The DAO Disaster Illustrates Differing Philosophies in Bitcoin and Ethereum

[Steven-Ben]

I saw a news:

http://thebitcoinnews.com/the-dao-disaster-illustrates-differing-philosophies-in-bitcoin-and-ethereum/

what is your opinion?

[pawel7777]

ETH is still on very early stage, I wouldn't say this hard fork indicates different philosophy. Bitcoin has also been hardforked at the beginning to fix vulnerabilities.

[gadman2]

Bitcoin would hard fork if the encryption protocol was broken tomorrow and everyone's coins ended up in one address. So no, the philosophies aren't the problem. It's the people who manage it. Whether it be 1, 2, 10 or 10 billion people.

[spartacusrex]

Bitcoin would hard fork if the encryption protocol was broken tomorrow and everyone's coins ended up in one address. So no, the philosophies aren't the problem. It's the people who manage it. Whether it be 1, 2, 10 or 10 billion people.

??

BTC would not hard-fork if you mistakenly sent $100mill to the wrong address (The GOX funds).

ETH is hard-forking because they sent $100mil to the wrong address (The DAO address).

There is a big difference in the philosophies.

[gadman2]

Bitcoin would hard fork if the encryption protocol was broken tomorrow and everyone's coins ended up in one address. So no, the philosophies aren't the problem. It's the people who manage it. Whether it be 1, 2, 10 or 10 billion people.

??

BTC would not hard-fork if you mistakenly sent $100mill to the wrong address (The GOX funds).

ETH is hard-forking because they sent $100mil to the wrong address (The DAO address).

There is a big difference in the philosophies.

No, ETH did not send 100 mill to the wrong address. That's not the case, and you know it.

[odolvlobo]

I disagree.

I guess everyone has forgotten about block 74638, when somebody following the consensus rules created 184 billion BTC. A hard fork and a 51% attack were orchestrated by the Bitcoin developers in order to undo those transactions.

[NyeFe]

Bitcoin would hard fork if the encryption protocol was broken tomorrow and everyone's coins ended up in one address. So no, the philosophies aren't the problem. It's the people who manage it. Whether it be 1, 2, 10 or 10 billion people.

??

BTC would not hard-fork if you mistakenly sent $100mill to the wrong address (The GOX funds).

ETH is hard-forking because they sent $100mil to the wrong address (The DAO address).

There is a big difference in the philosophies.

No, ETH did not send 100 mill to the wrong address. That's not the case, and you know it.

essentially the problem is that funds ended up in the wrong place. which caused them to hard fork. I really don't see any integrity in etheruem after this, which would never have happened on bitcoins blockchain. Lets take MtGox as an example.

[alyssa85]

Well the point about alts is to experiment with new things. Ether tried the whole "contract in the code" thing and found it didn't really work when there are flaws in both the contract and the code. A valuable lesson learned by everyone.

[gadman2]

Bitcoin would hard fork if the encryption protocol was broken tomorrow and everyone's coins ended up in one address. So no, the philosophies aren't the problem. It's the people who manage it. Whether it be 1, 2, 10 or 10 billion people.

??

BTC would not hard-fork if you mistakenly sent $100mill to the wrong address (The GOX funds).

ETH is hard-forking because they sent $100mil to the wrong address (The DAO address).

There is a big difference in the philosophies.

No, ETH did not send 100 mill to the wrong address. That's not the case, and you know it.

essentially the problem is that funds ended up in the wrong place. which caused them to hard fork. I really don't see any integrity in etheruem after this, which would never have happened on bitcoins blockchain. Lets take MtGox as an example.

Add "due to an exploit" somewhere in the first sentence.

[Foxpup]

I guess everyone has forgotten about block 74638, when somebody following the consensus rules created 184 billion BTC. A hard fork was done in order to undo those transactions.

Everyone including you, it seems. It was a soft fork (which didn't specifically target any particular transaction, it just fixed the overflow bug).

[~Bitcoin~]

If eth doesn't change how dampps will work in future that is not in mainchain they should maintain different chain for damps built on ETH just like lisk. If they don't change this than may be in future another DAO like damps with some vulnerability may force eth again to have hard forked.

[NyeFe]

I guess everyone has forgotten about block 74638, when somebody following the consensus rules created 184 billion BTC. A hard fork was done in order to undo those transactions.

Everyone including you, it seems. It was a soft fork (which didn't specifically target any particular transaction, it just fixed the overflow bug).

So we have a scenario where a bug is fixed & little else happened, and one (etheurem) where the bug probably still exists & a hard fork took place. Whats the value of etheruem, if security is not put first? I'm still wondering what's more important to them - Securing the protocol, or securing funds from/for potential monetary investment sources.

[Amph]

I disagree.

I guess everyone has forgotten about block 74638, when somebody following the consensus rules created 184 billion BTC. A hard fork and a 51% attack were orchestrated by the Bitcoin developers in order to undo those transactions.

technically it was not an hard fork, read maxwell about the matter

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15301988#msg15301988

there was never an hard fork for bitcoin, which explain why they don't want to do the 2MB thing...

[odolvlobo]

I guess everyone has forgotten about block 74638, when somebody following the consensus rules created 184 billion BTC. A hard fork was done in order to undo those transactions.

Everyone including you, it seems. It was a soft fork (which didn't specifically target any particular transaction, it just fixed the overflow bug).

You are correct. It wasn't a hard fork, but that is not really the point.

The claim is that Bitcoin and Ethereum are different because Bitcoin transactions would never be undone in order to fix something that people feel is an exploit. Yet, it has been done.

A 51% attack against Bitcoin was successfully executed with a client that enforced new consensus rules in order to undo transactions that were valid under the current consensus rules.

You feel that there was a "bug" in the consensus rules that needed to be fixed, just as people now feel that there is a bug in the DAO contract that needs to be fixed. It all looks the same to me.

[Foxpup]

A 51% attack against Bitcoin was successfully executed with a client that enforced new consensus rules in order to undo transactions that were valid under the current consensus rules.

Except they actually weren't. The consensus rule was (and is) that the sum of the outputs of a transaction must be less than or equal to the sum of the inputs, but the integer overflow bug meant the sums weren't calculated correctly. It's a bug.

You feel that there was a "bug" in the consensus rules that needed to be fixed, just as people now feel that there is a bug in the DAO contract that needs to be fixed. It all looks the same to me.

The DAO =/= Ethereum. There is no bug in Ethereum. Instead, a poorly-written Ethereum contract sent money to someone the creator of the contract didn't intend, in exactly the same way that a poorly-written Bitcoin transaction can send money to someone the creator of the transaction didn't intend. This has happened many, many times in Bitcoin and nobody has suggested "undoing" poorly-written transactions, since that would destroy the usefulness of the system.

[Spoetnik]

Philosophies ? 

One is a currency and one is not..

Might as well compare a Lawn-mower and a scammy ICO Turkey sandwich 

[Minecache]

I guess everyone has forgotten about block 74638, when somebody following the consensus rules created 184 billion BTC. A hard fork was done in order to undo those transactions.

Everyone including you, it seems. It was a soft fork (which didn't specifically target any particular transaction, it just fixed the overflow bug).

You are correct. It wasn't a hard fork, but that is not really the point.

The claim is that Bitcoin and Ethereum are different because Bitcoin transactions would never be undone in order to fix something that people feel is an exploit. Yet, it has been done.

A 51% attack against Bitcoin was successfully executed with a client that enforced new consensus rules in order to undo transactions that were valid under the current consensus rules.

You feel that there was a "bug" in the consensus rules that needed to be fixed, just as people now feel that there is a bug in the DAO contract that needs to be fixed. It all looks the same to me.

Of course it's the same. Anyone who denies it is simply a ETH fudder. 

[Minecache]

Philosophies ? 

One is a currency and one is not..

Might as well compare a Lawn-mower and a scammy ICO Turkey sandwich 

Currency - the fact or quality of being generally accepted or in use.

If people agree to use something, anything as a medium of exchange then it's a currency. But you know that ETH is MORE THAN simply a currency.

[Jatnid]

ETH is still on very early stage, I wouldn't say this hard fork indicates different philosophy. Bitcoin has also been hardforked at the beginning to fix vulnerabilities.

The Ethereum is just one year ago. It will have some growth pains. I can understand that and give it chance.

[shyliar]

ETH is still on very early stage, I wouldn't say this hard fork indicates different philosophy. Bitcoin has also been hardforked at the beginning to fix vulnerabilities.

This hardfork doesn't address vulnerabilities they will continue to exist.