[ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning

[Mrpumperitis]

You forgot this?

https://etherscan.io/address/0xb794f5ea0ba39494ce839613fffba74279579268

was 19m 2 days ago

https://etherscan.io/address/0x32be343b94f860124dc4fee278fdcbd38c102d88
Address  0x32be343b94f860124dc4fee278fdcbd38c102d88

Home Normal AccountsAddress

Overview | Poloniex Wallet
ETH Balance:    52,078.68675456 Ether ($666,607.19)

woa...i checked this 2weeks ago it was $6mill+
then last week it was $3mill+
a few days ago till today it was $1mill+
and now almost half a mill!

guess ETH traders dont like/trust polo anymore....we got better places to buy and trade now  

true

[bitpop]

https://etherscan.io/address/0xb794f5ea0ba39494ce839613fffba74279579268

[Mrpumperitis]

Ethereum 1 year old today.
Happy Birthday!!   

submitted 39 minutes ago by TonyMcCarp

Ethereum has achieved so much in the last 12 month and im looking forward to this speeding up over the next 12 months.

So much has been achieved. There are over 671 blockchain project listed on http://coinmarketcap.com/ mostly doing the same as Bitcoin and a few doing different things but there is actually a lot more. Apart from these 671 there are 246 more projects that are building on top of Ethereum http://dapps.ethercasts.com/ and plenty more which are still in Stealth mode we dont even know about. None of the 671 projects are inter-operable with each other (can speak to each other) but the 243+ project on Ethereum are inter-operable with each other and i think this is the big thing that set Ethereum apart from the rest and the future looks bright IMO. Ethereum started in 2014 with 40+ developers and moved into the 100's in 2015 and this year there are 1000's of Developers working on Ethereum Ecosystem. No other project can claim this size of a build out.

Look forward to the next 12 months and Happy Birthday to all!!
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4vah4t/ethereum_1_year_old_today_happy_birthday/

 

[bitpop]

https://www.reddit.com/r/EthereumClassic/comments/4u4o61/call_for_action_what_can_i_do_to_help_ethereum/

[mybitcoin101]

whats up with another fork ETHf must do?

[roselee]

Hi

Are my eth in mist wallet safe from replay attak when i do not split them?

If it's a balance from before the fork you should split it otherwise you risk losing ETH or ETC.

This isn't really an "attack", i.e. someone else can't just take your ETH or ETC. But you need to be careful with your transactions. If you send ETH your ETC will move as well, and vice-versa. Splitting and using different addresses on each chain is the only way to avoid this.

Aslong you will not move your coins there are safe without splitt normally

what is the point in a coin that you cant move ?

[roselee]

imagine both coins survive..
will one always be ahead with development ? and the otherone will just copy ,if its a good feature and its tested on  chain A?

we might see debats like: how long till we will also do pos ?
or will the coins separet in total different directions ?

There is an interesting "paradox" and it could turn out as very bad for ETH:

If ETC should survive, ETC will copy everything what will be developed for ETH. At least that's the plan:

At the initial stage, maintaining 100 percent compatibility with Ethereum is a high priority for us. This also means that we don't really need to do much development, we simply fork the code from the Ethereum repository and update accordingly. But, of course, if current Ethereum developers want to join us — now or in the future — they are more than welcome to do so. We are aiming for the same thing here: building a better future for humankind, where smart contract platforms provide a mechanism for social and economic cooperation on a truly global scale.
https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@ghostyeti/interview-with-arvicco-developer-of-ethereum-classic


What's interesting about that situation is: The Ethereum-team would do the development, but ETC could become the project to trust!

If it survives potential problems because of the DAO-hack etc.

--> ETC will be more Ethereum than Ethereum. Because it will be the same tech on the original chain and without a bail-out-decision to secure funds of friends.


What I mean becomes clear if you read this:

More and more companies are openly showing their support for Ethereum Classic. To the majority of enterprises in the cryptocurrency world, supporting ETC may not make much sense. But Stampery feels there is a good reason to support the pre-hard fork Ethereum initiative. After all, the company wants to let anyone create verifiable records of their data.
http://themerkle.com/stampery-drops-forked-ethereum-blockchain-support-due-to-censorship-concerns/


Why Stampery supports Ethereum Classic

(...)

For transactions to be final and unmodifiable, blockchains need to be immune to third party interference. This promise was completely broken by Ethereum. Hard forks should only happen when a catastrophic bug puts in danger the core values of the technology. In this case the consensus mechanism worked just fine. The blockchain was modified simply because a group of people lost too much money and they decided to bail themselves out.

This is completely unacceptable for Stampery because it creates a dangerous precedent. A powerful government might now decide to push for a hard fork that changes blocks in which we anchored data. They could claim “national interest” for doing so. Or a “too big too fail” corporation could force a fork because it wants to wipe all proof of some questionable process recorded on the blockchain. Because of this we prefer to anchor our data to a blockchain in which hard forks happen only when a protocol-level bug needs to be fixed.

(...)https://medium.com/@Stampery/why-stampery-supports-ethereum-classic-4c86ec7cca17#.2ufi5ptwm



The problem for Ethereum could become:


- Why should companies trust ETH instead of ETC if ETC will be technically the same as ETH?

- Why shouldn't they use ETC if it's the same as ETH if they can trust ETC more than ETH?

- Why should anybody trust the original team and not the original chain?




And if there should be a tendency for such a situation: At least some Ethereum-Dev's would leave ETH and join ETC --> ETC would become stronger and Ethereum weaker. In the end it could be ETC which will become the real Ethereum again, and in fact it always was the original.

In fact the Ethereum-team abandoned the original chain! Why? Because of their bad job with TheDAO! Because of the high funding of theDAO! And what was theDAO about? Speculation, but I believe it was to fund Ethereum-guys - slock.it and so on. I never believed in theDAO because for me it looked too shady. But, just my personal opinion.


Under the line I'm not sure how good the chances are that ETC will survive, but if, I expect it to become stronger than ETH and ETH to die. And I'm not joking here. And I'm not saying it because I'm against ETH or for ETC - no Investment.
 


Btw: I'm mainly in Factom. And Factom also announced in march:

Factom Plans To Anchor Into Ethereum Blockchain
http://themerkle.com/factom-plans-to-anchor-into-ethereum-blockchain/

And I don't know what they'll decide but it doesn't make much sense to secure a system into a blockchain if it's immutability is a question of submissive decisions with a focus on bailing out Investors. I mean: If the DAO would have been funded just with $10 Mio and not with team-money, would there be two chains now? Never.

And yesterday Factom announced a partnership with smartcontract.com, and on their site:

Ethereum Smart Oracles
Give your Ethereum smart contracts access to external resources like data feeds, your internal systems, additional blockchains and traditional banks/payment networks.
https://smartcontract.com

And it's not about Factom what will happen with data they'll provide to Ethereum, but they can provide it to all Smart Contract projects, ETC included. What I want to say with that: There is no reason to ignore ETC out of perspective of other companies. They won't feel loyal to Ethereum because they like Vitalik and his team.


There is some possibility that in future ppl will say that the original team abandoned the original Ethereum while ETC will be Ethereum.
Because there are not that many reasons to trust the original team which injured the original chain because of own interest as a result of bad code before. It's like a step-by-step but lastly total damage of credibility.

very good sumary you did. i agree with you.
i think eth is then the testnet for etc if something is clean of bugs etc can add it.

the next weeks will show how bad the set back in price will be for etc. but thats not a bad thing either. time solves that . i got my eth in the crowdsale i guess it was a few cends for each.  if the "taker" sells off all the dao etc we will see what kind of person that is.

 a white hat? or a thief? someone who was pissed off with the arogance of the slockit? worried about it? or a greedy person?

[Madmach]

The situation with DAO has absolutely nothing to do with ETH, and ETH has absolutely no business getting involved. ETH was not hacked. DAO implemented poorly constructed terms along with poorly written, tested and reviewed code

https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

Is it true?

[tempus]

The situation with DAO has absolutely nothing to do with ETH, and ETH has absolutely no business getting involved. ETH was not hacked. DAO implemented poorly constructed terms along with poorly written, tested and reviewed code

https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

Is it true?

I'm not a coder, but after all what I've read about theDAO and it's hack it's not true. Example:



Ethereum itself seems to be flawed according to the latest developments on the DAO Hack. Philip Daian, a researcher at Cornell University’s Initiative for Crytocurrencies & Contracts, just presented his latest findings on the hack, concluding:


"I would lay at least 50% of the blame for this exploit squarely at the feet of the design of the Solidity language.  This may bolster the case for certain types of corrective action.

I refuse to lay the blame exclusively on a poorly coded contract when the contract, even if coded using best practices and the following language documentation exactly, would have remained vulnerable to attack."


In a highly technical publication detailing the exploits that the hacker may have used, Daian stated:

"[T]his was actually not a flaw or exploit in the DAO contract itself: technically the EVM was operating as intended, but Solidity was introducing security flaws into contracts that were not only missed by the community, but missed by the designers of the language themselves."

(...)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ethereum-solidity-flaw-dao/


Somebody else (Daniel Krawisz) states:

This problem is so serious that it cannot be treated as a bug in the DAO. The problem is with Solidity itself, which is the scripting language used in Ethereum. Update: The problem actually all the way down to the Ethereum virtual machine.

(...)

This means the same issue exists in Serpent, another Ethereum scripting language, and every other one they might come up with.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/ethereum-is-doomed/#selection-11.0-11.15


 

I have no clue if it's all correct or not.

But theDAO proved one thing: Even Ethereum-Devs are obviously not able to develop a smart contract in a secure way.
At least it seems as if there is no way to code more complex stuff without feeling uncertain.


Under the line I personally don't have much faith in Ethereums future (or ETC's), because I don't believe it will ever be used for real business. I don't mean it that critical because my view is: Ethereum has a lot of value as scientific project, as something to find out possible ways but also how it can't be done. But for Ethereum the problem could be, that others will learn out of it and will do it better while Ethereum took too much steps into a direction that won't work.


Safe to say is: There will be serious and professional competitors in future. And what is left for Ethereum? A cute twin, a bail-out, a blockchain that can't be trusted, a team that can't be trusted - neither regarding their abilities nor their priorities. 

[tempus]

imagine both coins survive..
will one always be ahead with development ? and the otherone will just copy ,if its a good feature and its tested on  chain A?

we might see debats like: how long till we will also do pos ?
or will the coins separet in total different directions ?

There is an interesting "paradox" and it could turn out as very bad for ETH:

If ETC should survive, ETC will copy everything what will be developed for ETH. At least that's the plan:

At the initial stage, maintaining 100 percent compatibility with Ethereum is a high priority for us. This also means that we don't really need to do much development, we simply fork the code from the Ethereum repository and update accordingly. But, of course, if current Ethereum developers want to join us — now or in the future — they are more than welcome to do so. We are aiming for the same thing here: building a better future for humankind, where smart contract platforms provide a mechanism for social and economic cooperation on a truly global scale.
https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@ghostyeti/interview-with-arvicco-developer-of-ethereum-classic


What's interesting about that situation is: The Ethereum-team would do the development, but ETC could become the project to trust!

If it survives potential problems because of the DAO-hack etc.

--> ETC will be more Ethereum than Ethereum. Because it will be the same tech on the original chain and without a bail-out-decision to secure funds of friends.


What I mean becomes clear if you read this:

More and more companies are openly showing their support for Ethereum Classic. To the majority of enterprises in the cryptocurrency world, supporting ETC may not make much sense. But Stampery feels there is a good reason to support the pre-hard fork Ethereum initiative. After all, the company wants to let anyone create verifiable records of their data.
http://themerkle.com/stampery-drops-forked-ethereum-blockchain-support-due-to-censorship-concerns/


Why Stampery supports Ethereum Classic

(...)

For transactions to be final and unmodifiable, blockchains need to be immune to third party interference. This promise was completely broken by Ethereum. Hard forks should only happen when a catastrophic bug puts in danger the core values of the technology. In this case the consensus mechanism worked just fine. The blockchain was modified simply because a group of people lost too much money and they decided to bail themselves out.

This is completely unacceptable for Stampery because it creates a dangerous precedent. A powerful government might now decide to push for a hard fork that changes blocks in which we anchored data. They could claim “national interest” for doing so. Or a “too big too fail” corporation could force a fork because it wants to wipe all proof of some questionable process recorded on the blockchain. Because of this we prefer to anchor our data to a blockchain in which hard forks happen only when a protocol-level bug needs to be fixed.

(...)https://medium.com/@Stampery/why-stampery-supports-ethereum-classic-4c86ec7cca17#.2ufi5ptwm



The problem for Ethereum could become:


- Why should companies trust ETH instead of ETC if ETC will be technically the same as ETH?

- Why shouldn't they use ETC if it's the same as ETH if they can trust ETC more than ETH?

- Why should anybody trust the original team and not the original chain?




And if there should be a tendency for such a situation: At least some Ethereum-Dev's would leave ETH and join ETC --> ETC would become stronger and Ethereum weaker. In the end it could be ETC which will become the real Ethereum again, and in fact it always was the original.

In fact the Ethereum-team abandoned the original chain! Why? Because of their bad job with TheDAO! Because of the high funding of theDAO! And what was theDAO about? Speculation, but I believe it was to fund Ethereum-guys - slock.it and so on. I never believed in theDAO because for me it looked too shady. But, just my personal opinion.


Under the line I'm not sure how good the chances are that ETC will survive, but if, I expect it to become stronger than ETH and ETH to die. And I'm not joking here. And I'm not saying it because I'm against ETH or for ETC - no Investment.
 


Btw: I'm mainly in Factom. And Factom also announced in march:

Factom Plans To Anchor Into Ethereum Blockchain
http://themerkle.com/factom-plans-to-anchor-into-ethereum-blockchain/

And I don't know what they'll decide but it doesn't make much sense to secure a system into a blockchain if it's immutability is a question of submissive decisions with a focus on bailing out Investors. I mean: If the DAO would have been funded just with $10 Mio and not with team-money, would there be two chains now? Never.

And yesterday Factom announced a partnership with smartcontract.com, and on their site:

Ethereum Smart Oracles
Give your Ethereum smart contracts access to external resources like data feeds, your internal systems, additional blockchains and traditional banks/payment networks.
https://smartcontract.com

And it's not about Factom what will happen with data they'll provide to Ethereum, but they can provide it to all Smart Contract projects, ETC included. What I want to say with that: There is no reason to ignore ETC out of perspective of other companies. They won't feel loyal to Ethereum because they like Vitalik and his team.


There is some possibility that in future ppl will say that the original team abandoned the original Ethereum while ETC will be Ethereum.
Because there are not that many reasons to trust the original team which injured the original chain because of own interest as a result of bad code before. It's like a step-by-step but lastly total damage of credibility.

very good sumary you did. i agree with you.
i think eth is then the testnet for etc if something is clean of bugs etc can add it.

the next weeks will show how bad the set back in price will be for etc. but thats not a bad thing either. time solves that . i got my eth in the crowdsale i guess it was a few cends for each.  if the "taker" sells off all the dao etc we will see what kind of person that is.

 a white hat? or a thief? someone who was pissed off with the arogance of the slockit? worried about it? or a greedy person?

Your summary of my summary is very good - good headline: ETH will be the testnet for ETC

I mean, it's kind of funny and it really could become reality! Ethereum now is known to rush things out, so it could be a good advice for ETC not to hurry with updating and just to watch and research Ethereum, and bit by bit ETC will have more quality than ETH. It's simple logic.

[redsn0w]

[roselee]

https://etherscan.io/address/0x32be343b94f860124dc4fee278fdcbd38c102d88
Address  0x32be343b94f860124dc4fee278fdcbd38c102d88

Home Normal AccountsAddress

Overview | Poloniex Wallet
ETH Balance:    52,078.68675456 Ether ($666,607.19)

woa...i checked this 2weeks ago it was $6mill+
then last week it was $3mill+
a few days ago till today it was $1mill+
and now almost half a mill!

guess ETH traders dont like/trust polo anymore....we got better places to buy and trade now  

Why should ETH-traders don't like/trust Polo? In my opinion it's by far the best exchange.

polo didnt do siding
i think exchanges should stay neutral and not take sides.

[tempus]

https://etherscan.io/address/0x32be343b94f860124dc4fee278fdcbd38c102d88
Address  0x32be343b94f860124dc4fee278fdcbd38c102d88

Home Normal AccountsAddress

Overview | Poloniex Wallet
ETH Balance:    52,078.68675456 Ether ($666,607.19)

woa...i checked this 2weeks ago it was $6mill+
then last week it was $3mill+
a few days ago till today it was $1mill+
and now almost half a mill!

guess ETH traders dont like/trust polo anymore....we got better places to buy and trade now  

Why should ETH-traders don't like/trust Polo? In my opinion it's by far the best exchange.

polo didnt do siding
i think exchanges should stay neutral and not take sides.

Sometimes I had the impression or the very speculative theory that Polo could be too close to Ethereum. But since they've added ETC I don't believe it anymore. And if I should name my Nr. 1 exchange it's Polo. It's never good to trust exchanges but they seem to be professionals.

[Madmach]

The situation with DAO has absolutely nothing to do with ETH, and ETH has absolutely no business getting involved. ETH was not hacked. DAO implemented poorly constructed terms along with poorly written, tested and reviewed code

https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

Is it true?

I'm not a coder, but after all what I've read about theDAO and it's hack it's not true. Example:



Ethereum itself seems to be flawed according to the latest developments on the DAO Hack. Philip Daian, a researcher at Cornell University’s Initiative for Crytocurrencies & Contracts, just presented his latest findings on the hack, concluding:


"I would lay at least 50% of the blame for this exploit squarely at the feet of the design of the Solidity language.  This may bolster the case for certain types of corrective action.

I refuse to lay the blame exclusively on a poorly coded contract when the contract, even if coded using best practices and the following language documentation exactly, would have remained vulnerable to attack."


In a highly technical publication detailing the exploits that the hacker may have used, Daian stated:

"[T]his was actually not a flaw or exploit in the DAO contract itself: technically the EVM was operating as intended, but Solidity was introducing security flaws into contracts that were not only missed by the community, but missed by the designers of the language themselves."

(...)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ethereum-solidity-flaw-dao/


Somebody else (Daniel Krawisz) states:

This problem is so serious that it cannot be treated as a bug in the DAO. The problem is with Solidity itself, which is the scripting language used in Ethereum. Update: The problem actually all the way down to the Ethereum virtual machine.

(...)

This means the same issue exists in Serpent, another Ethereum scripting language, and every other one they might come up with.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/ethereum-is-doomed/#selection-11.0-11.15


 

I have no clue if it's all correct or not.

But theDAO proved one thing: Even Ethereum-Devs are obviously not able to develop a smart contract in a secure way.
At least it seems as if there is no way to code more complex stuff without feeling uncertain.


Under the line I personally don't have much faith in Ethereums future (or ETC's), because I don't believe it will ever be used for real business. I don't mean it that critical because my view is: Ethereum has a lot of value as scientific project, as something to find out possible ways but also how it can't be done. But for Ethereum the problem could be, that others will learn out of it and will do it better while Ethereum took too much steps into a direction that won't work.


Safe to say is: There will be serious and professional competitors in future. And what is left for Ethereum? A cute twin, a bail-out, a blockchain that can't be trusted, a team that can't be trusted - neither regarding their abilities nor their priorities.  

Yea. But, i do not understand why Cryptopia Delisting ETH.

[tempus]

The situation with DAO has absolutely nothing to do with ETH, and ETH has absolutely no business getting involved. ETH was not hacked. DAO implemented poorly constructed terms along with poorly written, tested and reviewed code

https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

Is it true?

I'm not a coder, but after all what I've read about theDAO and it's hack it's not true. Example:



Ethereum itself seems to be flawed according to the latest developments on the DAO Hack. Philip Daian, a researcher at Cornell University’s Initiative for Crytocurrencies & Contracts, just presented his latest findings on the hack, concluding:


"I would lay at least 50% of the blame for this exploit squarely at the feet of the design of the Solidity language.  This may bolster the case for certain types of corrective action.

I refuse to lay the blame exclusively on a poorly coded contract when the contract, even if coded using best practices and the following language documentation exactly, would have remained vulnerable to attack."


In a highly technical publication detailing the exploits that the hacker may have used, Daian stated:

"[T]his was actually not a flaw or exploit in the DAO contract itself: technically the EVM was operating as intended, but Solidity was introducing security flaws into contracts that were not only missed by the community, but missed by the designers of the language themselves."

(...)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ethereum-solidity-flaw-dao/


Somebody else (Daniel Krawisz) states:

This problem is so serious that it cannot be treated as a bug in the DAO. The problem is with Solidity itself, which is the scripting language used in Ethereum. Update: The problem actually all the way down to the Ethereum virtual machine.

(...)

This means the same issue exists in Serpent, another Ethereum scripting language, and every other one they might come up with.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/ethereum-is-doomed/#selection-11.0-11.15


 

I have no clue if it's all correct or not.

But theDAO proved one thing: Even Ethereum-Devs are obviously not able to develop a smart contract in a secure way.
At least it seems as if there is no way to code more complex stuff without feeling uncertain.


Under the line I personally don't have much faith in Ethereums future (or ETC's), because I don't believe it will ever be used for real business. I don't mean it that critical because my view is: Ethereum has a lot of value as scientific project, as something to find out possible ways but also how it can't be done. But for Ethereum the problem could be, that others will learn out of it and will do it better while Ethereum took too much steps into a direction that won't work.


Safe to say is: There will be serious and professional competitors in future. And what is left for Ethereum? A cute twin, a bail-out, a blockchain that can't be trusted, a team that can't be trusted - neither regarding their abilities nor their priorities.  

Yea. But, i do not understand why Cryptopia Delisting ETH.

At least it was before the HF and it seems to be a mix of idealism and criticism because of the HF-decision.

This is the main-point for them:

"Cryptopia believe in immutable blockchain technology, we believe that ETH forking their network to save the failures of a 3rd party software developer operating independently that ETH had nothing to do with sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and will likely open the floodgates to rollbacks for any reason.

Cryptopia is delisting ETH with the intent to avoid participation in both the upcoming fork and the inevitable future forks."
https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

[thedreamer]

ROFL.
..
..
..
You actually read and care what cryptopia does? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[roselee]

ROFL.
..
..
..
You actually read and care what cryptopia does? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

yes becouse a wise man cares what his critics say

you know slockit just arogantly laught about the warnings. and see what a mess it is now.

[tempus]

ROFL.
..
..
..
You actually read and care what cryptopia does? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just a little advice: While it may be not important what individuals say (and we can think of Cryptopia as "Individual" and not very important for Ethereum), it's always good to know what is going on collectively, to find out which opinions are "out there" and how intense they are. And the more individuals share opinions the more intense it is or becomes. Markets act psychologically, even if reactions are based on objektive informations. For me personally that is one priority, to find out "moods" and "opinions" of the collective.

Translated to the current situation of ETH after the hardfork: What Cryptopia says is not common sense but it's also not just Cryptopia. It is a collective opinion with kind of "increasing intensity". It's also true that those arguments now are used against Ethereum, so there is some intention. But Cryptopia is one example for those who stated their opinion before the Hard Fork and not after it like some others.


For Ethereum this situation and such arguments are really bad. Because it's hard to defend and if this tendency (collective criticism of the HF with such reasons) should continue to increase it won't have just impact on the price but also on everything else.

The reason is hard to explain but it's because of the mix of objectivity (the opinion is not without any base) plus "mood" (more emotional and subjective reactions and often with intention) and that can be self-fullfilling because it's spreading and intense. At some point it even changes opinions - that ppl who thought that the hard fork would be the right decision now believe and say it was wrong.

It's a dangerous dynamic for Ethereum and it can't be fixed because they can't jump back and there are no arguments to defend some of the criticism.

[Slydrule]

The situation with DAO has absolutely nothing to do with ETH, and ETH has absolutely no business getting involved. ETH was not hacked. DAO implemented poorly constructed terms along with poorly written, tested and reviewed code

https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

Is it true?

I'm not a coder, but after all what I've read about theDAO and it's hack it's not true. Example:



Ethereum itself seems to be flawed according to the latest developments on the DAO Hack. Philip Daian, a researcher at Cornell University’s Initiative for Crytocurrencies & Contracts, just presented his latest findings on the hack, concluding:


"I would lay at least 50% of the blame for this exploit squarely at the feet of the design of the Solidity language.  This may bolster the case for certain types of corrective action.

I refuse to lay the blame exclusively on a poorly coded contract when the contract, even if coded using best practices and the following language documentation exactly, would have remained vulnerable to attack."


In a highly technical publication detailing the exploits that the hacker may have used, Daian stated:

"[T]his was actually not a flaw or exploit in the DAO contract itself: technically the EVM was operating as intended, but Solidity was introducing security flaws into contracts that were not only missed by the community, but missed by the designers of the language themselves."

(...)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ethereum-solidity-flaw-dao/


Somebody else (Daniel Krawisz) states:

This problem is so serious that it cannot be treated as a bug in the DAO. The problem is with Solidity itself, which is the scripting language used in Ethereum. Update: The problem actually all the way down to the Ethereum virtual machine.

(...)

This means the same issue exists in Serpent, another Ethereum scripting language, and every other one they might come up with.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/ethereum-is-doomed/#selection-11.0-11.15


 

I have no clue if it's all correct or not.

But theDAO proved one thing: Even Ethereum-Devs are obviously not able to develop a smart contract in a secure way.
At least it seems as if there is no way to code more complex stuff without feeling uncertain.


Under the line I personally don't have much faith in Ethereums future (or ETC's), because I don't believe it will ever be used for real business. I don't mean it that critical because my view is: Ethereum has a lot of value as scientific project, as something to find out possible ways but also how it can't be done. But for Ethereum the problem could be, that others will learn out of it and will do it better while Ethereum took too much steps into a direction that won't work.


Safe to say is: There will be serious and professional competitors in future. And what is left for Ethereum? A cute twin, a bail-out, a blockchain that can't be trusted, a team that can't be trusted - neither regarding their abilities nor their priorities.  

Yea. But, i do not understand why Cryptopia Delisting ETH.

At least it was before the HF and it seems to be a mix of idealism and criticism because of the HF-decision.

This is the main-point for them:

"Cryptopia believe in immutable blockchain technology, we believe that ETH forking their network to save the failures of a 3rd party software developer operating independently that ETH had nothing to do with sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and will likely open the floodgates to rollbacks for any reason.

Cryptopia is delisting ETH with the intent to avoid participation in both the upcoming fork and the inevitable future forks."
https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

So what Cryptopia is saying is that if they are hacked and YOUR deposits are stolen from them, they believe the thieves should keep your deposits and they (Cryptopia) have no obligation to go after the thieves to get your money back or repay you for what you lost.

Why would anyone want to deal with such an exchange? 

[tempus]

The situation with DAO has absolutely nothing to do with ETH, and ETH has absolutely no business getting involved. ETH was not hacked. DAO implemented poorly constructed terms along with poorly written, tested and reviewed code

https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

Is it true?

I'm not a coder, but after all what I've read about theDAO and it's hack it's not true. Example:



Ethereum itself seems to be flawed according to the latest developments on the DAO Hack. Philip Daian, a researcher at Cornell University’s Initiative for Crytocurrencies & Contracts, just presented his latest findings on the hack, concluding:


"I would lay at least 50% of the blame for this exploit squarely at the feet of the design of the Solidity language.  This may bolster the case for certain types of corrective action.

I refuse to lay the blame exclusively on a poorly coded contract when the contract, even if coded using best practices and the following language documentation exactly, would have remained vulnerable to attack."


In a highly technical publication detailing the exploits that the hacker may have used, Daian stated:

"[T]his was actually not a flaw or exploit in the DAO contract itself: technically the EVM was operating as intended, but Solidity was introducing security flaws into contracts that were not only missed by the community, but missed by the designers of the language themselves."

(...)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ethereum-solidity-flaw-dao/


Somebody else (Daniel Krawisz) states:

This problem is so serious that it cannot be treated as a bug in the DAO. The problem is with Solidity itself, which is the scripting language used in Ethereum. Update: The problem actually all the way down to the Ethereum virtual machine.

(...)

This means the same issue exists in Serpent, another Ethereum scripting language, and every other one they might come up with.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/ethereum-is-doomed/#selection-11.0-11.15


 

I have no clue if it's all correct or not.

But theDAO proved one thing: Even Ethereum-Devs are obviously not able to develop a smart contract in a secure way.
At least it seems as if there is no way to code more complex stuff without feeling uncertain.


Under the line I personally don't have much faith in Ethereums future (or ETC's), because I don't believe it will ever be used for real business. I don't mean it that critical because my view is: Ethereum has a lot of value as scientific project, as something to find out possible ways but also how it can't be done. But for Ethereum the problem could be, that others will learn out of it and will do it better while Ethereum took too much steps into a direction that won't work.


Safe to say is: There will be serious and professional competitors in future. And what is left for Ethereum? A cute twin, a bail-out, a blockchain that can't be trusted, a team that can't be trusted - neither regarding their abilities nor their priorities.  

Yea. But, i do not understand why Cryptopia Delisting ETH.

At least it was before the HF and it seems to be a mix of idealism and criticism because of the HF-decision.

This is the main-point for them:

"Cryptopia believe in immutable blockchain technology, we believe that ETH forking their network to save the failures of a 3rd party software developer operating independently that ETH had nothing to do with sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and will likely open the floodgates to rollbacks for any reason.

Cryptopia is delisting ETH with the intent to avoid participation in both the upcoming fork and the inevitable future forks."
https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

So what Cryptopia is saying is that if they are hacked and YOUR deposits are stolen from them, they believe the thieves should keep your deposits and they (Cryptopia) have no obligation to go after the thieves to get your money back or repay you for what you lost.

Why would anyone want to deal with such an exchange? 

What they are saying is that they believe in immutability of blockchains and disagree with a bail-out! And you should ask why anybody would want to deal with a project that rushes out and fucks up a $150 Mio Smart Contract. That's not the fault of any exchange!

And just by the way - replay attacks:

At present, it appears that exchanges have been most affected by the vulnerability.
http://www.coindesk.com/rise-replay-attacks-ethereum-divide/

I wouldn't blame the mess to any exchange. Polo did a great job but it's also respectable just to say "no, we don't want that".