Topic: [ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning - page 801. (Read 2007101 times)

In Reply:

People always bailout out other people!

This is a fundamental certainty, which makes human existence possible.

You cannot have children or raise offspring without complete acceptance of the fundamental principle of bailing out people.

I can tell, if, you are making that argument you going to be terrible father or mother!

Not everyone agrees with your (externally litigious) definitions of "ethics" and "stolen."

By pretending your subjective external definitions are not controversial, you commit the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent.

If that's not bad enough, your logical fallacy is then used to justify the moral hazard of bailing out the greedy and stupid, to the detriment of the wise and smart.

Shame on you.  Shame!

In Reply:

The question is irrelevant: "The DAO" mandate is maximise the valuation for it's investors and Ethereum Foundation supported "ETH".

"The DAO" mandate is profit maximisation for "ETH" investors.

"The DAO" was not established to answer questions

Should you want, that question answered set up a "smart contract"!

And, see if you get enough investors to fund a dedicated research team to answer that particular question.

i guess the question wasnt here is the fork rightful or not .
the question is by training the dao with the white attack or black attack . was it a theft like theDao said and the foundation said too.
and if so is  it  still theft on the etc chain?

can the originaly holder of the dao demand there stolen ether back now? from the white hat attackers

that was asked .

Not really,

"The DAO" are the Party, who requested the Fork in Ethereum Blockchain from the Ethereum Foundation.

They are fully and completely obligated to operate in manner that boosts the price of the forked blockchain.

Because, they are Party who needed the forked blockchain and they have to ensure that the forked blockchain is commercially successful.


 

id guess what aplys for the black hat attack aplys for the white hat attack too?
http://www.coindesk.com/sue-dao-hacker/

In reply:

Disposing, does mean whatever mechanism that generates greatest maximisation of the valuation for "The DAO" and maximisation of the valuation of ETH (supported by the Ethereum Foundation).

Therefore, disposal does mean a sell off ETC can be done, if, it offers the greatest maximisation of valuation in the "The DAO" and "ETH" (supported by the Ethereum Foundation).

However, should a sell off decrease the valuation of "The DAO" and "ETH", then destroying the ETC can be the disposal method.

THE DISPOSAL METHOD, is something that has to be decided by the "The DAO" according to what is the most profit maximisation resulting for it's investors and it's undertaking to the Ethereum Foundation supported ETH.

The mandate of "The DAO" is profit maximisation of The DAO" and "ETH" (supported by the Ethereum Foundation), which would imply the "The DAO" would sell off the ETC and use the funds to maximise the value of "The DAO and "ETH" (supported by the Ethereum Foundation).

The DAO, is operating in "Good Faith" for it's investors!

It has already transfered to the new blockchain for "ETH", because "The DAO" requested the new blockchain from the "Ethereum Foundation" to recover stolen coins.

Since, "The DAO" requested the new blockchain in "Good Faith", it has fully entered into full and complete undertakings too the "Ethereum Foundation", to always operate in manner, that maximises the valuation of "ETH" that is supported by the latter Party.

Your point A) The DAO is to maximise the valuation of "The DAO" price and to maximise the valuation of ETH price.

Yes - But on the old chain or the new chain? Original DAO was on the Ethereum Classic chain. The DAO had the function of rewarding investors of the DAO. Maximisation of investors funds involve redistributing ETC to all DAO holders.

Your point B) Under, this latter mandate, the recovery of obsolete unsupported ETC can be done, so long as the ETC is disposed off, in order to maximise the valuation of "The DAO" and ETH.

Disposing ETC would result in scarcity of the coins on the ETC chain. This would not maximise the valuation of ETH however maximise the valuation of ETC.

I was doing some thinking about "The DAO", reviewing the facts and evidence about the situation.

Just because it August and not a lot happens in August, because everyone is on their annual holidays

One of the fundamental building blocks of legal laws and ethics related to economic activity is:

All parties must act in Good Faith in economic deals

Party A - Ethereum Foundation has fulfilled this requirement, by implementing a fork, too ensure Ethereum investors in "The DAO" have recovered their stolen ETH.

Good Faith e.g. recovery of stolen funds for all Parties.

Part B

The DAO, have discharged their obligations to recover the stolen ETH and contacted relevant Parties (Ethereum Foundation) to achieve this objective.

Good Faith e.g. achieving the recovery of stolen funds and contacting relevant Parties.

-------------------------------------------------------------------The DAO mandate-------------------------------------------------------

The DAO mandate: is to maximise the valuation of "The DAO" price and to maximise the valuation of ETH price.

This gives the authority to people running "The DAO" to take actions that increase the valuation of the tokens and ETH.

Under, this latter mandate, the recovery of obsolete unsupported ETC can be done, so long as the ETC is disposed off, in order to maximise the valuation of "The DAO" and ETH.

Of course, people will disagree with this, but it is August and I'm sure everyone not on holiday is pretty bored

a vew thoughts i have on the case too:

i know that the ethereum foundation would like to see this as a inside case, which is or was intented to be solved in the crypto world. words like we are govering, code is law and so on. we show the world we deal with our case ourselfs.
but as the past in crypto showed the law of the real world does not see it like that. gox ...... if something is a theft the law enforcment steps in.
and befor the fork in the rush the white hat attacker did exactly what the black hat one did.
they call the first attack theft . if it was theft ( delema of code is law on the dao) the second one is also theft.

now the name of the white hat one is public.

there has to be only one prefork DAO holder who sues or reports . then the ethereum devs involved will have a big problem

its not like one just took a few dollars. its millions.

i would have thought the white hat attackers "goodies" would announce what they plan for the dao ETc. but no word so far.

the ethereum prefork thought with rolling back all will be solved. and evidence will be gone. but ETC is alive.

then a friend said some of the things that happened after the fork. leaks of skype conversations on the ether channel. show at least the need for investigation. market manipulation.
was it intented ? posts that leading people of "now ETH" whos statements can  and did impact the price, where followed by lines in the skype leak, "got free ETC, go and sell them . already did. that will crash ETC ". i am not sure if they were just kidding but an investigation will for sure show.

i dont know that much about market law but some said that might be not legal . even if they didnt intent to
but profited.
i dont know
but it will for sure be interesting  to see what will happen next

http://www.coindesk.com/ethereum-developers-draining-dao/

Alex Van de Sande didnt do a statement on this as far as i know.
but i guess he is the one to ask .....

this is also a interesting link on reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4w9wo2/please_approve_my_operation_vbuterin_signed/

but i dont know if its comfirmed or just fake.

but every ETC holder and eth devs do hold ETC can dump.
will they do it ? hmmm maybe. but if they do they help ETC . a coin stays alive if you trade it . sell or buy doesnt matter.  for every seller there is a buyer.

visa versa

I also want to know how the DAO Ethereum can be returned to the original DAO holders. Will that be dumped?

the fork was done with the thought that the second chain would die fast  but it is still alive.
on the "befor fork chain" the "white hat attacker " ,one name is known publicly its a memeber of the ethereum foundation, used the same way to drain the ether of the dao contract out of it . to keep it save for the holders. so no criminal could take them.

the situation now is:
ETC didnt do the roll back. what was called a theft, by the first black hat attacker ,is the same mechanism as the white hat one.

if the code is law as they dao creators say, the etc of both attacks belong to the attackers.

now the white hat attackers said we do this not to keep them we are the " goodies" we are reversing just wrongful duing.

like you say its interesting what this guys do now with it.

and its interesting to see what the original dao holders will do ?

the fork was done to deal with it once and for ever. but with the failed fork now and the 2 chains the problem is still there.

it has to be solved on the ETC chain.

let say one of the original DAO holders sue them and they know a name of the white hat attackers they have  i guess a good chance to win this.
or not . becouse the code alowed it and it was on the dao page .code is lawl.

its realy an interesting case

and if one dao holder reports it might be a legal problem too.

Is it not there funds in the first place? Being DAO holders they are eligible to have a share of the ETH stored in the DAO. Please explain why you think otherwise because I might have missed something.

If they don't present a clear point of view people would just think they are planning to use them for themselves or something.

Is it not that it is also theirs? The white hackers only did a service to transfer the funds so that the attacker cannot get them. Now that it is all over they want it back. Do you think they still have the right to claim what is on the old chain even though they were bailed out in the fork? They can double everything? I am now confused.

What are they planning to do with it?

Wrong - I want DAO holders to sign the petition which basically outlines that members of the Ethereum white hat hacker team should return the 7.2 million ETC back to DAO Investors. The ETC funds held by them is currently worth 18 million dollars and this issue isn't being brought to light.

Just read this interesting article on Coindesk.

Mission Untraceable: How Zcash is Being Used to Obscure Ethereum Transactions
Cryptographer Andrew Miller posed for a Snapchat selfie with one of his fans at an event earlier this week where he presented a paper on how to make ethereum smart contracts untraceable.
It was the third time during my attempt to interview him that he was approached by people who wanted to speak about his latest project, Hawk, which uses untraceable digital currency startup Zcash's underlying protocol to mask the sending and receiving addresses of ethereum transactions.
http://www.coindesk.com/mission-untraceable-how-zcash-is-being-used-to-obscure-ethereum-transactions/

Let me get this quite straight before I have a laugh attack: You want a lot of people, ETC investors all, to sign a "petition" so the ETH hackers who stole the ETC will return what they stole? Do you even realize how funny that is?  Do you think a few hundred -or thousand, or hundred of thousand- signatures will make them to reconsider and become good guys all of a sudden --assuming they are not fully convinced they have been just smarter than you and the other victims?

OK, after almost getting sick of laughing so hard, thanks for showing me that naivety still exists... to call it by it most innocent name, of course. W.O.W...