Topic: ETH hardfork incoming. - page 4. (Read 18991 times)

Everything is allowed.  That's fundamental in the "trustless" world.  It is a Darwinist fight.

If not, then you need only to put in sufficient safeguards so that any mischievous action is difficult enough for it to be able to be taken to court and justice, and you wouldn't need to spend 400 million dollars a year on wasting PoW on bitcoin for instance.  Much less PoW would be sufficient to limit the number of attacks to a reasonable number so that "justice" (whatever power game THAT is) can handle it.

It is the difference between putting a lock on your door to make life more difficult for a burglar, but the real protection against burglars is the law and police, on one hand, and an old sea pirate hiding his treasure on an island in the Pacific, with no legal protection at all.

Does it also mean that double spend is allowed as if you have 51%+ mining power, you can do whatever you want?

No, "code is law" is a specific property of smart contracts, when the code, and only the code, is the contract.
Most, not to say, all, other code running is not a contract, and is supposed to implement intend, can hence contain bugs and exploits (= deviations from intend).

The funny thing is that the people crying about the absurd concept of "code is law" are the ETH guys, who were in fact promoting ETH because.... it proposed smart contracts and "code is law".  Nowhere else, code is law.  Not even the Ethereum or bitcoin system.  There, code is trying to implement intend (of white paper protocol), like everywhere else.

It is hugely, mightily, ironic and funny that people crying "thief", "bug", "exploit", are the ONLY ONES that were touting "code is law" as the superior property of their baby, ethereum !  Nobody else in his right mind was ever considering "code is law".

On the other hand, a 51% attack on a block chain is also a rightful thing to do in a certain respect, because a block chain is supposed to be an emergent property of mutually antagonistic entities.  The theory is that the emerging block chain will be immutable and respect the protocol, but that's nothing else but a hope for an emergent property.  A 51% attack is nothing else but that hope failing.  But a 51% attack is perfectly "legit" in the framework of block chains, as the goal of such a system is that every agent in the system tries to rip off every other agent.  If some succeed, that's their good "right".    A block chain is simply postulated to be the right thing that emerges from a war zone.  If that theory fails (the "51% attack") that's a pity, but not unlegit in a war zone.

children will be children..

According to code is law theory, you can do anything wit the codes, you can explore the bugs without being arrested.

So there is no problems that the ETC is 51% attacked by some people as that is built in the protocol?

thats what "open source" means.

do you know how much in cryptoland is open source and build on or with common code? miners, pools, coins?

There is discussion about ETC hardfork:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4vfeif/we_should_hardfork_to_prevent_replay_attacks_on/?st=iraj1ct3&sh=d1c05768

So do not think it is also legal for somebody to 51% attack a crypto currency and hacking due to a bug in a software?

he probably understand, but since he is a mETH head he will keep spaming "ETC criminal" for whatever you say.

I wish the DAO hacker will sue the miners responsible for the hard fork, so that we will know if he "steal".

"theft" is a legal concept, and hence, whether an action is theft, depends obviously on the law system under which it is considered.

But in case you don't know, it is a legal property of free open source code that copying it is NOT theft.

No, law is law. And a thief will always be a thief.

Visibly, you didn't understand the concept of smart contract and "code is law", and now you don't understand the concept of "free open source code".

So what you are saying is that ETC being the Criminals coin they are stealing all the ETH devs hard work.

#ETC=EthereumCriminals

All ETH developers are automatically also, whether they want or not, ETC developers, given that it is essentially identical open source code.

At present there are two versions of the Ethereum being listed by some exchanges. But one of them could be a scam.

In what way did they have an insecure smart contract ?  They simply had a smart contract that didn't do what they said/intended it to do.  But that's normal.  No code ever does exactly as intended.  They told you upfront that you shouldn't take their intentions as the law, but rather the code.  And then people came in and changed the block chain, so that what they said wasn't true either.  Now nor the code, nor their intentions are the law.

According to coinmarketcap.com there are twice ether (eth + etc) in circulation. That's correct or am I missing something?

I have a question. Why and how did the slock.it developers end up developing an insecure smart contract? I thought they have security reviews and security audits done with them and they were very confident it is secure. Maybe someone should get to the bottom of this.