The Market is not wrong, Vitalik Buterin is.

[WolfofBitcoin]

What the young man is unable to comprehend is that an immutable, non-reversable blockchain is more valuable than fixing a $60 million loss for people who actually deserved it due to negligence and an inability to put forth proper security protocols while having a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the funds safety.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns come to mind.

I am sure to Vitalik, $60 million is a lot of money and he wants 'to do the right thing.'  What he has done however is unwittingly and unknowingly removed himself from the helm of Ethereum.  Ethereum simply can't be trusted any longer as its community may reverse transactions that "have been executed by Muslims, or French people or maybe blacks," especially if the 51% consensus is a gathering of 19-32 year old white males?  Where does it end?

It ends with Ethereum Classic.  Kudos to the visionaries who understand that the betterment of the many lies in an immutable blockchain which stands the chance to make trillions.

Subsidizing idiocy is not a valuable proposition.

[1715170260]

1715170260

[1715170260]

1715170260

[Minecache]

What the young man is unable to comprehend is that an immutable, non-reversable blockchain is more valuable than fixing a $60 million loss for people who actually deserved it due to negligence and an inability to put forth proper security protocols while having a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the funds safety.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns come to mind.

I am sure to Vitalik, $60 million is a lot of money and he wants 'to do the right thing.'  What he has done however is unwittingly and unknowingly removed himself from the helm of Ethereum.  Ethereum simply can't be trusted any longer as its community may reverse transactions that "have been executed by Muslims, or French people or maybe blacks," especially if the 51% consensus is a gathering of 19-32 year old white males?  Where does it end?

It ends with Ethereum Classic.  Kudos to the visionaries who understand that the betterment of the many lies in an immutable blockchain which stands the chance to make trillions.

Subsidizing idiocy is not a valuable proposition.

What a crock load of FUD.

[pereira4]

What the young man is unable to comprehend is that an immutable, non-reversable blockchain is more valuable than fixing a $60 million loss for people who actually deserved it due to negligence and an inability to put forth proper security protocols while having a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the funds safety.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns come to mind.

I am sure to Vitalik, $60 million is a lot of money and he wants 'to do the right thing.'  What he has done however is unwittingly and unknowingly removed himself from the helm of Ethereum.  Ethereum simply can't be trusted any longer as its community may reverse transactions that "have been executed by Muslims, or French people or maybe blacks," especially if the 51% consensus is a gathering of 19-32 year old white males?  Where does it end?

It ends with Ethereum Classic.  Kudos to the visionaries who understand that the betterment of the many lies in an immutable blockchain which stands the chance to make trillions.

Subsidizing idiocy is not a valuable proposition.

What a crock load of FUD.

We understand that you are bagholding ETH, but that doesn't change OP's fact being right.

Vitalik Buterin acted as a central banker when he tried to stop all trading to avoid people panic selling after the DAO "hack". From that very second I knew Ethereum was doomed. Then all those morons like Brian Armstrong saying hard forks are not a problem because there would never be 2 result coins coexiting buried it.

[Spoetnik]

I don't like either version but i agree 100% with the OP.

And yup good point it was doomed back when he demanded exchanges stop trading via request.
..it also does not say a lot good for the exchanges either.
Don't forget their centralized role for profits in this people !

ETH is manipulation like we have never seen in crypto before.. in many ways.

@Minecache
You are a Fraud.
And you're once again crying FUD for bucks $$$
..get a job kid.

Besides people..
Since IBM, Microsoft & "Big Banks" are USING Ethereum what do they think of this ?
How do you "use" ETH with out buying them ?

And how is it we have heard nothing from those 3 ?
Unless..
They..
aren't ACTUALLY using them ROFL  

What am i suppose to forget the 1,000's of comments saying that on Poloniex alone ?
You expect me NOT to bring it up ?
When was the last time anyone brought up Big Banks, Microsoft or iBM "using" Ethereum ?
Been a looooong time hasn't it ?

Wonder why ?
No ?
Well when is the last time anyone in Crypto mentioned "using" a DAPP ? (not including the ponzi DAO)
What percentage of comments on ETH are about APP's  1% ? 0.5% ? 0.01% ?

Why was the scammy ICO launched in 2014 ?
Ponzi Platform ? ..shit like DAO ?

Hey you want to invest REAL CASH MONEY $$$ into ICO "schemes" like this then go hard people.
Let me know how it works out for you..
Or..
Dump + Hide !

After all that is what the entire community behind Doge did.. where are they now ?
They left way before the dev himself left after saying the community failed to support the coin.

Yup..
I will be around long after the mETH heads smoked their last rock ..saying, I TOLD YOU SO !
..again.

[shyliar]

Frankly I think the pro-fork people need to watch Inside Job and the Big Short to understand anti-fork people. Additionally, it might help them to look at other historical economic disasters such as the one created (on purpose) in the late 70s and early 80s to slap down working people.

While I don't disagree with their viewpoint that the DAO hack was theft (no matter the situation taking something that belongs to someone else is) they seem to completely not understand evil and corruption in a political or economic system. Their philosophy has unfortunately demonstrated a complete disrespect for the cryptocurrency scene, the technology and what it wants to achieve. ETH is no different than fiat as a result. 

[Minecache]

Frankly I think the pro-fork people need to watch Inside Job and the Big Short to understand anti-fork people. Additionally, it might help them to look at other historical economic disasters such as the one created (on purpose) in the late 70s and early 80s to slap down working people.

While I don't disagree with their viewpoint that the DAO hack was theft (no matter the situation taking something that belongs to someone else is) they seem to completely not understand evil and corruption in a political or economic system. Their philosophy has unfortunately demonstrated a complete disrespect for the cryptocurrency scene, the technology and what it wants to achieve. ETH is no different than fiat as a result. 

Paranoid much?

[mining1]

Topic poster seems quite desperate, probably sold his ETH for tokens on the abandoned chain hoping to get rich. I advise you to sell back at a loss otherwise you'll end up eating dirt haha.
Stick to your principles in your perfect world, unnatainable perfect blockchain and let real people work their ass off improving and fixing one of the most ambitious projects in IT world. Everyone can be a critic, like iamnotback and many others, it's easy to criticise ambitious projects while sitting in the peanunt gallery telling everyone that they know best and better than the actual developers, while sitting on the side speculating on cryptocurrencies, that;s really hard.

[shyliar]

Frankly I think the pro-fork people need to watch Inside Job and the Big Short to understand anti-fork people. Additionally, it might help them to look at other historical economic disasters such as the one created (on purpose) in the late 70s and early 80s to slap down working people.

While I don't disagree with their viewpoint that the DAO hack was theft (no matter the situation taking something that belongs to someone else is) they seem to completely not understand evil and corruption in a political or economic system. Their philosophy has unfortunately demonstrated a complete disrespect for the cryptocurrency scene, the technology and what it wants to achieve. ETH is no different than fiat as a result. 

Paranoid much?

No I just think it's a good thing for people to educate themselves. Hopefully you can agree with that.

[bitboy11]

What a crock load of FUD.

Minecache is the ONLY FUD in here!

[bitboy11]

Topic poster seems quite desperate, probably sold his ETH for tokens on the abandoned chain hoping to get rich. I advise you to sell back at a loss otherwise you'll end up eating dirt haha.
Stick to your principles in your perfect world, unnatainable perfect blockchain and let real people work their ass off improving and fixing one of the most ambitious projects in IT world. Everyone can be a critic, like iamnotback and many others, it's easy to criticise ambitious projects while sitting in the peanunt gallery telling everyone that they know best and better than the actual developers, while sitting on the side speculating on cryptocurrencies, that;s really hard.

Keep fixing your BROKEN ETH ship...it is still going to SINK anyway!

[Minecache]

So far the market is still wrong as ETC is nowhere near overtaking ETH never mind simply gaining parity.

And hopefully you do realise that if ETH is broken then ETC is even more so. Double spend, replay attack vectors, DAO attacker hodling 10% supply, etc. The list is endless.

[obit33]

funny, you guys discussing which of the two shitcoins to hold on to...

ETC and ETH will both fail... again...

You guys are only here for the fiatgame anyway, so go ahead, and lose it with both hands...

best regards

[WolfofBitcoin]

The fiat game has run for 500 years.  It has achieved a 51% success rate in my opinion, lifting people out of the dark ages by diluting the money supply and incentizing everyone with the proverbial carrot.

Vitalik has rendered Ethereum's value regardless of its human utility, to something like the Argentinian Peso, or the Chillean Escduo, or Romanian Lei.  Each Country had something in common.  A dictator or communist.

Vitalik has joined their ranks and will be remembered in Wikipedia for it sadly, the sad part is that he did do it with 'good intentions,' on the paved road to hell.

[dinofelis]

Frankly I think the pro-fork people need to watch Inside Job and the Big Short to understand anti-fork people. Additionally, it might help them to look at other historical economic disasters such as the one created (on purpose) in the late 70s and early 80s to slap down working people.

While I don't disagree with their viewpoint that the DAO hack was theft (no matter the situation taking something that belongs to someone else is) they seem to completely not understand evil and corruption in a political or economic system. Their philosophy has unfortunately demonstrated a complete disrespect for the cryptocurrency scene, the technology and what it wants to achieve. ETH is no different than fiat as a result. 

In what way is playing by the rules, even if you didn't understand them that way, "taking something that belongs to someone else" ?
The "DAO hacker event" is somewhat similar to you playing chess against someone else, and suddenly that guy applies castling and you are check mate.  You had never heard of castling and you call him a cheater.  However, you had subscribed to the official chess rules, and castling IS part of the chess rules even if you didn't hear of it.

However, in what way is CHANGING the rules, and undoing your castling, not cheating ?  Now, who were the thieves here ?  The DAO hacker who played by the DAO rules (using a feature nobody had thought about, using infinite recursion and a funny property of Solidity - castling) or the forkers who decided that, against everything that was announced "the code is the law", changed the rules, and undid the castling by the hacker-player ?

WHO took property from someone else ?

[americanpegasus]

What the young man is unable to comprehend is that an immutable, non-reversable blockchain is more valuable than fixing a $60 million loss for people who actually deserved it due to negligence and an inability to put forth proper security protocols while having a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the funds safety.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns come to mind.

I am sure to Vitalik, $60 million is a lot of money and he wants 'to do the right thing.'  What he has done however is unwittingly and unknowingly removed himself from the helm of Ethereum.  Ethereum simply can't be trusted any longer as its community may reverse transactions that "have been executed by Muslims, or French people or maybe blacks," especially if the 51% consensus is a gathering of 19-32 year old white males?  Where does it end?

It ends with Ethereum Classic.  Kudos to the visionaries who understand that the betterment of the many lies in an immutable blockchain which stands the chance to make trillions.

Subsidizing idiocy is not a valuable proposition.

What a crock load of FUD.

So you support the reversal of transactions and blocking of smart contracts by minorities?  You are a disgusting human being.

[sinner]

What the young man is unable to comprehend is that an immutable, non-reversable blockchain is more valuable than fixing a $60 million loss for people who actually deserved it due to negligence and an inability to put forth proper security protocols while having a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the funds safety.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns come to mind.

I am sure to Vitalik, $60 million is a lot of money and he wants 'to do the right thing.'  What he has done however is unwittingly and unknowingly removed himself from the helm of Ethereum.  Ethereum simply can't be trusted any longer as its community may reverse transactions that "have been executed by Muslims, or French people or maybe blacks," especially if the 51% consensus is a gathering of 19-32 year old white males?  Where does it end?

It ends with Ethereum Classic.  Kudos to the visionaries who understand that the betterment of the many lies in an immutable blockchain which stands the chance to make trillions.

Subsidizing idiocy is not a valuable proposition.

how did race/religion/ethnicity enter the equation?  you're making a decent argument about immutability. don't let your regressive leftism ruin your argument.

[StinkyLover]

Frankly I think the pro-fork people need to watch Inside Job and the Big Short to understand anti-fork people. Additionally, it might help them to look at other historical economic disasters such as the one created (on purpose) in the late 70s and early 80s to slap down working people.

While I don't disagree with their viewpoint that the DAO hack was theft (no matter the situation taking something that belongs to someone else is) they seem to completely not understand evil and corruption in a political or economic system. Their philosophy has unfortunately demonstrated a complete disrespect for the cryptocurrency scene, the technology and what it wants to achieve. ETH is no different than fiat as a result. 

In what way is playing by the rules, even if you didn't understand them that way, "taking something that belongs to someone else" ?
The "DAO hacker event" is somewhat similar to you playing chess against someone else, and suddenly that guy applies castling and you are check mate.  You had never heard of castling and you call him a cheater.  However, you had subscribed to the official chess rules, and castling IS part of the chess rules even if you didn't hear of it.

However, in what way is CHANGING the rules, and undoing your castling, not cheating ?  Now, who were the thieves here ?  The DAO hacker who played by the DAO rules (using a feature nobody had thought about, using infinite recursion and a funny property of Solidity - castling) or the forkers who decided that, against everything that was announced "the code is the law", changed the rules, and undid the castling by the hacker-player ?

WHO took property from someone else ?

Absolute rubbish. A thief is a thief is a thief. It's the equivalent of hacking into a bank terminal via the web, transferring a shedload of money to your own offshore account and then claiming that because the bank has a security department and security policy posted online, and you've been able to breach it, that you're somehow now the rightful owner. It's only because crypto is under the radar right now that this joker isn't sitting in a cell somewhere being mocked by local police.

Pseudo-intellectuals on this site think they're showing brainpower by backing a thief. Idiots who want to raise their profile but have little brain power join them (like unknowing sheep) in declaring this thief/hacker a genius who legitimately found a flaw. For every genius crypto hacker from a higher level you bet me, I'll raise you two Nigerian identity theft scammers and four Russian NFC card crackers.

Absolute bullshit. If I ever meet this hacker goat I'll tell him to his fat pimpled face that he's a thief and I'm one individual who's not convinced by him.

A thief is a thief is a thief

 

[dinofelis]

In what way is playing by the rules, even if you didn't understand them that way, "taking something that belongs to someone else" ?
The "DAO hacker event" is somewhat similar to you playing chess against someone else, and suddenly that guy applies castling and you are check mate.  You had never heard of castling and you call him a cheater.  However, you had subscribed to the official chess rules, and castling IS part of the chess rules even if you didn't hear of it.

However, in what way is CHANGING the rules, and undoing your castling, not cheating ?  Now, who were the thieves here ?  The DAO hacker who played by the DAO rules (using a feature nobody had thought about, using infinite recursion and a funny property of Solidity - castling) or the forkers who decided that, against everything that was announced "the code is the law", changed the rules, and undid the castling by the hacker-player ?

WHO took property from someone else ?

Absolute rubbish. A thief is a thief is a thief. It's the equivalent of hacking into a bank terminal via the web, transferring a shedload of money to your own offshore account and then claiming that because the bank has a security department and security policy posted online, and you've been able to breach it, that you're somehow now the rightful owner. It's only because crypto is under the radar right now that this joker isn't sitting in a cell somewhere being mocked by local police.

Pseudo-intellectuals on this site think they're showing brainpower by backing a thief. Idiots who want to raise their profile but have little brain power join them (like unknowing sheep) in declaring this thief/hacker a genius who legitimately found a flaw. For every genius crypto hacker from a higher level you bet me, I'll raise you two Nigerian identity theft scammers and four Russian NFC card crackers.

Absolute bullshit. If I ever meet this hacker goat I'll tell him to his fat pimpled face that he's a thief and I'm one individual who's not convinced by him.

A thief is a thief is a thief

 

You clearly do not understand what is a smart contract, where the code is the law.  A bank doesn't say that the code running on their terminals is the law, on the contrary.  The human law for banking is such that there is an intend, different from the code.  That intend is written in human language in legal texts.  And doing what you suggest with a bank terminal is AGAINST these human legal texts.

But in a SMART contract, the ONLY law is the code and there is no other intend or human legal text.  So ALL aspects of the code are part of the legal system you set up, including all non anticipated behaviour, which you would, in other circumstances, call "bugs".  The bugs are part of the contract.  If you can't accept that, you can't accept the concept of smart contract, and then ethereum has no meaning because it is a tool to make smart contracts.

The worst is that the ONLY "human" contract terms *clearly stated that the code was the law*. 

It is as if the bank had said that the software of their terminals was the law in a human legal document (which is exactly what the DAO website did).  In that case, if you succeed in transferring money, then you played by the bank's declared rules, and if they take it away from you THEY are the thieves.  But, as you say, that is NOT the law that goes for banking.  So your example doesn't work.

[StinkyLover]

In what way is playing by the rules, even if you didn't understand them that way, "taking something that belongs to someone else" ?
The "DAO hacker event" is somewhat similar to you playing chess against someone else, and suddenly that guy applies castling and you are check mate.  You had never heard of castling and you call him a cheater.  However, you had subscribed to the official chess rules, and castling IS part of the chess rules even if you didn't hear of it.

However, in what way is CHANGING the rules, and undoing your castling, not cheating ?  Now, who were the thieves here ?  The DAO hacker who played by the DAO rules (using a feature nobody had thought about, using infinite recursion and a funny property of Solidity - castling) or the forkers who decided that, against everything that was announced "the code is the law", changed the rules, and undid the castling by the hacker-player ?

WHO took property from someone else ?

Absolute rubbish. A thief is a thief is a thief. It's the equivalent of hacking into a bank terminal via the web, transferring a shedload of money to your own offshore account and then claiming that because the bank has a security department and security policy posted online, and you've been able to breach it, that you're somehow now the rightful owner. It's only because crypto is under the radar right now that this joker isn't sitting in a cell somewhere being mocked by local police.

Pseudo-intellectuals on this site think they're showing brainpower by backing a thief. Idiots who want to raise their profile but have little brain power join them (like unknowing sheep) in declaring this thief/hacker a genius who legitimately found a flaw. For every genius crypto hacker from a higher level you bet me, I'll raise you two Nigerian identity theft scammers and four Russian NFC card crackers.

Absolute bullshit. If I ever meet this hacker goat I'll tell him to his fat pimpled face that he's a thief and I'm one individual who's not convinced by him.

A thief is a thief is a thief

 

You clearly do not understand what is a smart contract, where the code is the law.  A bank doesn't say that the code running on their terminals is the law, on the contrary.  The human law for banking is such that there is an intend, different from the code.  That intend is written in human language in legal texts.  And doing what you suggest with a bank terminal is AGAINST these human legal texts.

But in a SMART contract, the ONLY law is the code and there is no other intend or human legal text.  So ALL aspects of the code are part of the legal system you set up, including all non anticipated behaviour, which you would, in other circumstances, call "bugs".  The bugs are part of the contract.  If you can't accept that, you can't accept the concept of smart contract, and then ethereum has no meaning because it is a tool to make smart contracts.

The worst is that the ONLY "human" contract terms *clearly stated that the code was the law*. 

It is as if the bank had said that the software of their terminals was the law in a human legal document (which is exactly what the DAO website did).  In that case, if you succeed in transferring money, then you played by the bank's declared rules, and if they take it away from you THEY are the thieves.  But, as you say, that is NOT the law that goes for banking.  So your example doesn't work.

Nonsense. Funds are to be moved from The DAO based on a vote. Everybody knows this but you defenders of the hacker goat thief conveniently say nothing about that fact.

What vote provided him with the authority to move those funds?

He is a stone cold thief. The fact that he's waiting for the right time to dump and profit seals his fate.

Absolute nonsense.

 

[CIYAM]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1504662.msg15717392#msg15717392

The absolute nonsense is those that won't accept the failure and the "guarantee" that was made.

(read those terms very closely - and then read them again please)