|
NattyLiteCoin
|
 |
June 19, 2016, 08:03:43 PM |
|
LOL @ Vitalik in jail: ETHER $1B market cap, creator traded for pack of cigarettes.
He's not going to jail. I don't believe he'd intentionally code a backdoor. He's a scientist, not a con artist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to get the maximum amount of activity points possible, you just need to post once per day on average. Skipping days is OK as long as you maintain the average.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback (OP)
|
|
June 19, 2016, 08:13:49 PM |
|
LOL @ Vitalik in jail: ETHER $1B market cap, creator traded for pack of cigarettes.
He's not going to jail. I don't believe he'd intentionally code a backdoor. He's a scientist, not a con artist.
Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, please note the subject of the thread is a question, not a position. I also don't think Vitalik was scamming. However, I do think he got himself into a quagmire of his own making, because we all warned him that Turing-complete block chain scripts are dangerous and he chose to ignore us. I even warned his co-founder before they launched Ethereum. And Ethereum has never been upfront about the risks in their technology. They've pushed hype without any sobering reality for balance. That is why there are so many n00bs who did not do due diligence on The DAO. And please note what I wrote earlier: It is too fast if we judge vitalik going to end in jail, because he is just a part of developer ethereum. And we are don't have any proof that vitalik has taken the coins.
I've morphed my understanding to threats being more civil lawsuits and not securities regulation with potential criminal liability, although the former can apparently in some cases drive the latter (i.e. the SEC feels compelled to come in because of the public outrage, which the attorney mentioned early in that linked video). Now that we have a real attorney on camera, you all can stop thinking I am full of bullshit. Vindicated! |
|
|
|
|
leopard2
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1014
|
|
June 19, 2016, 08:17:59 PM |
|
Vitalik did nothing wrong, ETH is not at fault  The DAO creators are at fault. Especially when they publicly posted a warning about this recursive vulnerability a few days ago. Such stupidity, wow. Why, they should have implemented a fucking soft fork 7 days ago, a preventive one, freezing all affected projects until further notice. Instead of posting it in a blog. They have a security guy on board but maybe he was on vacation? Read this an weep: https://blog.slock.it/no-dao-funds-at-risk-following-the-ethereum-smart-contract-recursive-call-bug-discovery-29f482d348b#.djds4v5i4https://blog.slock.it/announcing-dao-framework-1-1-35249e2e001#.377vb829lSlock.it, however, is in Germany and Germany does not extradite their citizens. And as long as no criminal intent is proven, no one will go to jail in Germany for something like this. So, no - they will not go to jail, I think. Ethereum is a Swiss company. Just for the sake of completeness, both German and Swiss contract law clearly state this: as long as the attacker did not act in good faith (and he certainly did not!!!) he cannot legally own the funds. |
Truth is the new hatespeech.
|
|
|
|
iamnotback (OP)
|
|
June 19, 2016, 08:25:48 PM |
|
Ethereum is a Swiss company. Just for the sake of completeness, both German and Swiss contract law clearly state this: as long as the attacker did not act in good faith (and he certainly did not!!!) he cannot legally own the funds.
You have to prove he didn't act in good faith. The attacker is attempting to show that Vitalik and "accomplices" are acting in bad faith. Listen to the video I posted where the attorney Pamela explains it. Also I believe Swiss & German contract law (as you stated it) is roughly consistent with common law in common law countries as the attorney Pamela in the videos explained. The DAO did not have any TOS that specified jurisdiction. Thus the attacker can choose which ever jurisdiction he wants. Ditto the plaintiffs that lost money due to the incident, if they don't fork. So your point may be irrelevant for any civil lawsuits. But for criminal liability, you are probably correct (and I presume Vitalik is protected by a Swiss corporation shielding him). It will be interesting to see what the attacker's next move is. I believe MP is a Bitcoin maximalist and I expect him to not give up. I expect he has a counter move. |
|
|
|
|
|
NattyLiteCoin
|
|
June 19, 2016, 08:38:45 PM |
|
Jah mon. I don't think you're pointing fingers at Vitalik, that was not my intent. Your posts have been refreshing over the last week or two from the babble of this forum. Even though I'm not as locked in as you from the tech side, I feel ya. Bottom line, is when crypto becomes a fucking company it's juxtaposed to its intent. It won't work.
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback (OP)
|
|
June 20, 2016, 12:36:34 AM
Last edit: June 20, 2016, 03:05:27 AM by iamnotback |
|
Can't blame this solely on Tual and The DAO: ...
There are no safety mechanisms built into the SOLIDARITY. There was no attempt to do this incrementally. They released Turing-complete scripting into the wild knowing full well that it must blow up. Very, very unprofessional.
We can't blame this just on The DAO. The root cause starts with Vitalik and his delusions. Casper was another delusion that we knew would fail. How many months and $millions did they waste on that.
In fact, the flaw is in SOLIDARITY: A fundamental flaw in Solidity If you use the call construct in Solidity on external contracts, and if you have any externally-callable functions in your own contract that modify state, you cannot assume anything about the state of your contract after the external call is executed. Agreed, the call construct is OK if you know what code is running. If you don’t though, as I said you can make no assumptions about your program’s state or control flow when that call completes.
And this is why I’m shocked that, of the concepts borrowed from the object-capability literature, Ethereum borrowed smart contracts but did not follow up with capability-safe language and VM design.
And I remember that his was a flaw that I had realized in 2014 would be in SOLIDARITY when I read they would support contracts calling other contracts. I knew over 2 years ago that this exploit would be possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
iamnotback (OP)
|
|
June 20, 2016, 03:35:20 AM
Last edit: June 20, 2016, 04:41:24 AM by iamnotback |
|
I don't know why this guy made a new thread instead of adding to one we already created: Swiss Contract law requires:
1) Consent of the parties: Acceptance by both parties
2) No Negative elements: Impossibility and Illegality (neither of these apply)
3) Conclusion of contract by representatives: Both parties accepted the contract on their own behalf or are valid representatives of the contractual party.
4) Elements of Interpretation: Does not include Fraud, Duress, etc...
5) Breach of Contract: Damages as a general remedy for a breach. :The general rule is that a party to a contract not performing it correctly, as it is written, must pay damages compensating the failure of performance or its imperfections.
There is no requirement of consideration. Most of the wording in Swiss contract law is written to protect the party agreeing to the contract, not the entity that writes the contract, for obvious reasons.
The irony in all this is that Vitalik is the one, by Swiss law, that could be sued for breach of contract.
You can't write an unprofitable smart contract, then turn around and claim theft when someone takes the other end of the contract and takes all your money. Think about how ridiculous that sounds. Any attempt to undo or rewrite the contract is a breach of contract by Swiss law.
The whole idea of a smart contract is that it inherently holds all of the requirements of a legal contract, provides security superior to traditional contract law, and once entered, it cannot be undone. All of these characteristics of a smart contract have been espoused by Vitalik himself and his own words will be used against him when he is sued in court.
And then we have r0ach who is too high pride to post in any of my threads: Remember r0ach wrote this: You are arguing for microtransactions when it's impossible to have microtransactions on a blockchain.
Okay guys. Enjoy it while you can. I coming whether you like it or not.
I tried to find the posts where r0ach was stalking me in other threads and gloating about Bitcoin being up to $600, but appears he (or the mods) wisely deleted those posts containing his snide/flippant remarks. Damn, I should have quoted them for posterity. Any way, I found this plagiarism and notice the dates of the two posts... It is possible that Bitcoin has U bottomed at $150 and will meander up to $1200 over the next several months.
The thing I've always hated about your insistence on trying to push this Armstrong character is that you basically imply we live in a deterministic universe... Bitcoin has now completed a giant, two year long cup and handle...  |
|
|
|
|
bathrobehero
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2002
Merit: 1051
ICO? Not even once.
|
|
June 20, 2016, 05:54:09 AM |
|
Except Vitalik has nothing to do with US laws (fortunately).
So that's going to save his ass? Good lord  I've invested on DAOs too but I definitely don't put all my life savings there. we all know crypto isn't the whole thing in this world. And i guess those investors who deposit millions thinking they'd earn millions as well are just as noobs as they are. so they shouldnt try to find anyone to blame. they've been warned a lot of times in this forum. All I'm saying is that if there's a crypto which must bend to US laws then it's already a failure because it's already centralized. |
Not your keys, not your coins!
|
|
|
|
parmatiya
|
|
June 20, 2016, 08:02:43 AM |
|
I think it will be soft forked at least. So the attacker can sue every miner in the world and put them into jail.
|
|
|
|
GreenBits
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1048
|
|
June 20, 2016, 08:20:54 AM |
|
If the "attacker" exposes him/herself and he/she is in the US as he said in the open letter, I think he could be sent to prison for the hacking with bad intent.
I think a decent lawyer could fight that, as the code was supposed to be "golden", this is a feature now, despite the bug being openly disclosed, I still think the SEC might have something to say about that massive short. They will poke around at least. |
|
|
|
|
hv_
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
|
|
June 20, 2016, 08:38:03 AM |
|
Can't blame this solely on Tual and The DAO: ...
There are no safety mechanisms built into the SOLIDARITY. There was no attempt to do this incrementally. They released Turing-complete scripting into the wild knowing full well that it must blow up. Very, very unprofessional.
We can't blame this just on The DAO. The root cause starts with Vitalik and his delusions. Casper was another delusion that we knew would fail. How many months and $millions did they waste on that.
In fact, the flaw is in SOLIDARITY: A fundamental flaw in Solidity If you use the call construct in Solidity on external contracts, and if you have any externally-callable functions in your own contract that modify state, you cannot assume anything about the state of your contract after the external call is executed. Agreed, the call construct is OK if you know what code is running. If you don’t though, as I said you can make no assumptions about your program’s state or control flow when that call completes.
And this is why I’m shocked that, of the concepts borrowed from the object-capability literature, Ethereum borrowed smart contracts but did not follow up with capability-safe language and VM design.
And I remember that his was a flaw that I had realized in 2014 would be in SOLIDARITY when I read they would support contracts calling other contracts. I knew over 2 years ago that this exploit would be possible. .. and I'm pretty sure it's also part in the Paradox thread as well... at least plenty hints and warnings. |
Carpe diem - understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
|
|
|
|
iamnotback (OP)
|
|
June 20, 2016, 12:37:25 PM |
|
.. and I'm pretty sure it's also part in the Paradox thread as well... at least plenty hints and warnings.
Of course, because I wrote that Ethereum Paradox thread. I mean I was the one instigating the deeper technical points. Perceptions may vary, but I am aware of who knew what and when because I understood the technical discussion in real-time at that time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parmatiya
|
|
June 22, 2016, 06:48:20 AM |
|
There is flaw in the DAO, but that is not an excuse to steal the funds and the thief is trying to convince the miners to help him to steal. |
|
|
|
|
iamnotback (OP)
|
|
June 22, 2016, 09:27:07 PM |
|
There is flaw in the DAO, but that is not an excuse to steal the funds and the thief is trying to convince the miners to help him to steal. The ideological argument is secondary to the fact that Ethereum was inescapably fucked from the day they launched: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1523492.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
parmatiya
|
|
June 27, 2016, 10:50:30 AM |
|
There is flaw in the DAO, but that is not an excuse to steal the funds and the thief is trying to convince the miners to help him to steal. The ideological argument is secondary to the fact that Ethereum was inescapably fucked from the day they launched: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1523492.0It was fucked, but it has recovered from the hacking problem. The hacker did not get anything and the Ethereum is getting stronger. |
|
|
|
chryspano
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 27, 2016, 12:29:45 PM |
|
The hacker did not get anything...
LOL If you think he was after money then yes, he probably didn't get much, but my impresion is that his main intent was to create a mess in Ethereum/DAO and he gloriously succeded. |
|
|
|
|
|
mandica
|
|
June 29, 2016, 05:48:13 PM |
|
The hacker did not get anything...
LOL If you think he was after money then yes, he probably didn't get much, but my impresion is that his main intent was to create a mess in Ethereum/DAO and he gloriously succeded. That was a very big mass. Ethereeum did not suffer similar problem in the last two years. So it is good to have some experience. |
|
|
|
|
TrueAnon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 29, 2016, 07:58:39 PM |
|
Fuck DAO and ETH
|
|
|
|
|
|
paratox
|
|
June 30, 2016, 12:19:30 PM
Last edit: June 30, 2016, 12:46:35 PM by paratox |
|
(A conspiracy theory, so please don't take it too seriously. Just want to offer another perspective on the matter. I don't really know if the Ethereum concept is flawed , or if this kind of hardfork can really trigger a chain reaction that could lead to the self destruction of Ethereum)
It could be possible, that "TheDAO attack" was/is an inside job. Maybe ETH devs/foundation realized that the concept of Ethereum is flawed and they planned this whole mess including the proposed hardfork to initiate the death of Ethereum.
Why would they do it?
Considering how much effort they put into hyping this concept as the holy grail of blockchains with a great future to investors... it got too big to just say "Hey community, we realized that our idea was not well thought out, we are gonna stop developing because we believe that we can't fix it in a way that doesn't break the fundamental premise of Ethereum's concept (decentralized , autonomous, immutable smart contracts, where the code is the law without interference from third parties and without the possibility of fraud or censorship). If they do this, they would get a lot of shit from investors :" But why did you hype this concept so much, when you didn't even knew if it could work the way you say it would? Isn't that deceptive? Did you lie to us to get our money or what?" There may also be a other negative consequences, like getting into troubles with the law.
With the hardfork they may be trying to shift the responsibility for the destruction of Ethereum to the community. So when the project fails, they can say "It wasn't really our fault, the community decided to do this, they are responsible for the hardfork.
Their reputation would be destroyed either way, but they may doge some of the negative consequences, especially concerning the law.
Please remember, this is just speculation, a thought that crossed my mind during this whole debacle. I am not saying that I believe this to be true, only that it could be possible explanation for what is happening right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
