[ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning

[mastertrader777]

Any hardfork that invalidates transactions destroys reputation and trust. Period. These two concepts are the cornerstone if you are trying to break into the financial big league.

If anther contract has a flaw tomorrow, who plays God that will decide who lives and who dies?

I tend to not agree on the whole " reputation " and " trust " negative shove on things.

ALL I SEE - Is positive turn on things presented in front of us.

They would be cleaning up their " reputation" by stopping a hacker from stealing the communities coins.

They would be also building the " trust " of the community, proving they wont let the bad guys get away with junk like this.

You seem to just be assuming this and that Jc12345.

Not clear and focused thoughts my man.

Cheers,

MasterTrader777

[Mrpumperitis]

”,JD Finance is responsible for “ABS Cloud Service based on Blockchain” and “Digital Asset Registration and Transfer”.There are also other research subjects, such as “Blockchain invoice management topics bill” and “Ethereum light wallet” led by HUNDSUN TECHNOLOGIES INC, “Blockchain technology’s applications in banking financial tools” led by China Merchants Bank Nekwork Technology(Shenzhen)Co.,Ltd.The host Mr. Ma and the secretariat of FBSC have reviewed all those subjects during the second session.
https://www.finextra.com/pressarticle/65125/chinese-financial-firms-form-blockchain-consortium/wholesale
Chinese financial firms form blockchain consortium
15 hours ago 
Source: Financial Blockchain Shenzhen Consortium

After fork and before Devcon2...ETH will be on Houbi and Okcoin

[jc12345]

Any hardfork that invalidates transactions destroys reputation and trust. Period. These two concepts are the cornerstone if you are trying to break into the financial big league.

If anther contract has a flaw tomorrow, who plays God that will decide who lives and who dies?

I tend to not agree on the whole " reputation " and " trust " negative shove on things.

ALL I SEE - Is positive turn on things presented in front of us.

They would be cleaning up their " reputation" by stopping a hacker from stealing the communities coins.

They would be also building the " trust " of the community, proving they wont let the bad guys get away with junk like this.

You seem to just be assuming this and that Jc12345.

Not clear and focused thoughts my man.

Cheers,

MasterTrader777

Unfortunately it is not about what you think (or I for that matter) but what the world's businesses, financial systems and markets think.

The world's financial system is built on trust and robustness and reputation is the name of the game. Things that threaten the integrity and stability of the financial system is frowned upon. The system hates uncertainty and will avoid it like the plague. Business wants to know that if a transaction is done and a contract is created, irrespective of if it is a good transaction or a bad, that the "system" cannot be manipulated to change that. A robust financial system will have controls in place to be able to stop a transaction from happening or to block funds before it is too late. If the money is gone though then it is gone, unless there are other ways to recover it through law enforcement or if the hacker can be convinced to pay it back. If a theft in a financial system exposes a flaw, then improve the system going forward to prevent it from re-occurring which is fine. If you get caught with your pants down, take one for the team and the system moves on with integrity, trust and robustness intact.

Even if one argues it is a good thing that people get their money back, it is not the best in the bigger scheme of things. Once mega business sees that the past can be changed, they will lose trust in the system. Remember that a party takes a position based on inforamtion at hand. If they want to take a serious position to the one side they need strong assurances that underlying things will not happen that pushes the outcome to the other side. Otherwise they will just take positions that sits on the fence or move elsewhere.

If eth wants to compete with the mega word financial systems and markets, then the DAO funds is a drop in the ocean. it is not worth it to sacrifice the war to win a battle. I dont think it can be clearer and more focused than that.

[Washika]

Any hardfork that invalidates transactions destroys reputation and trust. Period. These two concepts are the cornerstone if you are trying to break into the financial big league.

If anther contract has a flaw tomorrow, who plays God that will decide who lives and who dies?

If the stolen fund is not recovered, people will also not trust the Ethereum. So it is better to take the money back.

[fat buddah]

[hvezdasmrti]

Will be there also an ANN Ethereum: Welcome to the End topic? 

[jc12345]

Any hardfork that invalidates transactions destroys reputation and trust. Period. These two concepts are the cornerstone if you are trying to break into the financial big league.

If anther contract has a flaw tomorrow, who plays God that will decide who lives and who dies?

If the stolen fund is not recovered, people will also not trust the Ethereum. So it is better to take the money back.

No you are wrong there.

The system needs to be fixed either way and it is acceptable for systems to have errors and loopholes. Errors can be fixed. By recovering the funds a much bigger issue is added which is that the dev team gives the message to the big financial system and big business that they are willing to change history and meddle with the blockchain and at any time in future based on a decision by someone , person x, their transactions that they trusted could be changed. Business will then evaluate this message and chances are high that they will just stick to traditional systems and methods to do their business since they cannot trust the blockshain/dev team anymore.

By letting bygones be bygones, the dev team accepts that a flaw was discovered that will be fixed - it is still bad but the lesser of two evils as the blockchain still has integrity. Chances are good that there will be more flaws discovered like any other computer system.

[64dimensions]

Any hardfork that invalidates transactions destroys reputation and trust. Period. These two concepts are the cornerstone if you are trying to break into the financial big league.

If anther contract has a flaw tomorrow, who plays God that will decide who lives and who dies?

I tend to not agree on the whole " reputation " and " trust " negative shove on things.

ALL I SEE - Is positive turn on things presented in front of us.

They would be cleaning up their " reputation" by stopping a hacker from stealing the communities coins.

They would be also building the " trust " of the community, proving they wont let the bad guys get away with junk like this.

You seem to just be assuming this and that Jc12345.

Not clear and focused thoughts my man.

Cheers,

MasterTrader777

Unfortunately it is not about what you think (or I for that matter) but what the world's businesses, financial systems and markets think.

The world's financial system is built on trust and robustness and reputation is the name of the game. Things that threaten the integrity and stability of the financial system is frowned upon. The system hates uncertainty and will avoid it like the plague. Business wants to know that if a transaction is done and a contract is created, irrespective of if it is a good transaction or a bad, that the "system" cannot be manipulated to change that. A robust financial system will have controls in place to be able to stop a transaction from happening or to block funds before it is too late. If the money is gone though then it is gone, unless there are other ways to recover it through law enforcement or if the hacker can be convinced to pay it back. If a theft in a financial system exposes a flaw, then improve the system going forward to prevent it from re-occurring which is fine. If you get caught with your pants down, take one for the team and the system moves on with integrity, trust and robustness intact.

Even if one argues it is a good thing that people get their money back, it is not the best in the bigger scheme of things. Once mega business sees that the past can be changed, they will lose trust in the system. Remember that a party takes a position based on inforamtion at hand. If they want to take a serious position to the one side they need strong assurances that underlying things will not happen that pushes the outcome to the other side. Otherwise they will just take positions that sits on the fence or move elsewhere.

If eth wants to compete with the mega word financial systems and markets, then the DAO funds is a drop in the ocean. it is not worth it to sacrifice the war to win a battle. I dont think it can be clearer and more focused than that.

If you don't mind, let's take a real world example of your line of thought: the SWIFT system is getting hacked. The latest hack cost a Bangladesh bank $81 mil. "During 2016, dozens of banks have been hit through the SWIFT network, and lost hundreds of millions of dollars. The attackers have repeatedly overcome local security measures to get into the SWIFT system, then made money orders through the banks' SWIFT account, and sent millions to fraudulent accounts." (Wikipedia)

I don't see reputational or stock price damage to banks.

In fact one could argue that ETH could be superior to SWIFT because an $140 mil transfer to crooks can be selectively hardforked away, whereas under SWIFT, the money is gone.

I find all this whining about the DAO hack to be hypocritical in the extreme because SWIFT is currently an active hack target transferring trillions. If 0.001% of the negative effort directed against the DAO and ETH was channeled towards bandaiding the SWIFT system of money transfer, maybe this contra ETH blah blah could being doing something useful.

So to be polite, your line of reasoning is lame.

[notbatman]

Gotta love the army of statist shills that have shown up to demand the thieves (Romanians suspected) be allowed to keep the money they've stolen. Personally I'd like to see the millions they made shorting ETH after the theft taken away in addition to the HF.

[AlgoSwan]

Paul Sztorc: Were the hard fork to succeed, it would demonstrate centralization. The mixture of 'centralization' and 'anonymous e-cash' is not pretty. Key individuals may be arrested, kidnapped, or worse... and the responsible agent ('insiders') could short the market, and make off with tens of millions – tax free.

It is a direct threat made by government agent named Sztorc. Ooh he is also a centralized prediction market owner of Bitcoinhivemind, backed by Roger Ver. And he is writing many bad things on Augur which is a decentralized prediction market run on Ethereum.

So,,, there is a big war goin' on between statists and the people. Lets see who will win this time!

[clovis A.]

Paul Sztorc: Were the hard fork to succeed, it would demonstrate centralization.

Agree 100% with that statement.

Vericoin became centralized a couple years ago and VRC has never been the same since. Granted, it sucks for them because they had coins stolen from Mintpal, but in Ethereum's case, their own godly code was proven to be.......well, not so godly afterall.  I'm a former investor and supporter of both projects now.

It's ironic that so many in crypto proclaim their lack of support and faith for the central banksters of this world.  Seems ETH has made many crypto hypocrites out of these proclaimers

Rubbish i tell ya, this project is rubbishio!!

[jc12345]

Any hardfork that invalidates transactions destroys reputation and trust. Period. These two concepts are the cornerstone if you are trying to break into the financial big league.

If anther contract has a flaw tomorrow, who plays God that will decide who lives and who dies?

I tend to not agree on the whole " reputation " and " trust " negative shove on things.

ALL I SEE - Is positive turn on things presented in front of us.

They would be cleaning up their " reputation" by stopping a hacker from stealing the communities coins.

They would be also building the " trust " of the community, proving they wont let the bad guys get away with junk like this.

You seem to just be assuming this and that Jc12345.

Not clear and focused thoughts my man.

Cheers,

MasterTrader777

Unfortunately it is not about what you think (or I for that matter) but what the world's businesses, financial systems and markets think.

The world's financial system is built on trust and robustness and reputation is the name of the game. Things that threaten the integrity and stability of the financial system is frowned upon. The system hates uncertainty and will avoid it like the plague. Business wants to know that if a transaction is done and a contract is created, irrespective of if it is a good transaction or a bad, that the "system" cannot be manipulated to change that. A robust financial system will have controls in place to be able to stop a transaction from happening or to block funds before it is too late. If the money is gone though then it is gone, unless there are other ways to recover it through law enforcement or if the hacker can be convinced to pay it back. If a theft in a financial system exposes a flaw, then improve the system going forward to prevent it from re-occurring which is fine. If you get caught with your pants down, take one for the team and the system moves on with integrity, trust and robustness intact.

Even if one argues it is a good thing that people get their money back, it is not the best in the bigger scheme of things. Once mega business sees that the past can be changed, they will lose trust in the system. Remember that a party takes a position based on inforamtion at hand. If they want to take a serious position to the one side they need strong assurances that underlying things will not happen that pushes the outcome to the other side. Otherwise they will just take positions that sits on the fence or move elsewhere.

If eth wants to compete with the mega word financial systems and markets, then the DAO funds is a drop in the ocean. it is not worth it to sacrifice the war to win a battle. I dont think it can be clearer and more focused than that.

If you don't mind, let's take a real world example of your line of thought: the SWIFT system is getting hacked. The latest hack cost a Bangladesh bank $81 mil. "During 2016, dozens of banks have been hit through the SWIFT network, and lost hundreds of millions of dollars. The attackers have repeatedly overcome local security measures to get into the SWIFT system, then made money orders through the banks' SWIFT account, and sent millions to fraudulent accounts." (Wikipedia)

I don't see reputational or stock price damage to banks.

In fact one could argue that ETH could be superior to SWIFT because an $140 mil transfer to crooks can be selectively hardforked away, whereas under SWIFT, the money is gone.

I find all this whining about the DAO hack to be hypocritical in the extreme because SWIFT is currently an active hack target transferring trillions. If 0.001% of the negative effort directed against the DAO and ETH was channeled towards bandaiding the SWIFT system of money transfer, maybe this contra ETH blah blah could being doing something useful.

So to be polite, your line of reasoning is lame.

To continue your analogy. It is becoming more acceptable that systems will be hacked. It is how you respond to an incident that matters. The SWIFT issue will not per se cause reputational damage because of the compromise but rather if transactions or ledgers or messages are meddled with. Banks also have few alternatives for global payments. The banks and SWIFT needs to fix the control issues around the system and move on. The preventative controls should have stopped the transactions in the first place. Law enforcement can recover the money subsequently if it is paid out past all the controls and was unlawful. The SWIFT messaging system remains intact in the process and that is the integrity and trust I refer to. A valid transaction that passes the rules must be processed and honored. If an upfront or supporting process fails and a message is sent you dont go and change the messages to recover the money but you rather take the knock and fix the process through a risk mitigation strategy. It is also possible to follow a risk transfer strategy to recover the money in such an event and then of course to hold enough pillar I capital.

Similarly with the issue at hand it is a slippery slope to mess with the blockchain. As soon as you do that the centralized authorities that emerge that become the judge must then come up with policies of the conditions and attributes that similar transactions must comply with to be granted a fork eg. transactions over a certain value, transactions of a certain type etc. This is needed so that any contracts where there are a dispute can have a fair chance of being granted a fork to "fix" it. Also there must be a legal process to adjudicate over claims that transactions comply with those conditions and attributes especially since the code is not the law anymore after the fork - one party could say he did not do X and another he did do X etc. There is also the moral aspect going forward where certain communities/cultures/countries can see something as wrong where in another it is perfectly acceptable.

Or just screw it all and recover the money and put the project on red and hope the ball does not land on black

[a fool and his money ...]

Ethereum's "Big Lamba" Interview on 'Bitcoin Uncensored':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JgvkWRSq7Q





why solidity isn't solid:

https://medium.com/@Hibryda/why-solidity-isnt-solid-3341af77fc1c#.czlo2b778

[digi123]

There's only one line of code that exists for etherium at the moment.
Fork etheruim = etherium keeps going, No fork = etherium wipe out, no more.


Etherium simply will not exist if the theft will go ahead and is not stopped. People I think just aren't taking on board how etheriums future is hanging in the balance. Etherium at the moment has become a casino bet red/black close to 50/50 odds as it may appear.

The fact that anyone can get the price on offer and cash out is just the other side of whether a fork will occur and etherum will continue and most likely greatly prosper. Because without the definitive knowledge that a fork will occur the price should be leaning towards zero. All the efforts of the developers and all else will come to nothing.


It is quite surreal with the continuous going on's in etherium whether meet ups or considerations of things built on etherium and discussions of their future etc. It's all castles in the air as their future still hangs in the balance.

This is an out there unusual situation just because the way things developed over the course of dao creation and onwards.
There were two major flaws in the dao, one being the obvious codeing problems the other being the lack of limitations within the creation phase. Because of this it is extending into etherium itself and because of this it will extend into the entire crypto world if not stopped.

It's just increadable to view the redicules ideas some have about the law or is that blockchain law that exists only on computerland with their head so far up a computer they don't know whats what anymore or maybe they just didn't know whats what in the first place.


I am glad there are some out there that can articulate better than myself. - Jack du Rose -

"Any ideas about theDAO being outside of the scope of any jurisdiction are mistaken. Smart contracts are not smart, and they’re not contracts. Code is not law; law is law. Notions to the contrary are naive, no matter what it says on any website’s marketing copy.

If the stolen funds are not returned, Ethereum projects in general are in jeopardy. There will be complaints to the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), who have jurisdiction all over the world, so long as US citizens are affected. An investigation into theDAO will ensue, dragging Ethereum through the mud behind it.

If we demonstrate the ability to govern our own affairs responsibly, and the funds are recovered, no loss will have taken place. There will be far less merit to any complaint, which therefore reduces the likelihood of the SEC wasting scarce resources on complex overseas adventures."

LAW IS LAW
There is an added effect when legalities take hold of an entire crypto wipe out.

[d57heinz]

Looks like today is the day I unfollow this thread.  Nothing useful here anymore.  

A fool and his money. Wouldn't you say that all this money in crypto is foolish.  It's all untested and none of it works all that great just yet.  We are in the beginning stages and I think what your worried about is if the hard fork happens and its successful it will set a precedent for all hard forks in the future.  One will say look at ethereum.  Your dead scared of that and I can't say that I blame ya since China runs 80% of the btc network !!

Best regards
D57heinz

[a fool and his money ...]

Looks like today is the day I unfollow this thread.  Nothing useful here anymore.  

A fool and his money. Wouldn't you say that all this money in crypto is foolish.  It's all untested and none of it works all that great just yet.  We are in the beginning stages and I think what your worried about is if the hard fork happens and its successful it will set a precedent for all hard forks in the future.  One will say look at ethereum.  Your dead scared of that and I can't say that I blame ya since China runs 80% of the btc network !!

Best regards
D57heinz

Yes, i'd say the hype is foolish in general. New tech should be valued lower instead of higher than time-tested and vetted things. New tech will always have bugs. It's not rational to value it this high this quickly. I think people will learn this over time and we should see more organic and slow growth on projects in the future. It's much healthier for everyone involved.

"get rich quick" is a foolish notion and harms these projects in general.

About the fork: idgaf - have no horse in the race. Posting for entertainment only.

Yes, btc mining will become more centrralized and eth might be or end up centralized too - buying some vertcoin could be a good idea if you agree on that  
Haven't so far found any better approach to combat the centralisation problem than VTC. Hope more research will be done into the area how to keep the network decentral in the future. That would be something of value.
But everyone is tripping over themselves to build on a shaky foundation.
The foundation of crypto isn't even solid yet because of the problem wih centralisation. Why go beyond that? It's all vapourware - everything.
They wanna fly to the moon before having invented the wheel aparently.

The only thing i can see overtake bitcoin longterm is new tech in decentralisation.

[becoin]

I can't say that I blame ya since China runs 80% of the btc network !!

China produces 80% of comps and phones but you still use them everyday.

[AlgoSwan]

A Lawyer's perspective on the DAO situation: Legal Info and input
http://ethereum.net/news/spotlight/understanding-ethereum-and-the-dao-conundrum

Excellent read. Anyone against hard fork must read it! I was one of them. And I've changed my position now.

[Auponef]

A Lawyer's perspective on the DAO situation: Legal Info and input
http://ethereum.net/news/spotlight/understanding-ethereum-and-the-dao-conundrum

Excellent read. Anyone against hard fork must read it! I was one of them. And I've changed my position now.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) provides for civil actions arising out of various cyber infractions. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) “Whoever … knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period.”

Here, the exploiter knowingly, and with intent, defrauded The DAO because s/he siphoned many times their actual holdings in The DAO of which belonged to other users. The DAO would be considered a “protected computer” because it is connected to the internet which allows it to be used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States.

[becoin]

“Whoever … knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization

LOL. I didn't know I need authorization to access ethereum network.