The Market is not wrong, Vitalik Buterin is.

[Munti]

I think the issue is not so much the number of participants, but rather the weight of the value of a contract with respect to the value of the whole chain.  

The number of participants is very relevant because it has major impact on how big value a contract can have. It would be insane for two parties to make a contract that is to big relative to BitBays marketcap and the amount of coins available on the exchanges. One party would have to buy the whole sell side, and the other would have to clean out the buy side. Both would lose. A contract where many people can enter over a certain (or unlimited) period of time on the other hand, could easily end up  much bigger than the contract that doesn't make sense between two parties.

I think your two-party smart contract will suffer even more from that if you consider that the code has to be the judge.  Each party can fork off and do as he pleases.

?? What use would there be for one man to fork off? And how would it affect BitBay?

In fact, your two-party smart contract is probably just a cryptographic way to sign and date actions on both sides, *with the idea of going to court if one of the parties thinks that the contract was broken and got screwed*.  But that's not a smart contract, that's a secure logbook. The only thing you're probably doing is introducing non-repudiation signatures on actions, so that you can use this as proof in court.  I think that's a useful way to use cryptography, but I wouldn't call it a smart contract.

Our two party smart contract signs, dates, and executes actions on both sides. If that is not a smart contract, then I don't know what is.

[Munti]

In fact, the ETH fork showed us one thing, as Munti explained: "the code is the law" only works to the extend that the mob accepts it, and the mob can always overrule it.  So maybe one should simply accept that fact, and build it in the code.  I don't know if it is possible with Ethereum, but one could consider that there can be a majority vote of stake holders to undo any transaction on the block chain while remaining on the chain.
There could be a new kind of "transaction", with a multisig representing sufficient stake *from before a specific transaction*, that undoes this transaction in some kind of way.

In bitcoin equivalent speak, there could be block chain entries that "revoke" former transaction hashes, so that their UTXO are not considered valid, and their inputs are not considered consuming former UTXO.  It would be sufficient that such a revoking block chain entry accumulates signatures representing sufficient UTXO from before said transaction for it to be recognized as valid.

As such, the new rule would be: "the code is the law, but any stake above X is above the law and can undo anything in the past".

Instead of a multi sig of accumulated stake, one could also introduce a few hard coded "god signatures" of specific people (say, Vitalik and his dog) or entities being "god" and above all law, and when they sign any such revocation entry on the block chain, then said transaction is revoked.   Or this could be a multi-god signature, where, say, 5 out of the 7 gods have to sign such a revocation order.  We could assign the keys to, say, people like the president of the USA, the governor of the FED, Putin, and the secretary of the communist party in China, the king of Saudi Arabia and Vitalik. 

What do you think ?

It would avoid hard forking, the rules would be clear, and there would be a way to overrule the code in a less messy way than with a hard fork.

Can't do that for obvious reasons.

[dinofelis]

Our two party smart contract signs, dates, and executes actions on both sides. If that is not a smart contract, then I don't know what is.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.  I thought you were talking about a private block chain with just one single smart contract between two parties, mined by the sole two parties.  You are piggybacking on an existing block chain to get the immutability.

Then you're right of course, as long as the contract value is way way below the chain value, there's no risk of hard fork.

[Munti]

Our two party smart contract signs, dates, and executes actions on both sides. If that is not a smart contract, then I don't know what is.

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.  I thought you were talking about a private block chain with just one single smart contract between two parties, mined by the sole two parties.  You are piggybacking on an existing block chain to get the immutability.

Then you're right of course, as long as the contract value is way way below the chain value, there's no risk of hard fork.

Not piggybacking. BitBay has it's own blockchain. But we are getting sidetracked here.

Back to topic:
Does anyone in here believe it's possible to have global Eth style contracts that are immune to what we have seen happen with DAO? If so, how?

[Spoetnik]

Here is a thought, and hopefully the intelligent young man is listening out there.

What if he were to distribute 50% of his Ethereum Classic holdings equally to all existing addresses as an offering to everyone who believe in the actual purpose of the technology thus reducing his ownership to 5%?  I think that that gesture is more valuable than Satoshi's quite frankly.  He would equally be rewarded as 10x 50% which is much more valuable than 1x 100%.  He even stands the chance to become the head of the organization.  I am dead serious.  There are no charges that can befall him for exploiting an error that was advertised to be complete, secure and tested.  Again remember the CFTC, SEC, CBOE, CBOT all told us that the Black Scholes models were complete as well.  They were wrong.

Ethereum Classic will spike and Ethereum will take a VERY hard dive, eventually Classic will win in the end as immutability is the single greatest value proposition of this technology.

Full disclosure I currently own even more Ethereum Classic below $1 than I purchased initially years ago, for the second round!  Thanks Vitalik and Mr. Ritchie II.

Good story here and i agree with your idea.. would be cool if he did something like that.
But what is he planning on next ?

I see this as a decentralized matter at the heart of it all.
We intend to make the most decentralized autonomous coin we can.
yet when we see a large gain by someone we want to cry for the Police (while chanting Free Market)
And then we want to have a centralized authority in charge of the coin do roll-backs or forks etc.
This is silly nonsense and really does undermine the core concept we are aiming for.
I won't budge on this issue.. and i have no motivation either way to speak up.
I never have & never will own any ETC / ETH ICO coins etc.
It's the principal to me..

I have been a massive nutcase about piracy for a decade or two now and this remind me of all that.
I was around far before there was an iTunes..
They simply seen what we File Sharing guys did and thought, Hey WOW ! What a great idea !!
Let's COPY them, steal their idea.. monetize it then declare what they are doing as illegal criminal theft
..after the fact.. EVEN if they was no ACTUAL  law broken.
THEN.. they say if you don't pay money with iTunes.. then.. LOST REVENUE !

It amounts to they don't like it.. so they are saying it's a "crime"
Ohh yeah.. my Girl-Friend does not give me nearly enough BJ's.. CRIME !!! She is Robbing me !
Lost revenue ? NO ! lost fucking BJ's !!!111
She owes me about 342 gummers and i am taking her to court.
If i have to end up going to a prostitute then SHE is footing the bill dammit !

I hate Mushrooms too ..when people put them in Spaghetti sauce i want to throw up !
CRIME ...

I also am selling Bottles of my Urine with a certificate of Authenticity.. your not buying it ?
Lost revenue ..

I also sell Spoetnik Autographs for 1 BTC each.. so if you all ever bought an autograph
of some other person then i formally here & now declare this as "Lost Revenue"
You will see me in court THIEVES !

I wish i thought of making the internet first.. so well.. i am saying i did anyway.
For now on you all have to pay $50 a month to use the web or i will call the cops.. THEFT !
Lost revenue ..

Pay me or i am taking my ball & going home  

[Minecache]

I still don't believe people believe the thief is right.

Correct and the thief is Vitalik.

The DAO beneficiary followed the rules of the contract exactly. He did not break any rules.

You thieves want to break the rules because you decided AFTER THE FACT that you didn't like the rules you had agreed to.

Utter utter bullshit. You are such a sad spiteful individual you clearly have limited intelligence to think that a thief of millions can be right. If so where is he? He did no legal wrong and is an unstanding citizen of us all. Where is he? Where is his legal representative?

I'll tell you where. Nowhere. He is a dirty thief and knows he is. Nothing more.

[TravelsAsia]

I still don't believe people believe the thief is right.

Correct and the thief is Vitalik.

The DAO beneficiary followed the rules of the contract exactly. He did not break any rules.

You thieves want to break the rules because you decided AFTER THE FACT that you didn't like the rules you had agreed to.

Utter utter bullshit. You are such a sad spiteful individual you clearly have limited intelligence

Irony 101

[kim.apps]

Original chain, ETC trading volume (24 h): $ 41,402,300
Forked chain, ETH trading volume (24 h): $ 25,392,300

Predictable or not? If it was predictable, why they have forked the whole chain?

[toknormal]

Predictable or not? If it was predictable, why they have forked the whole chain?

Answered here.

[kim.apps]

Predictable or not? If it was predictable, why they have forked the whole chain?

Answered here.

Thank you. I'll read it.

[dinofelis]

Predictable or not? If it was predictable, why they have forked the whole chain?

Answered here.

I think you're wrong, that this was "planned".  This is like so many conspiracy theories, and so many religions, that think that because something happens, there must have been a Planner or a Maker behind it.  What we have actually witnessed, was "emergent intelligence from a distributed interacting system".   We are so terribly indoctrinated by thinking that if something (good or bad) happens, it must have been hierarchically organized or thought off, and hence "at the top" there must be a genius or an evil brain.   All of our history courses are full of Kings, Emperors, Presidents and Leaders of revolutions, having determined and thought off the great things of society.  For evident reasons authorities want us to think so (and most of the time, they think honestly themselves that they are the brains).  But, exactly like a free market assigns resources in the best possible way without anyone planning it, a distributed system of interacting agents has emergent intelligence without anyone planning it.    We thought that the only thing such a "community" could do, was to "vote".  We only know of one way for a community to express itself, namely to "democratically vote" and then have it the majority way.  We should know better: the market doesn't vote with a majority.

To the evident, but impossible riddle that the ETH/DAO guys lead themselves, namely that they wanted to have smart contracts (code is law) LOOK LIKE human contracts (legal, moral, contract, judge,...) - which is outright impossible, they didn't know the solution.

The DAO illustrated that a perfectly legal act according to code law, is considered, without the slightest doubt on the human legal and moral level, theft, and it was not on the test net (well, one excuse was that they had actually put $150 milion in a beta test...).   The impossible choice of the ETH/DAO community was this:

- do we stick to the fundamental tenet of smart contracts (code = law) and hence demonstrate that smart contracts are totally different from human contracts (sounding the end of the illusion that smart contracts are similar to human contracts, like bitcoin is similar to dollars as a monetary asset) ?

- do we apply human law in extreme cases like this, and break the foundations of smart contracts, unstoppable, immutable and all those nice words that are still present in a comical way on the ethereum foundation website ?  (and do we also break the human contract that we had with our customers doing explicitly what we told them would never happen) ?

This impossible choice was given to "the community" for a VOTE, because this is how "leaders" think that the community should speak (they want to preserve unity in the community for sake of power of their leadership).  

The interaction of all independent agents came with the BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION even though nobody in his right mind planned this:  a genuine fork.  Indeed, this was the technical possibility that resolved the riddle in the best way, by having it both ways.   In the same way as a free market does: the market doesn't go for a "majority vote" on whether Apple or Samsung are to make smartphones, after which the minority accepts the majority vote and we all buy only Apple or only Samsung phones.  The market has diversified offer, and people take what they want.

This is something that no "leader" planned.   This is something that was anticipated as a potential catastrophe that hopefully never would occur.  It was the best thing that could happen, and it emerged AGAINST ALL leadership.

Emergent distributed intelligence.

[bbc.reporter]

This is not planned. This is a result of panic from Vitalik, the foundation and slock.it. They were in such a hurry to fork it before the hacker could dump his coins and now they have created more problems. Ethereum fork is possibly going to be not the longest chain as the original chain gathers momentum and support. I'm sorry guys but this is reality.

[Minecache]

I still don't believe people believe the thief is right.

Correct and the thief is Vitalik.

The DAO beneficiary followed the rules of the contract exactly. He did not break any rules.

You thieves want to break the rules because you decided AFTER THE FACT that you didn't like the rules you had agreed to.

Utter utter bullshit. You are such a sad spiteful individual you clearly have limited intelligence

Irony 101

Oh really Einstein. So explain how Vitalik is a thief. Bare in mind that what you post can be construed as slander and open to legal process.

[dinofelis]

Oh really Einstein. So explain how Vitalik is a thief. Bare in mind that what you post can be construed as slander and open to legal process.

You seem to have missed the important point, that calling someone a thief because an act he committed is theft, is depending on the law system under which the action is taking place.

As such, under the "law of the code" the hacker was doing legal things.  The same action, most probably seen under human state (which state?) / human morality/sense of fairness law, is most probably seen as "theft".

Consider the following situation, to illustrate that:
in country A, there's a law that says that if you are laid off from your job for other reasons than misconduct (say, economic reasons) you are entitled to take the personal tools that your employer gave you (computer, smartphone....), with you when you leave.
in country B, there's no such law.

Now suppose that Joe gets fired from company C because C made a bad deal and has to face serious losses (a bad deal with which Joe has nothing to do, but the CEO of the company can't keep all personnel and has decided to lay off Joe).

Joe puts his company's telephone and laptop in a cardbox which he takes home.  Is Joe a thief ?

In country A, he isn't and acted according to the law.
In country B, he's an outright thief and stole company property.

In the DAO, it was said that the code is the law, and according to the code, the hacker could take the funds he took, like Joe took his laptop.  The terms of the DAO were written clearly to anybody: it was the code (and NOT, explicitly NOT, the explanations given on the DAO site).

But almost with certainty in any jurisdiction, where the DAO website explanations would have been the paper contract, what the hacker did was theft, under state and even moral law.

Now, is Vitalik a thief depends on under which law system we look at it, but things don't look good.  The reasons are:
- everywhere, the DAO guys and Vitalik engaged in writing (on their website) that "the code was the law".  If afterwards, they did something so that the code isn't the law any more, they are breaking their own contract.
- you can argue that under state law, the hacker was a thief.  But then, under state law, you are not supposed to go and "steal back".  ONLY A JUDGE can decide whether a thief was a thief, and whether someone needs to take some action to break his own contract terms to take back what belonged to someone else.  YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO APPLY HUMAN JUSTICE YOURSELF.  You must go to court.
- finally, I think that Vitalik is probably a stake holder in the DAO.  As such, his actions (taking back the funds of the hacker) are FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

These three things make that Vitalik is not in his right shoes according to human law either, and indeed, he stole back the hacker funds by breaking his own engagement/contract ("that the code is the law, that code is unstoppable, that the past is immutable...") for his own gain.

In as much as "taking back the funds" would have been the normal thing to do under human law, it would also have to have been ordered by a judge.  Otherwise, it is theft.

[Minecache]

Oh really Einstein. So explain how Vitalik is a thief. Bare in mind that what you post can be construed as slander and open to legal process.

You seem to have missed the important point, that calling someone a thief because an act he committed is theft, is depending on the law system under which the action is taking place.

As such, under the "law of the code" the hacker was doing legal things.  The same action, most probably seen under human state (which state?) / human morality/sense of fairness law, is most probably seen as "theft".

Consider the following situation, to illustrate that:
in country A, there's a law that says that if you are laid off from your job for other reasons than misconduct (say, economic reasons) you are entitled to take the personal tools that your employer gave you (computer, smartphone....), with you when you leave.
in country B, there's no such law.

Now suppose that Joe gets fired from company C because C made a bad deal and has to face serious losses (a bad deal with which Joe has nothing to do, but the CEO of the company can't keep all personnel and has decided to lay off Joe).

Joe puts his company's telephone and laptop in a cardbox which he takes home.  Is Joe a thief ?

In country A, he isn't and acted according to the law.
In country B, he's an outright thief and stole company property.

In the DAO, it was said that the code is the law, and according to the code, the hacker could take the funds he took, like Joe took his laptop.  The terms of the DAO were written clearly to anybody: it was the code (and NOT, explicitly NOT, the explanations given on the DAO site).

But almost with certainty in any jurisdiction, where the DAO website explanations would have been the paper contract, what the hacker did was theft, under state and even moral law.

Now, is Vitalik a thief depends on under which law system we look at it, but things don't look good.  The reasons are:
- everywhere, the DAO guys and Vitalik engaged in writing (on their website) that "the code was the law".  If afterwards, they did something so that the code isn't the law any more, they are breaking their own contract.
- you can argue that under state law, the hacker was a thief.  But then, under state law, you are not supposed to go and "steal back".  ONLY A JUDGE can decide whether a thief was a thief, and whether someone needs to take some action to break his own contract terms to take back what belonged to someone else.  YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO APPLY HUMAN JUSTICE YOURSELF.  You must go to court.
- finally, I think that Vitalik is probably a stake holder in the DAO.  As such, his actions (taking back the funds of the hacker) are FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

These three things make that Vitalik is not in his right shoes according to human law either, and indeed, he stole back the hacker funds by breaking his own engagement/contract ("that the code is the law, that code is unstoppable, that the past is immutable...") for his own gain.

In as much as "taking back the funds" would have been the normal thing to do under human law, it would also have to have been ordered by a judge.  Otherwise, it is theft.

Oh dear God give me strength. I could write "The Pope is a wanker" on my website but that doesn't make it correct nor legally binding. The DAO attacker is a thief. End of. And it's fuckin disgusting how idiots of your ilk try to justify it hiding behind your immutability bullshit.

[dinofelis]

Oh dear God give me strength. I could write "The Pope is a wanker" on my website but that doesn't make it correct nor legally binding.

You mean that if Amazon puts on its website "Apple i-phone 6 to to sale for $1000", and you pay them, they are not contractually liable for sending you an i-phone you paid for because they only put that on their web site, like you wrote something about the Pope ?  Only a paper contract engages any legally binding stuff ?

But then in what way could the hacker possibly be a thief, as these were just electronic things with no paper contract or engagement and he was just playing on the net ?

You are really logically challenged, aren't you ?

[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. 

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 ?

We will have to agree to disagree. If you think poorly written code is an excuse for taking the property of others so be it. My morality requires doing no harm to others......it's as simple as that.

If you re-read my statement you'll discover that it in no way supported the fork of ETH.

This inability of some to not understand both that funds were stolen and at the same time the fork essentially broke ETH as a cryptocurrency is surprising. Essentially ETH might as well be put on a single server now because the blockchain serves no purpose.

A far better solution would have included catching the thief and suing the creators of the DAO (along with various associates). This would have allowed DAO purchasers to get their money back, encouraged due diligence in future contracts and penalized all guilty parties. Additionally one of the purposes of a blockchain over a centralized data base (malleability) would have been preserved.

[bbc.reporter]

Ok let us call him a thief. He is a bad person. Ok. Now whos fault is it that the DAO was poorly coded? Do you think a low dirty thief would not take advantage of this? Of course any smart person would know a thief will find every opportunity to do his job. Now who is at fault that investor's money got stolen?

So ok they tried to fix it by tweaking and tinkering with the transaction history thru the hard fork. After that what happened? ETC was born. Now you all cry in the forum blaming the thief for doing his job well when it is really slock.it developers and Vitalk's fault because they did not do theirs well.

If Vitalik started an antivirus company I will laugh hard.

[dinofelis]

We will have to agree to disagree. If you think poorly written code is an excuse for taking the property of others so be it. My morality requires doing no harm to others......it's as simple as that.

Then you are one of the (visibly many) ethereum supporters who don't know what is the mind boggling idea of a smart contract, which is somehow strange, as the whole value proposition of ethereum is to make smart contracts.

In a smart contract, "code is law, all the law, and nothing else is the law".  I wrote already a few posts on that, but essentially, in a smart contract, you replace totally all human law (state law, international law, morality and all that) by a piece of code, which is the ultimate verdict on "right" and "wrong".  If the code allows it, it is right/legal/fair and if the code doesn't allow that, it is wrong/illegal/unfair.

This is the whole idea: you turn "right" and "wrong" into something like a law of nature: by running the code, ALL you can do is right, and it is IMPOSSIBLE to do wrong.   As such, you do not need judges, police and prisons, because only RIGHT things can happen.  Yes, but the "right" and "wrong" in this world are very, very, very strange.  But this is needed to do a smart contract, that a computer can decide, and that no police or judge is needed.

The Ethereum foundation has scammed people by letting them think that a smart contract is akin to a paper contract, but "in software".  That is not true.  A smart contract is a piece of code that replaces all of human law and morality by a mechanical execution.  A paper contract exists inside a whole bed of human legal constructs, from state and international law, down to human morality and sense of fairness.   A paper contract is much more than what's on paper: it includes implicitly a whole environment of legal and moral rules.

The Ethereum foundation sold smart contracts as if it was similar to a paper contract and people believed it.  If they would have realized how "unlegal", "immoral" smart contracts are BY DEFINITION, then they might not have poured 150 million in something like the DAO.

Because by definition, if the code tells you that you can do it, by definition, you are legal, right, and you are not harming any one.  That is the strangeness of a smart contract.  If the code gives you the coins, then you did so legally.

All the standard arguments of "poorly written software", "exploits", "bugs" and so on don't even exist as a concept in a smart contract.

In fact, the big scam of the DAO was not that there were "bugs" in the code.  The big scam was that the DAO guys "explained" the supposed, intended workings of their code.  In fact, given that the DAO law was the code, they should have only put online the byte code of the DAO.  Not even the source code.   Only the byte code.  THAT was the law and nothing else.

This is similar to not writing a "summary of intend" when you sign a paper contract, but only the contract itself.  What tricked people was that the DAO website told other things than the code.  

In the normal software world, what counts is the intend, and if code does something else, people call that "bugs" and the code is adapted to the intend in an update.  However, in a smart contract, it is the other way around.  You should deduce intend from the (byte) code, and not the other way around.

People simply seem not to understand the weirdness of a smart contract ; in the first place, ethereum supporters, because they believe in the simplism that a smart contract is like a paper contract, but written in code.  It isn't.  At all.  A smart contract is a terribly weird idea and very inhuman.  I support smart contracts but that is because I am a fan of the Singularity, where humanity will be replaced by machines.  This is actually the only kind of vision in which smart contracts make sense.  The Ethereum foundation didn't tell you that, did it.

This inability of some to not understand both that funds were stolen and at the same time the fork essentially broke ETH as a cryptocurrency is surprising. Essentially ETH might as well be put on a single server now because the blockchain serves no purpose.

I perfectly understand that, but that is even another issue.  That is like bitcoin not forking over the more than 50 large bitcoin thefts (real thefts of wallets this time).  But it is still another issue.  

A far better solution would have included catching the thief and suing the creators of the DAO (along with various associates). This would have allowed DAO purchasers to get their money back, encouraged due diligence in future contracts and penalized all guilty parties. Additionally one of the purposes of a blockchain over a centralized data base (malleability) would have been preserved.

By saying that, you confirm that you don't understand the essence of a smart contract.  The "thief" wasn't a thief under the code=law system.  People only signed up to a contract they didn't understand (including their authors): it wasn't a venture capitalist firm, but it was a hacker's bait.   Which is normal.  EVERY COMPLEX SMART CONTRACT is a hacker's bait because NONE works as "intended".  That's in the nature of smart contracts, and what the Ethereum foundation forgot to tell you.

Only small smart contracts can reasonably well be considered more or less doing as intended.  The claim that complex smart contracts do as intended is the same claim as saying that one can write a complex piece of software not containing bugs or exploits ever.
So all complex smart contracts, being the law, will be legal hacker's baits.

[StinkyLover]

Ok let us call him a thief. He is a bad person.

He's certainly a thief, but he might not be a bad person. He might be a lovely guy to have a drink and shoot the breeze with. I just wouldn't leave my wallet unattended on the table. He'd steal it and quote possession being nine-tenths of the law.

Other drunkards in the bar, hoping to share the booty, would back his claim (while making sure he doesn't leave without buying them all a drink for supporting him!).

On another point, remember that this is probably an old school bitcoiner at work. He is protecting his investment. He hates alts, so unless you hold nothing but BTC you are probably in his sights. Hold ETC with caution.

People on here think he gives a shit about ETC. They might be right, they might be wrong. It's a hard one to call. They might end up as new world heroes for supporting the 'rebel rebel blockchain', or idiot ETC bagholders once he dumps on their asses.

Time will tell

EDIT: Maxcoin became nothing without Max, the ultimate crypto scammer. ETC might become nothing, without our beloved goat hacker thief!