Vitalik and Tual going to end up in jail?

[Storm_Guardian_N7]

The DAO was a blessing in disguise. It exposed the vulnerabilities within Ethereum so greatly that no amount of hype could cover it up. But it also taught a lot of trading lessons to a lot of people that if they're willing to learn will strengthen their investment/speculation practices. While some people lost 'all' of their capital, the truth is. They probably only lost 1/2 of it at this point, could have been less if they folded the moment they saw a 20% market decrease on an established coin.

They can still sell their coins at a loss on the market, and make that back in less time than it takes for Ethereum and the DAO to get itself together. With the profit they make selling out, and putting only a select portion of gains back in (that is if they still want to) they could ride the wave 'if there is another wave' then if there is a wave, EXIT immediately back into BTC and double your profits. That's how I work. Altcoins are just a way to double my $USD so that I can double my capital with BTC and then back into a more stable currency that I can use for everyday transactions. But after this event I am toning it down a bit and will probably be sticking to just BTC, though altcoins can help add a few $$s to my portfolio so it's nice if viewed as something on the side but not as the main dish.

In any case I like altcoins because they give people with less capital a less volatile chance to explore how it works and offer innovation. It's a great place to train new speculators and practice new concepts, but even an altcoin on it's finest day will have a lot of work to be able to match Bitcoins ability to rise or drop by $50 - $100. Plus there are more ways to double your money with BTC than there are ways to do the same with altcoins. You can make $11k - $100k in a year with altcoins, you can do that in a month with BTC if you know what you're doing and have the capital.

On a Separate Note:
I also tend to find this whole DAO thing suspicious. There are too many red flags. The language of the contract saying, "The law is the code and the code is always right", any  programmer knows that was a problem waiting to happen. The Ethereum team hyping it up while at the same time trying to distance themselves legally from it at the same time. I remember thinking if this thing is as legit as they say why are they not willing to be accountable for their actions. And the slock.it team was suspicious too. Their unapologetic nature and how they seem unphased by all the anger targeted at them, and won't issue an apology adds to my suspicions. Ethereum backing this beast gave it credibility but they're only human and humans are flawed. When there is hype, ignore what the people are saying, read the contract and trust your own gut.

Something else got me, the language of the contract itself and the way it was designed almost feels deliberate even though they say otherwise. I read somewhere that the slock.it team had planned to exploit use the same area the attacker exploited but the attacker got to it first. I just get this really bad vibe that even though it is unproven that this was an inside job, and I'm not sure if it was the ethereum team or the slock.it team, but if there's anything to be learned from how corruption and hacks happen...it's usually an inside job. See Shapeshift's incident as an example.

I don't like openly speaking about my conspiracy theories but it seems suspicious. Either people were just negligible...or they are truly intelligent to know exactly what they're doing right now...don't like conspiracies, but this did leave a nasty taste in my mouth due to so many red flags and now just problem after problem with this thing. Idk. Maybe it was just their trust in a code that is still in development that got them there, their blind faith in their own work and the 'ego' and lack of humility with the slock.it team but that's just me.

[1714777686]

1714777686

[1714777686]

1714777686

[1714777686]

1714777686

[cabron]

^ ain't that a FUD?  can't believe you exert effort writing such just to FUD around. you could have just shout "SCAM"

[Storm_Guardian_N7]

I don't know if I believe it is a scam. It's just speculation at this point.

[BitUsher]

Well... this is embarrassing.  May 9th article from Vitalik , and now he pivots 180 degrees.



No credibility at all, and this could lead to some litigation from those against the HF!

[Kewatia]

Vitalik is still young. He is still learning. But it is better not with all my money in stake. I wish the Etereum be more robust in the future.

[Azael]

I don't think so. They can just travel between countries as they please.

[mandica]

I don't think so. They can just travel between countries as they please.

They must have a permanent address that you can send the law enforcement to. But I am more interested in getting the hacker to the prison.

[Kewatia]

I don't know if I believe it is a scam. It's just speculation at this point.

I believe it would have been considered on unlicenced security in his home country. That's why he and the foundation moved to Switzerland in the first place. I'm eager to see how the Swiss feel about all this.

But the Ethereum is a money of internet or internet of money, how can the Swiss regulate that?

[haendehochueberfall]

I think it will be soft forked at least. So the attacker can sue every miner in the world and put them into jail.

these guys aren't capable to code the softfork up. Total amateurs. Not in control of their own "invention".

[Kewatia]

I think it will be soft forked at least. So the attacker can sue every miner in the world and put them into jail.

these guys aren't capable to code the softfork up. Total amateurs. Not in control of their own "invention".

Can anybody support the Ethereum community to help programming the soft fork? Without it, Ethereum is dead.

[benthach]

Looks to me that they got themselves in deep legal shit...

a) The terms and conditions of the particular smart contract supersedes hundreds of years of US legal contract law, not! Directly or indirectly, this has been fudded all over the internet. 100% of the legal consensus is that  in the US, US contract law is the guiding agent. Who has jurisdiction is another matter, but in whatever jurisdiction, that jurisdiction's legal system is the controlling entity. You are not waving away the US court system with words written in magic pixie dust on a piece of paper.

b) It''s clear that the Ethereum foundation immediately needs to consult with legal experts in the areas of contract law and security and exchange law in order to clarify in their talks what exactly they can and cannot claim/promise. CEO's never say anything for public attribution without clearing it with legal.

Absolutely!

Why do they fail if they fork?

Seems to me the fanboys who buy anything that sounds good, don't really care about whether it is decentralized, because we were writing for months in the Ethereum Paradox thread that Casper would be moving it towards centralization. They only believe what they want to believe.

So why would recovering the funds for the fanboys be worse than not from the perspective of sustaining Ethereum?

They can state that the rules weren't well elucidated and that in the future, all users must understand that contracts are not warranted to perform as advertised.

Tual has potentially a big problem if they didn't do adequate disclosure. This can end up in lawsuits and he can end up prosecuted under securities regulations. If they did make very clear and conspicuous disclosure about risks, then they definitely shouldn't fork because no one will ever again know what the rules are (as they will be open to change at-will).

All about fungibility and centralization. It sucks, and I don't think anyone could honestly argue that the attacker deserves the coins, but intervening would be disastrous to the long term prospects of ETH. There's plenty of precedent to suggest that intervention like this would be a death sentence. The "fanboys" wouldn't care, but as far as long term adoption and all that goes, you're really shooting yourself in the foot. Those in it for the quick money are no doubt pissed off, but anyone in it for the long haul should be staunchly against a fork.

I think the "attacker" deserves the funds, because and assuming he did nothing illegal (but I am not even sure if he didn't violate some obscure law). But we are discussing about perceptions of what the risks are. Please re-read my prior post as I added to it. For me, it hinges on whether they had adequately explained/disclosed the risks to the DAO and ETH investors. I suspect not (otherwise why $168m invested[1]). Thus I argue they can fork and then make the conspicuous and repeated disclosure so that it is clear they will be consistent from here on. And they pretty much have to fork in that case, else they throw themselves under the legal liability bus (but due to the decline in the ETH price they are fucked legally no matter what they do). As for the threats of lawsuits from the "attacker", these can be ignored because they can claim that the majority has the Byzantine power to fork and everyone who uses CC knows that.

Or they can take the stance that all CC investors should know the risks and that they are the owners, because it is decentralized. In that case, they shouldn't fork, but I think they will lose this argument in court perhaps. The DAO investors can file a class action lawsuit for example (which btw supercedes every international jurisdiction!) and claim to be n00bs who trusted Vitalik and Tual their idols.

I believe this clusterfuck is going to lead to securities regulation of CC.  

Vitalik is growing up very fast I think right about now.


[1] Where are the statements about how participants could lose everything if there is a bug? They should have scared away some of the money. I read 18,000 investors for $168 million, so several $1000s each.

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.

unless you're dumb enough to gave them free money, other than that no one care about them.

[parmatiya]

Looks to me that they got themselves in deep legal shit...

a) The terms and conditions of the particular smart contract supersedes hundreds of years of US legal contract law, not! Directly or indirectly, this has been fudded all over the internet. 100% of the legal consensus is that  in the US, US contract law is the guiding agent. Who has jurisdiction is another matter, but in whatever jurisdiction, that jurisdiction's legal system is the controlling entity. You are not waving away the US court system with words written in magic pixie dust on a piece of paper.

b) It''s clear that the Ethereum foundation immediately needs to consult with legal experts in the areas of contract law and security and exchange law in order to clarify in their talks what exactly they can and cannot claim/promise. CEO's never say anything for public attribution without clearing it with legal.

Absolutely!

Why do they fail if they fork?

Seems to me the fanboys who buy anything that sounds good, don't really care about whether it is decentralized, because we were writing for months in the Ethereum Paradox thread that Casper would be moving it towards centralization. They only believe what they want to believe.

So why would recovering the funds for the fanboys be worse than not from the perspective of sustaining Ethereum?

They can state that the rules weren't well elucidated and that in the future, all users must understand that contracts are not warranted to perform as advertised.

Tual has potentially a big problem if they didn't do adequate disclosure. This can end up in lawsuits and he can end up prosecuted under securities regulations. If they did make very clear and conspicuous disclosure about risks, then they definitely shouldn't fork because no one will ever again know what the rules are (as they will be open to change at-will).

All about fungibility and centralization. It sucks, and I don't think anyone could honestly argue that the attacker deserves the coins, but intervening would be disastrous to the long term prospects of ETH. There's plenty of precedent to suggest that intervention like this would be a death sentence. The "fanboys" wouldn't care, but as far as long term adoption and all that goes, you're really shooting yourself in the foot. Those in it for the quick money are no doubt pissed off, but anyone in it for the long haul should be staunchly against a fork.

I think the "attacker" deserves the funds, because and assuming he did nothing illegal (but I am not even sure if he didn't violate some obscure law). But we are discussing about perceptions of what the risks are. Please re-read my prior post as I added to it. For me, it hinges on whether they had adequately explained/disclosed the risks to the DAO and ETH investors. I suspect not (otherwise why $168m invested[1]). Thus I argue they can fork and then make the conspicuous and repeated disclosure so that it is clear they will be consistent from here on. And they pretty much have to fork in that case, else they throw themselves under the legal liability bus (but due to the decline in the ETH price they are fucked legally no matter what they do). As for the threats of lawsuits from the "attacker", these can be ignored because they can claim that the majority has the Byzantine power to fork and everyone who uses CC knows that.

Or they can take the stance that all CC investors should know the risks and that they are the owners, because it is decentralized. In that case, they shouldn't fork, but I think they will lose this argument in court perhaps. The DAO investors can file a class action lawsuit for example (which btw supercedes every international jurisdiction!) and claim to be n00bs who trusted Vitalik and Tual their idols.

I believe this clusterfuck is going to lead to securities regulation of CC.  

Vitalik is growing up very fast I think right about now.


[1] Where are the statements about how participants could lose everything if there is a bug? They should have scared away some of the money. I read 18,000 investors for $168 million, so several $1000s each.

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.

unless you're dumb enough to gave them free money, other than that no one care about them.

I might buy some miners to do support the fork which will get back the money from the hackers in the future.

[Kewatia]

I might buy some miners to do support the fork which will get back the money from the hackers in the future.

It might be too late now. You need a big farm to influence the whole hashing rate. It is too high now.

[mandica]

Do  you think the owner of the 3.6 million Ethereum will invest some money on farms to save his 3.6 million?

[Kewatia]

Do  you think the owner of the 3.6 million Ethereum will invest some money on farms to save his 3.6 million?

I heard he was going to sign some smart contract with some miners. But I am afraid the miners might think he will defraud them.

[mandica]

Do  you think the owner of the 3.6 million Ethereum will invest some money on farms to save his 3.6 million?

I heard he was going to sign some smart contract with some miners. But I am afraid the miners might think he will defraud them.

I will never believe a hacker or a thief who stole $60 million  from other people. That is a punishable crime. Where is the FBI?

[raphma]

Except Vitalik has nothing to do with US laws (fortunately).

i was thinking the same... what the f*ck US laws have to do with eth?
but then i remember... its US. they dont need a reason.

----
right now, to me, the only law applied to eth is : short it!
shorting eth is making me rich.

[Kewatia]

Except Vitalik has nothing to do with US laws (fortunately).

i was thinking the same... what the f*ck US laws have to do with eth?
but then i remember... its US. they dont need a reason.

----
right now, to me, the only law applied to eth is : short it!
shorting eth is making me rich.

But the US law enforcer arrested the operator of the Silk Road. If the DAO has defraud the US citizen, can he also be arrested?

[reb0rn21]

Do  you think the owner of the 3.6 million Ethereum will invest some money on farms to save his 3.6 million?

I heard he was going to sign some smart contract with some miners. But I am afraid the miners might think he will defraud them.

I will never believe a hacker or a thief who stole $60 million  from other people. That is a punishable crime. Where is the FBI?

Has there been any hack attack??? or stupid sheeps just signed bad deal and lost all!?

If you sign a bad deal in a court which you should have read, would you call the other party a thief for your stupidity

[parmatiya]

Do  you think the owner of the 3.6 million Ethereum will invest some money on farms to save his 3.6 million?

I heard he was going to sign some smart contract with some miners. But I am afraid the miners might think he will defraud them.

I will never believe a hacker or a thief who stole $60 million  from other people. That is a punishable crime. Where is the FBI?

Has there been any hack attack??? or stupid sheeps just signed bad deal and lost all!?

If you sign a bad deal in a court which you should have read, would you call the other party a thief for your stupidity

The court of law will not agree with what you said. I read some where that the contract should be fair.