The ONLY solution to the ETH/DAO conundrum..

[spartacusrex]

Well.. 24 hrs sure is a long time in crypto land.

As Ethereum worries about the 'piddly' 50 mil 'contractually' obtained from the DAO 'Sloppy' Contract (not sure you could call it Smart).. the ETH market cap has dropped 100's of millions of dollars.

This is NOT because ETH is at fault, or has been hacked, or has behaved abnormally.

But the ridiculous response from the ETH Elite that they will now reverse / fork / magic-away the results of a contract run on their network.

..

There is only one response from the ETH Elite that can save Ethereum.

Stay well away.

This is not your fight. ETH can and will be fine. If it had been a bug in the EVM, fork-away. It wasn't, and all you have done with your meddling is destroy any trust anyone had, in running a trust-less system.

What next ? When will you next decide to fork-away the unwanted.. When will a government decide to force you to fork.. How can you even speak in this way about a decentralised system without  admitting that the system is NOT decentralised ?

Will every Smart Contract to come be surrounded by legal jargon saying that - if you do something 'we' didn't think of - it's illegal !? .. there is more at stake here than just DAO.

..

'.. You've already done enough damage... This mission is OVER.. This mission IS OVER!! ..   .. ( Slams table hard with hand ) .. '

Please, walk away. It's that simple.

..

And as for the DAO.. write better code next time.

[1715017389]

1715017389

[1715017389]

1715017389

[1715017389]

1715017389

[Anus]

yep true story
if they can fork this shit...then goverment can let them fork things also

[leopard2]

Will every Smart Contract to come be surrounded by legal jargon saying that - if you do something 'we' didn't think of - it's illegal !? .. there is more at stake here than just DAO.

Dont be childish.

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

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

Now about this DAO thing, i don`t know much about it but why they take it down I cannot comprehend.

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

[leopard2]

yep true story
if they can fork this shit...then goverment can let them fork things also

no. BTC was forked before because the community agreed. The community would not agree to do this for a government. 

[iamnotback]

This is not your fight. ETH can and will be fine. If it had been a bug in the EVM, fork-away. It wasn't, and all you have done with your meddling is destroy any trust anyone had, in running a trust-less system.

If Vitalik wasn't also a Curator and thus implied promoter of the DAO, then I'd agree with you 100%[1]. Let Tual et al, take any legal liability. But I am thinking maybe Vitalik is legally in deep shit also:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517223.0

But maybe you are correct and the lawyers will advise the Ethereum Foundation to do nothing, so as to not admit they are the ones "securing" the investments of the users so they don't fall under purview of the securities law. But I still think they are going to damned because they didn't make adequate disclosures.

Nobody from their camp warned anything while the DAO was accumulating $168m. I and others were warning that this huge pot of egold ripe for losses (either exchange value losses or outright technological losses) and not making proper disclosure was going to end up a legal clusterfuck. So now here we are.

Bitcoin didn't have a key personality as a promoter.


[1] But that would mean I also agree the majority can do a 51% attack and change the protocol.

[Minecache]

Will every Smart Contract to come be surrounded by legal jargon saying that - if you do something 'we' didn't think of - it's illegal !? .. there is more at stake here than just DAO.

Dont be childish.

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

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

Now about this DAO thing, i don`t know much about it but why they take it down I cannot comprehend.

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

Well said. Happened before to BTC and its yet to happen to ETH as ETH itself has not been hacked. ETH haters need to get over themselves and their disgusting irrational diatribes.

[iamnotback]

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

Agreed.

My father specializes in contract law, graduated top of his class at L.S.U. and was former West Coast Division Attorney for Exxon.

I once was fretting over the fine print of a contract for a $205,000 license I sold for CoolPage in 2001, and he advised to not kill the contract negotiations because he said the court would not enforce a one-sided contract.

So contract law interprets what is the intent, not just what is written in the contract.

Vitalik and Tual need to lawyer up if they haven't already done so.

[Dâniel Fraga]

What is interesting about all this is that all the outcomes will harm Ether:

1) no fork: attacker gets all these Ethers and he can manipulate the price as he wants.

2) with a fork: attacker doesn't get Ether, but confidence on Ethereum drops and the price goes down

And the "economic" solution (through economic incentives):

3) miners accept the attacker's proposal of one million Ether to reject the soft fork:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/miners-to-be-offered-one-million-ether-claims-daos-alleged-attacker-in-ccn-interview/

"Just speculating (because only 1 million to miners is committed), but it makes sense to have a carrot and a stick. Carrot: return some of the eth to the DAO to make righteous people happy. Stick: return some of the eth to miners if they don’t fork to give monetary incentive to not fork. So… the impact and amounts will be a lot smaller than current estimations."

But even if miners accept the attacker's proposal, there's a risk of the price going down, so the miners will be harmed (unless they're already shorting Ether to gain when the price drops).

[Auponef]

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

Agreed.

My father specializes in contract law, graduated top of his class at L.S.U. and was former West Coast Division Attorney for Exxon.

I once was fretting over the fine print of a contract for a $205,000 license I sold for CoolPage in 2001, and he advised to not kill the contract negotiations because he said the court would not enforce a one-sided contract.

So contract law interprets what is the intent, not just what is written in the contract.

Do you mean the intent of the DAO is not to enrich somebody by $50 million by exploiting a hole in the coding?

[iamnotback]

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

Agreed.

My father specializes in contract law, graduated top of his class at L.S.U. and was former West Coast Division Attorney for Exxon.

I once was fretting over the fine print of a contract for a $205,000 license I sold for CoolPage in 2001, and he advised to not kill the contract negotiations because he said the court would not enforce a one-sided contract.

So contract law interprets what is the intent, not just what is written in the contract.

Do you mean the intent of the DAO is not to enrich somebody by $50 million by exploiting a hole in the coding?

No. leopard2 and I mean that the intent of the DAO contract is roughly not to allow 1 user take all the value out without consensus voting.

And contract law will likely enforce rule for that intent, regardless of an weakness in the code which prevents enforcing that intent.

Edit: but note it is not clear whether the law could enforce it.

[baomuydtab34261]

i am worried about that the law of the country could let them fork EHT also? if not, The ETH and Dao will be blowing.

[Foxpup]

Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal.

Consent just means "agreement". The creators of the DAO (rather stupidly) agreed that "code is law", and the attackers agreed with the code. It's generally assumed in contract law that anyone agreeing to a contract understands it completely, including any loopholes. Abusing a loophole in a contract is perfectly legal and can be legally enforced if it works against the person who wrote the contract (it's his fault, after all). A person who discovers that a contract allows them to collect free money can't be blamed for agreeing to it; it's the responsibility of the contract's author to ensure the terms of the contract can't be turned against him.

[BitcoinNational]

Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal.

Consent just means "agreement". The creators of the DAO (rather stupidly) agreed that "code is law", and the attackers agreed with the code. It's generally assumed in contract law that anyone agreeing to a contract understands it completely, including any loopholes. Abusing a loophole in a contract is perfectly legal and can be legally enforced if it works against the person who wrote the contract (it's his fault, after all). A person who discovers that a contract allows them to collect free money can't be blamed for agreeing to it; it's the responsibility of the contract's author to ensure the terms of the contract can't be turned against him.

math is the LAW
suck it!

[think i agree with OP]

[benthach]

Well.. 24 hrs sure is a long time in crypto land.

As Ethereum worries about the 'piddly' 50 mil 'contractually' obtained from the DAO 'Sloppy' Contract (not sure you could call it Smart).. the ETH market cap has dropped 100's of millions of dollars.

This is NOT because ETH is at fault, or has been hacked, or has behaved abnormally.

But the ridiculous response from the ETH Elite that they will now reverse / fork / magic-away the results of a contract run on their network.

..

There is only one response from the ETH Elite that can save Ethereum.

Stay well away.

This is not your fight. ETH can and will be fine. If it had been a bug in the EVM, fork-away. It wasn't, and all you have done with your meddling is destroy any trust anyone had, in running a trust-less system.

What next ? When will you next decide to fork-away the unwanted.. When will a government decide to force you to fork.. How can you even speak in this way about a decentralised system without  admitting that the system is NOT decentralised ?

Will every Smart Contract to come be surrounded by legal jargon saying that - if you do something 'we' didn't think of - it's illegal !? .. there is more at stake here than just DAO.

..

'.. You've already done enough damage... This mission is OVER.. This mission IS OVER!! ..   .. ( Slams table hard with hand ) .. '

Please, walk away. It's that simple.

..

And as for the DAO.. write better code next time.

eth is bug-ridden and stephan tual wrote this smart contract for eth, then we have many ways, many paths of unseen scalability(turing) network which is promised to come by 2017 and 2018. this vaporware fake pump scam is no more than just a joke

[coinyard]

yep true story
if they can fork this shit...then goverment can let them fork things also

When the governments want to fork it, I will vote against as a miner. I will vote for any fork according to my decision.

[helloeverybody]

The way i see it is eth is over either way. A fork is going to be bad for all the reasons stated but if you stand back and leave things then theres no doubt that all the newly aquired eth that will be released in 26 days or whatever it is will definitly be getting dumped, If you think the price is low now its nothing compared to what it will be like after a few million more eth gets dumped.

i agree its not eths fault but if you fly with the crows you get shot with the crows.

[Slark]

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

Even when you 'fix' the code and create DAO 2.0 it is not enough. People will remember this fail forever. There is something which can't be fixed with rewritten code - people's trust.

And how exactly BTC was 'hacked'? I don't recall anything like that in the past. And certainly no coins were stolen during that 'attack'.

[helloeverybody]

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

Even when you 'fix' the code and create DAO 2.0 it is not enough. People will remember this fail forever. There is something which can't be fixed with rewritten code - people's trust.

And how exactly BTC was 'hacked'? I don't recall anything like that in the past. And certainly no coins were stolen during that 'attack'.

A lot of people keep bringing up that bitcoin was hacked but its irrelevant . Bitcoin had an issue in 2010 where someone managed to create so many billions of bitcoins but this was back when bitcoin was in its infancy with a market cap of only 200k, The dao and ethereums market cap is much larger and investers face a massive loss which was not the case with bitcoin. Also developers were aware of this recent exploit with the dao yet never fixed it.

[anthonydar]

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

Even when you 'fix' the code and create DAO 2.0 it is not enough. People will remember this fail forever. There is something which can't be fixed with rewritten code - people's trust.

And how exactly BTC was 'hacked'? I don't recall anything like that in the past. And certainly no coins were stolen during that 'attack'.

If this crisis is dealt properly, people will have more confidence in the Etheruem. It needs the whole community support.

[RussianMiner]

If hackers dump these coins price will be 50 cent

NXT died because of this!