DAO, which is arguably the most ether-frollicky thing ever, just pointing out that posting signed messages that fail to verify does not a cypherpunk make.

Agreed, could just be a troll with ~deep pockets like MP.

[2dogs]

(3) the point of this pastebin is open dialog; soon we will have a smart contract to reward miners who oppose the soft fork and mines the transaction. 1 million ether + 100 btc will be shared with miners.

The pastebin is fake in the sense that it’s not a signed message from the attacker, but that doesn’t mean the message it conveys is fake, or, not from the attacker.

From interview with alleged DAO "attacker":

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/exclusive-full-interview-transcript-alleged-dao-attacker/

[yefi]

Yeah just that you cannot legally give away stolen funds...so the miners would make themselves legally vulnerable.

Vulnerable to what, a lawsuit? That's about as fanciful as the idea the daoattacker will sue the Ethereum Foundation really. It would also bring in to question the whole legality and regulation (or lack thereof) of TheDAO.

This doesn't mean I think they'll accept it of course.

[Minecache]

(3) the point of this pastebin is open dialog; soon we will have a smart contract to reward miners who oppose the soft fork and mines the transaction. 1 million ether + 100 btc will be shared with miners.

The pastebin is fake in the sense that it’s not a signed message from the attacker, but that doesn’t mean the message it conveys is fake, or, not from the attacker.

From interview with alleged DAO "attacker":

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/exclusive-full-interview-transcript-alleged-dao-attacker/

That's NOT the attacker.

[iamnotback]

Yeah just that you cannot legally give away stolen funds...so the miners would make themselves legally vulnerable.

Vulnerable to what, a lawsuit? That's about as fanciful as the idea the daoattacker will sue the Ethereum Foundation really. It would also bring in to question the whole legality and regulation (or lack thereof) of TheDAO.

This doesn't mean I think they'll accept it of course.

If mining is decentralized, I think it is impossible to enforce a court decision on the miners because new miners can pop up any where. You'd need some totalitarian total world control over the Internet and block the protocol.

Doesn't seem plausible near-term in current state of the world.

More likely any court decision would be enforced on the exchanges. New exchanges could pop up, but they can also be regulated.

Perhaps any class action suit if any might attempt to name any of those prominant insiders who have profited by promoting and selling ETH such as Vitalik, Tual, etc.. I am not sure if a lawyer would advise that or not, and whether it could be successful. I hope they've retained counsel.