The Market is not wrong, Vitalik Buterin is.

[dinofelis]

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.

I think it is much deeper than that.  No complex system of software can be guaranteed to be without a deviation, in border cases, from intend.  People call that "bugs" and "exploits" (depending on whether it happens like this, or is looked for).
As such, no complex smart contract will work as intended, and you can't correct for it, because it is the law, the whole law, and nothing else is the law.  Correcting bugs in a smart contract is essentially breaking the law, which is unheard of in human law.

So in essence, you can forget about the concept of complex smart contracts.  That is what this story told us.

[dinofelis]

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.

In the funnily strange world of smart contracts, he's not a thief.  In fact, in that world, there cannot exist thieves.  If you don't understand that, you've not understood smart contracts.  With a smart contract, there is no possible illegal act any more: if you can do it, it is legal, and if it is illegal, you can't do it.

[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.

I think it is much deeper than that.  No complex system of software can be guaranteed to be without a deviation, in border cases, from intend.  People call that "bugs" and "exploits" (depending on whether it happens like this, or is looked for).
As such, no complex smart contract will work as intended, and you can't correct for it, because it is the law, the whole law, and nothing else is the law.  Correcting bugs in a smart contract is essentially breaking the law, which is unheard of in human law.

So in essence, you can forget about the concept of complex smart contracts.  That is what this story told us.

Why did the creators of the DAO say it was safe to put $150,000,000 of ETH in it? Were we warned that there will be bugs or exploits? No. They said it was safe because it went thru a security audit. Who is stupid and at fault here? You know the answer.

[dinofelis]

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.

I think it is much deeper than that.  No complex system of software can be guaranteed to be without a deviation, in border cases, from intend.  People call that "bugs" and "exploits" (depending on whether it happens like this, or is looked for).
As such, no complex smart contract will work as intended, and you can't correct for it, because it is the law, the whole law, and nothing else is the law.  Correcting bugs in a smart contract is essentially breaking the law, which is unheard of in human law.

So in essence, you can forget about the concept of complex smart contracts.  That is what this story told us.

Why did the creators of the DAO say it was safe to put $150,000,000 of ETH in it? Were we warned that there will be bugs or exploits? No. They said it was safe because it went thru a security audit. Who is stupid and at fault here? You know the answer.

I agree with you, that was the whole scam of this thing, but they were trying to do something impossible.  This is why they should have just published the byte code of their contract.  They didn't even need a single security audit in that case.  Just a piece of random code can be a contract.  If you subscribe to it, you have to find out how it works.

Of course, in doing so, they would not have obtained 150 million !  The only contributors would have been those that would have reverse-engineered the byte code...

[shyliar]

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.

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.

If you re-read my statements you'll discover I didn't offer an opinion on smart contracts at all. The concept that the code is the law is a marketing statement of the ETH community and has nothing to do with the rule of law as applied by society.

The suggestion that poorly written code (or marketing statements) somehow trumps the rule of law in society and therefore taking the property of others is not theft would not stand in any courtroom. The theft does expose the weakness of ETH smart contracts and we are in complete agreement on that point.

What we seem to disagree on is that the funds were stolen. What I think is self evident you want to justify by suggesting that the code is law. In general the rule of law everywhere calls the taking of another persons property theft.

[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.

In the funnily strange world of smart contracts, he's not a thief.  In fact, in that world, there cannot exist thieves.  If you don't understand that, you've not understood smart contracts.  With a smart contract, there is no possible illegal act any more: if you can do it, it is legal, and if it is illegal, you can't do it.

And you see, this is exactly where crypto gets it completely wrong. You seem to forget that we live in a real world where humans exist. If it can be coded, it can be cracked by a human. What you have just quoted is a software thieves charter. Basically, if you can steal it, then steal it (and well done for being smart enough to steal it).

Sorry, but that's not going to wash with the public you're trying to encourage to use these systems. Or are these systems simply for us to look at and smirk amongst ourselves about how great they are??

TBH, I was very very suspicious when I heard the Slock.it team were going to build a DAO rather than just go for straight funding. It made believe that they knew the smart locks they were talking about just weren't going to work so they found an alternative route to distance themselves from future failure. I guess it didn't work!

[dinofelis]

If you re-read my statements you'll discover I didn't offer an opinion on smart contracts at all. The concept that the code is the law is a marketing statement of the ETH community and has nothing to do with the rule of law as applied by society.

The suggestion that poorly written code (or marketing statements) somehow trumps the rule of law in society and therefore taking the property of others is not theft would not stand in any courtroom. The theft does expose the weakness of ETH smart contracts and we are in complete agreement on that point.

Ok.

What we seem to disagree on is that the funds were stolen. What I think is self evident you want to justify by suggesting that the code is law. In general the rule of law everywhere calls the taking of another persons property theft.

Here we diverge: "theft" is a concept that is in relationship to a specific law system.  A given action is theft or isn't, according to the given law system.  Now, according to the code=law system, it wasn't theft.

According to probably most human law systems, it was maybe theft.  I say "maybe", because if the code isn't the law, then "property of the DAO" is also not defined.

According to most moral laws, it is clearly theft.

But normally, society law doesn't apply in smart contracts (and in as much as they do apply, smart contracts are not possible).

This is BTW why I've often argued that another shortcoming of ethereum is its transparency.  A smart contract platform should implement, as much as it can, anonymity, by having TOR-type of servers, and cryptonight-type of anonymous transactions.
It is only when transactions and network activity is essentially rendered totally opaque that a smart contract really makes sense, because there's no way for human law to intervene.  It is only when human law is totally put out of work that a smart contract can really thrive.

If ETH would have been anonymous, btw, the hard fork wouldn't have been possible.

[dinofelis]

In the funnily strange world of smart contracts, he's not a thief.  In fact, in that world, there cannot exist thieves.  If you don't understand that, you've not understood smart contracts.  With a smart contract, there is no possible illegal act any more: if you can do it, it is legal, and if it is illegal, you can't do it.

And you see, this is exactly where crypto gets it completely wrong. You seem to forget that we live in a real world where humans exist.

As I said before, my main motivation for liking crypto is to prepare (in the long term) the Singularity, for machines to take over.  It is only in that frame that crypto DOES make a lot of sense.  In the mean time, it can also be used for total anarchy, which is also my liking.

Doing "normal" business on crypto, you have to be crazy.

If it can be coded, it can be cracked by a human. What you have just quoted is a software thieves charter. Basically, if you can steal it, then steal it (and well done for being smart enough to steal it).

That's essentially the idea, indeed.

Sorry, but that's not going to wash with the public you're trying to encourage to use these systems. Or are these systems simply for us to look at and smirk amongst ourselves about how great they are??

Public acceptance should go with public desire for total anarchy and the abolishment of state and law.  I don't know how much demand there is for that.  Outside of that demand, the only reason for crypto to exist, is to scam people, which is also a worthy way of dealing with statist supporters :-)

TBH, I was very very suspicious when I heard the Slock.it team were going to build a DAO rather than just go for straight funding. It made believe that they knew the smart locks they were talking about just weren't going to work so they found an alternative route to distance themselves from future failure. I guess it didn't work!

I think it was hubris of the astronomical kind.  The very idea of building an entire venture capitalist firm as the very first smart contract on a new platform in a new language (Solidity) is so mindbogglingly out of scale with reality that they were in fact right: IF you want to screw up royally, you have to be so incredibly over your mileage that nobody will see it, and that big money will flow in.

[shyliar]

According to probably most human law systems, it was maybe theft.  I say "maybe", because if the code isn't the law, then "property of the DAO" is also not defined.

You are correct that in some jurisdictions that "property of the DAO" is not defined. In most Western nations though cryptocurrency has been defined and is viewed either as a type of property or form of currency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country

The link supplied is for bitcoin but many countries definition includes all cryptocurrencies. The property of the DAO was ETH and as such that property has been defined.

The code would not be defined as law in any country and as such using it's flawed code to remove property from it's owners would not be justification of theft. It would be considered theft of existing and defined property.

Edit: I think denying that the removal of ETH from the DAO is theft is the weakest (and false) argument of anti-fork and ETC supporters. As I said earlier the problem could have been dealt with in a different way without requiring a hardfork and maintained the integrity of the blockchain.

As I suggested 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.

[dinofelis]

According to probably most human law systems, it was maybe theft.  I say "maybe", because if the code isn't the law, then "property of the DAO" is also not defined.

You are correct that in some jurisdictions that "property of the DAO" is not defined. In most Western nations though cryptocurrency has been defined and is viewed either as a type of property or form of currency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bitcoin_by_country

The link supplied is for bitcoin but many countries definition includes all cryptocurrencies. The property of the DAO was ETH and as such that property has been defined.

No, not really.  In order to be able to have property, one has to have a statute of a moral or physical person.  Now, the statute of moral person of DAO is highly doubtful, because it has nowhere been registered.  If the DAO coin holders are shareholders, then they are most probably liable for participation in an illegal for-profit company that didn't register.

And in as much as the DAO coin holders are simply COIN holders, well, they still have their DAO coins !!

Don't forget that no DAO tokens were stolen, and that the humans only possess DAO tokens.  The ether was possessed by the DAO, but that entity has not much legal leg to stand on, and is probably a totally illegal entity in any case.

In as much as the transaction of property WITHIN THE DAO can be given any statue, without referring to "the code is the law", I would like to see that !

I think that the day that the DAO token holders make themselves known, they stand more legal problems than anything else.

Moving propriety from a non-existing moral entity to another moral entity using software that has been declared the sole rule can only have 3 outcomes:
1) all that stuff is declared illegal (how are taxes collected on a for-profit moral entity )
2) the software is considered the rule and then the "thief" was stolen
3) the INTEND (the DAO website) is considered the intend, and then the slock-it guys are in DEEP DOODOO because they wrote the software that was supposed to secure the intend and are probably as well held responsible for organizing illegal financial activities, as being responsible for the losses incurred.

By the time the "thief" is legally declared a thief, so many lawyers have been paid and so many time has gone by that Vitalik is retired.  And remember, nobody is a thief unless a court has pronounced that verdict if you want to play by legal rules.

No wonder that Vitalik and the Slock.it boys panicked when they realised what they were up to.

The code would not be defined as law in any country and as such using it's flawed code to remove property from it's owners would not be justification of theft. It would be considered theft of existing and defined property.

For there to be theft, there has to be an owner in the first place.  Now, a securities firm that didn't register and whose' monetary actions with the money of share holders wasn't running according to all legal dispositions is probably a way way bigger problem than a doubtful transaction between non-existing and if existing, probably illegal, entities.

Edit: I think denying that the removal of ETH from the DAO is theft is the weakest (and false) argument of anti-fork and ETC supporters. As I said earlier the problem could have been dealt with in a different way without requiring a hardfork and maintained the integrity of the blockchain.

The point is that if you want to abide by the LEGAL system, forget about smart contracts, and forget about most crypto.  The ETC guys promote a true crypto system, meaning an anarchist system.  If you're not in anarchy, you have nothing to do in crypto, essentially.

[shyliar]

Now, a securities firm that didn't register and whose' monetary actions with the money of share holders wasn't running according to all legal dispositions is probably a way way bigger problem than a doubtful transaction between non-existing and if existing, probably illegal, entities.

I agree with the principle that the DAO was likely not a legal entity in many jurisdictions. It is unknown how all that would have played out now that it has been disbanded (Or has it since ETC is a continuation of the original ETH?)

There seems little point in continuing our debate about the theft (or not).

[thejaytiesto]

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.  

Indeed, that was a good movie. The whole point of Bitcoin is decentralization and knowing no bailouts/ins are going to happen just because someone fucks up. In this case, the guy that coded the smart contract fucked up, and now the integrity of the project is jeopardized because big names were involved in the DAO, but they don't give a fuck and just want their money back.

The only people still defending this mess are obviously ETH bagholders.

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.

Exactly. There was no such as DAO Thieft. He never stole anything, by strict definition of the smart contract concept. He used EXISTING code to execute the contract. This is something that some people keep failing to understand. A smart contract is presented AS IS, and you cannot complain that the code did something that you didn't expect. It is part of the smart contract.

[Ubiquoin]

Exactly. There was no such as DAO Thieft. He never stole anything, by strict definition of the smart contract concept. He used EXISTING code to execute the contract. This is something that some people keep failing to understand. A smart contract is presented AS IS, and you cannot complain that the code did something that you didn't expect. It is part of the smart contract.

^^ This.

Don't hate the player, hate the game... and/or the game creator(s).

According to the rules of the game the "hacker" withdrew funds while following the rules of the game: the code of the DAO. Morals aside, since this capability existed within the DAO it is a "legal" move according to the game in play.

Then... Players in the game and creators of the game didn't like this move so they took their ball and went to go start another game where the other boys aren't so mean 

[dinofelis]

One can even add: in as much as a human court would recognize the DAO as a moral entity (doubtful), and a human court would recognize the intend of the contract (the written text of how the DAO is supposed to behave on the DAO website) because this is probably what investors took for granted, and in as much as the court would hence assume (against the idea of "contract is law") that the code is SUPPOSED to implement this intend, in that case, the Slock.it guys / ethereum foundation are responsible for this implementation and all the consequences of "bugs". 

Now, in as much as the court could recognize that all complex software systems deviate from "intend" and hence contain "bugs", nevertheless, the slock.it guys/ethereum foundation must do everything they can to avoid losses due to bugs.

The problem was that this exact bug/exploit was made known to them, even by academics, and *they neglected it*.

So in as much as the court does everything that is needed to even be able to recognize the hacker as a thief, the slock.it guys and/or the ethereum foundation will have to answer for abusive neglect with as a consequence, the losses.  And these losses will not be estimated in "ethereum" but in dollar.  Given that, due to the hack, ETH lost about half of its value in dollar, I think that our boys will pay for the rest of their lives, EVEN if the hacker gets in jail for theft.

[bbc.reporter]

Let us agree with calling the attacker a "thief". He got coins that weren't his without permission, so yes he is a thief. But let us also agree that he is a thief that will not be charged of any cases filed against him because technically he didn't steal anything. Why do you think Vitalik just left the thief alone? He knows he will lose against him. He is losing even now after the hard fork.

[dinofelis]

Let us agree with calling the attacker a "thief". He got coins that weren't his without permission, so yes he is a thief.

He's a thief regarding moral standards.  In the same way that the state is a thief when it collects taxes.
Whether he's a thief according to legal standards (which ones ?) is to be seen, and can only be pronounced by a court.
And in the system at hand, he's no thief at all, because he acted legally (the code).

So I agree with you to call him a moral thief, like the state is a thief.

Why do you think Vitalik just left the thief alone? He knows he will lose against him. He is losing even now after the hard fork.

Because in going to court, Vitalik was going to get much more from the whip than the thief whose identity is unknown.

Analogy: If you are the owner of a money laundering service, is going to court because they stole from you an option ?

[bbc.reporter]

Let us agree with calling the attacker a "thief". He got coins that weren't his without permission, so yes he is a thief.

He's a thief regarding moral standards.  In the same way that the state is a thief when it collects taxes.
Whether he's a thief according to legal standards (which ones ?) is to be seen, and can only be pronounced by a court.
And in the system at hand, he's no thief at all, because he acted legally (the code).

So I agree with you to call him a moral thief, like the state is a thief.

Why do you think Vitalik just left the thief alone? He knows he will lose against him. He is losing even now after the hard fork.

Because in going to court, Vitalik was going to get much more from the whip than the thief whose identity is unknown.

Analogy: If you are the owner of a money laundering service, is going to court because they stole from you an option ?

The funny thing is the attacker knew all of this before the attack. It was carefully planed and any move Vitalik will be doing the attacker is ahead of him. If Vitalik thinks of another way to circumvent everything let us wait for the attacker's move. It is like a game of chess with the attacker zeroing in on Vitalik's king.

[Jacques21]

What is with all the talk about morals, none of the eth, dao devs or the person who took the eth from the dao have any morals.

They said that it is imutable which was bullshit, so they lied to investors.

Now if i had all the etc taken from the dao, i would slowly sell them for eth and then dump the shit out of eth so it all turns to nothing.

Or i would just move them from one wallet to another constantly and watch people try and figure out whats happening.

[Spoetnik]

@bbc.reporter
You think he'd steal your wallet ?
I don't think so..

Did you see my awesome comment earlier ?

I pointed out how he was simply doing what you all are too.. trying to profit. (sort of)
But you call him a thief & hide your wallet why ?
Because he made more than you with the same rules you had ?
Your jealous.

It's not possible to steal something when you played by the rules.
You think this one DAO example is the only immoral act of profiting that goes on ?
You all have made a career out of chanting Free Market for years to cover your scammy bullshit.
Such as mass coin cloning.. and posting them here with dummy accounts etc.

What classy coins with integrity will i see on your exchange trade history records guys ?
You are all money hungry hypocrite profiteers..

I would actually trust that DAO attacker guy more because i think he did it out of principle and not greed.

I'd hide my wallet from you and leave it with him no problem..

[kim.apps]

It seems that one of the chains will fail over time. The question is, which one?