Topic: ICO Projects and Crypto Platforms News and Info. Make Profitable Trades. - page 5. (Read 16504 times)

Why haven't you listed Synereo AMPs yet?

Way to go with the Factom call! Of course, I'm saying this as someone who loaded up on it earlier.

Not too long ago, it appeared somebody has been draining funds from the DAO again. This is the third time such an attack took place in less than two months. More worryingly, it appears very similar attacks have been used in all three instances. Luckily, this final attack seems to be “white hat hacker probing”. Then again, they did reveal some very worrying parts about The DAO’s code, which may spell doom for the project altogether.

The DAO Has Some Very Bizarre Coding

It is safe to say the Ethereum community received a nasty surprise when The DAO was under attack for the third time. An unknown entity was withdrawing funds from the project’s account, even though the balance should have been zero after the hard fork. For some reason, there was close to 38,000 Ethereum in the balance, and funds were being transferred to a different account through a recursive bug.

As it turns out, one of the “white hat hackers” probing The DAO’s contract code was responsible for moving this funds out. But that was not the worrisome part, as further research unveiled sloppy coding that should not be there in the first place. Sometimes, it is tough to believe this project raised US$150m, as this was a honeypot waiting to be emptied by the look of things.

If anyone wants to see new and upcoming ICO's check out my site: http://icocountdown.com

You can also see all my due dillgence conducted at the top of the site or here:

https://medium.com/@icocountdown/

No Replay Attack Vulnerability On Poloniex

One of the biggest points of confusion revolves around the so-called “replay attacks”, which is an issue that should have been addressed by ETH developers months ago. Unlike the Ethereum developers, Poloniex made sure they separated ETH and ETC as best they could, resulting in the failure of replay attacks. Every address used on the Poloniex exchange exists on only one of the two blockchains.

On the Ethereum blockchain, however, ETH and ETC are still linked together. The developers assumed ETC would lose traction, while the opposite has happened over the past few days. As a result, ETH will need to implement another hard fork to rectify this sloppy coding by the developers. Never make assumptions in the world of cryptocurrency, they will come to haunt you.

That being said, users who make a deposit to Poloniex are still vulnerable to replay attacks. That is, assuming they haven’t taken the precaution of separating their ETC and ETH funds themselves. The Poloniex system will funnel funds accordingly to direct the balances to their unique addresses on the right blockchain, though.

The best way to solve this problem is by having users do everything they can to separate both wallets at an early stage, preferably before sending funds to the exchange. Most people use the Ethereum Mist wallet, which can be utilized as a sole ETC wallet by declining activating the hard fork code during setup. Do keep in mind parity client is still in development as well.

For the time being, there are still some interesting things that will need to happen shortly. First of all, the Ethereum developers will need to clean up their code to ensure the replay attacks will be invalid by default. Secondly, Ethereum Classic will not go away even though some people may want it to. There is support for this initiative, and the interest continues to grow.

Vitalik, you are what Charlie Lee is to Litecoin and Satoshi is to Bitcoin. You are the guidance, leadership, and vision to Ethereum. Being in such a position of power influences the future of Ethereum, to include forks. The mere suggestion to fork (short of a major bug in the base software) in your circumstance is irresponsible. Because you are the lead developer and creator, involvement of any type would again set a dangerous precedent in uncharted territories. This could have consequences worldwide in legislation, where I fear your actions today will be debated tomorrow in every congress in democratic states. A developer’s influence shapes a coin’s community and developers worldwide should stand up with me and announce their disapproval of any action on your part. Developing the code and throwing it into the wild in order for the community to decide whether to fork or not does not abstain you from the future of Ethereum due to your influence. Once the word “fork” leaves your lips for others to hear, you have already swayed the masses to a degree.

The program was set up as a contract, pointing to the code as the final word. Therefore, interpretations of the code (including bugs) are tantamount to the legalities of the “attacker(s)”.

In other words, I personally believe that the attacker was well within his rights to exploit this contract. And now the community suffers for a poor implementation of a contract.

If we place community cohesion above all of our other values, however, then in the long run it will be impossible to prevent a majority from controlling the protocol in a way that runs against our core values. If we place our values ahead of community cohesion, then when there’s an attempted majority takeover, or an irreconcilable difference in values between subsections of our community becomes evident, then the community will split and maintain separate blockchains.