Topic: Fork hard and prosper — part II (Read 770 times)

I know this quote. I also remember loads of cheap MLM marketing distributed by Ethereum and Slock.it. I understand your stance on the grounds that EF is responsible for negligence. But this isn't an excuse for the attacker. And the law (at least in jurisdictions that I know laws of) criminalizes exactly this type of deeds as the attacker performed. If s/he'll be exposed and tried one day the sentence is rather predictable. This does not affect the responsibility of Ethereum et consortes.

Let's keep working for the better crypto-world

"The premise of smart contracts is that they are their own arbiters and that nothing outside the code can “change the rules” of the transaction." - this is a quote from CoinDesk article. I'll compare it with the 51% attack on Bitcoin. It's bad, but it's how it works. That is why I think that the attacker did nothing illegal and the Ethereum Foundation is responsible. Keep in mind that I am not defending the "attacker", nor I have something against Ethereum or TheDAO. I simply do not care for both sides because of my own reasons.

Anyway, I would also like to think that I am one of the few who are working for the better crypto-world. Keep doing that.

There will be two chains. They can live separately, however it's rather implausible. There will be a new version of wallet applying the fork. Decisions of exchanges will depend on which chain wins. And trades of Ether will be suspended for a while until the situation resolves.

I meant that when something is already f*cked it cannot be more f*cked

As to the theft. Most of codified laws define theft as taking away someones possessions without their explicit consent. There are minor exceptions and definitions are usually far more complex. Failing to secure possessions is not an extenuation for the culprit. In my example the door could have been made of paper - it changes nothing. The Ethereum team is responsible for negligence but this is another story.
As far as my legal background enables me to assess this situation, most civilized world courts will follow my line of reasoning.

The story with justification of this crime was invented by someone moderately bright (I have my picks) on assumption that people are mostly legally illiterate. It worked.

I understand your anger. This corrupted crypto world disgusts me too. However, as it's not much different from the material world, I can only try to make it better and saner.

Noob here,when the hard-fork will be implemented,this means we will mine a new ethereum coin or same as old one,same wallet,same exchange?

Of course you can. There are numerous serial rapers around the world. As for the DAO means - I can fully agree with you. As for the theft (I must say that I am not a coder), I cannot agree, because the code (as far as I know) itself was designed in this way. The vault door is designed to prevent people to break it, so maybe I shouldn't have used the word "exploited". Yes, the "attacker/s" took some advantage, but it is the Ethereum team who should cover their mistake, not hard/soft fork or other people.

Do you know why I am angry about what happened? Because of the future of the cryptocurrencies, and the "common people". So many people are working for a better future and receiving dimes, but these guys gathered hundreds of millions $, yet conceded such childish mistake. If I was one of their main "investors", I should be taking them to court already. And I will win.

You cannot f*ck something twice. This "D" letter, as well as remaining two, were just marketing catches. Never had any consistent meaning in terms of a structure they described. I wrote about it on daohub also long before anything really happened.

As to the theft - it was exactly a theft. If I rob the vault guarded by strong door with complex mechanism by exploiting it's vulnerabilities it will be theft.
And I assure you that every court on this planet will put me in jail. The same applies to guys who performed this theDAO exploitation. No silly explanations can cover this simple fact. And I can bet that most courts will follow my reasoning.

As to warnings - I'm aware of them (LeastAuthority for example). No one listened to Sirer, Vlad, others and me. No one seemed concerned about the alleged "audit" by DejaVu, which I assume was a smokescreen. But this is exactly how the mob works.

I think that the title should be changed to: "Fork hard and f*ck what the first letter of the DAO abbreviation means". And in my opinion, there wasn't a theft. The guy/s just exploited the "system", which had 100s of millions reasons to prevent this to happen. Warnings were raised about a year ago, like you stated in your article, but few people listened. I have personally posted a thread a week before the "attack".

Reading between lines is often risky as one can fill a blank space with virtually everything.

In fact, my stance was more about quality than quantity. I stressed that this group is too good to be lost, not too big or too numerous. Systemic risk for the ecosystem stems from other factors in this case - the attacker being a part of ecosystem is a serious threat. Bailout is required to remove this tumor, not to grant special treatment to the group in question.

As to straw man. You used comparison to FED and Greenspan that has, I'd delicately say, rather poor PR around here. Then you matched some of my text's conclusions to your predefined scenario. Straw man is usually constructed this way - shape facts to fit the conclusion.

But this is basically why we discuss - to express own stances. Not always honestly, as we are humans. And it's OK.

Thanks.

Nothing is lost Maybe I'll take part in other discusses around here.

Sorry, but it's not a straw man: it's just reading between the lines. "Too big to fail" as a principle says that the failure of such-and-such an entity poses a systemic risk to the ecosystem as a whole; thus, the maintenance of the ecosystem requires a bailout. Reading between the lines, that is what you said about The DAO.

Brilliant!!!!

Thanks for the article and thank you even more for the discussion!  Wish I had a little more time for it right now, because it's clear that you have some excellent thoughts on it all!

I'm afraid you over-interpret my article. It's OK, it's no longer only mine when published.

You first constructed a straw man (too big to fail) and then battered it without mercy. I actually stressed not the value of the number of people that can be lost, but the value of their attitude toward this project (regardless the fact that numbers count often). Cryptocoins seldom attract people from "outside". With theDAO, scores of different activists, idealists and other -ists came to take part in something new. This was the value. Because Bitcoin and other cryptos are still minute in scale and group mainly very narrow, in terms of interests, group of people. TheDAO was a kind of opening, which I consider useful.

As to religion like approach. Please notice that I never specified which fraction (pro or anti fork) is religious. I just said that I cannot argue wit non falsifiable arguments. To me both "Vitalik said so" and "Immutability is dogma" have the same false logical value. What speaks to me are rational arguments concerning functional, observable factors.

Rather welcome back. I had an account here years ago, but after the hack of forum and passwords reset I never used this old one again.

About possible pressure on VB and possible scenarios. Ultimately it's in hands of the community. Of course one can manipulate it (and it constantly happens in Ethereum, Bitcoin and other cryptocoin communities), sell nicely dressed lies, but this process isn't as easy as it looks. One cannot bribe or blackmail the whole community. And the bigger it gets the more resistant it becomes in terms of said manipulation. It can be seen with Bitcoin - best example IMO.
Besides, in the future some excuses that work with present problem with theDAO will not work.

Thus, I don't think that the risk of malicious overuse of forking suddenly became bigger. It just inherently exists. Always.

As to Satoshi - there is a cult of the "word" of Satoshi among some Bitcoiners. For better explanation - Bitcoin is like Judaism, cult of the scripture given by unspoken god via prophets; Ethereum is like Christianity - the god is in human form and his words are praised .

Interesting indeed. Part 1 contains an interesting too-big-to-fail argument, in that the community - many of which (the author posits) are too naïve to understand the risks involved - are a very  valuable resource for the Ethereum system that would be thrown away if they're not saved by the hard fork. FWIW, Alan Greenspan was not the originator of "too big to fail" as Federal Reserve policy. His predecessor, the oft-lionized Paul Volker, was the one who first made it policy. Back in 1984, Continental Illinois was dragged down by the oil bust because it had bought a lot of oil-backed loans from an upstart high-flyer bank in the oil patch named Penn Square. Volker et. al had no problem letting Penn Square go down in flames, but they did have a problem with the much-larger Continental Illinois imploding. So the Fed bailed it out. Their underlying reason was different - Continental Illinois collapsing would have put too much of a strain on the deposit-insurance fund, especially consider the risk of runs on related banks - but the abstract consideration was similar: the org in question was big enough a part of the ecosystem that its extinction would threaten the ecosystem as a whole.

Funny that the author would resort to a rhetorical trope long used by United States interventionists. Namely, casting one's opponents as religious believers (the standard term used by those interventionists is "dogmatists") in order to present oneself and one's supporters as practical-minded and flexible. "We can't get into the big leagues unless we hard fork" (not a quote from Part II): that one wasn't hard to see coming.

A moment's been reached, that's for sure. Interesting that Ethereum is the crypto wherein "too big to fail" has popped up.

Wow!  Welcome! 

I think I understand your point about the precedent.  You're right...there probably isn't any MORE reason now than there was before for any government or corporation to fork/roll back/control the blockchain.  And I'm sure that Apple with $160 billion in cash or Microsoft with $85 billion in cash have recognized that they COULD easily do whatever they want to do. 

I still have some concern about how the Foundation has taken the lead on it, though.  What happens if VB gets busted with a yacht full of hookers and cocaine?  Would the DEA be able to put enough pressure on him PERSONALLY to get him to get the miners to collude?  Maybe that wouldn't have nefarious purposes...but what if his parents/girlfriend/boyfriend/CHILD got kidnapped?  Would kidnappers pressure him to exercise his leadership in a truly nefarious way?  You could ask for $1 million to return a person.  Or you could make  20x that by shorting and forcing one man to exercise a power he has that he probably shouldn't have.

Satoshi NEVER had that individual cult-of-personality or power.  Maybe that's why he/she has been anonymous the whole time. 

My colleague posted here my article and frankly I never expected such moderate reaction.

I don't care much about the precedent - I wrote about it in the first part of this article here. But frankly speaking I agree with your further arguments about that this mechanism can be further exploited in malicious ways. But, as it's known from the beginning and since nothing has happened I can safely assume that setting this precedent only uncovers this to the crowd, not to bad guys up there.

I don't think that ETH is likely to disappear. It has some interesting features worth consideration. But I agree that it's still very flawed system. Full of irresponsible decisions in terms of structure and governance. We'll see what will happen in the future.

One of the best articles I've seen on this fiasco.

I'm not a holder of ETH or DAO, so I have no financial interest either way.  My concern is the precedent this sets in all of crypto.  What's next?  Will some government intervene under the guise of freezing transactions so that alleged terrorists can't benefit?  Will some mega-company or bank pay bounties to win a 51% plurality of miners in order to control and centralize a blockchain?  It's a horrible, horrible precedent for many reasons for ALL of crypto. 

It's possible that it would be better for everybody for ETH to disappear.  That might be better than saving a very flawed system.

Interesting https://medium.com/@Hibryda/fork-hard-and-prosper-part-ii-2a56bd6c1522#.bf0gw6q5w