Topic: Letter from DAO Attacker (Read 5581 times)

Well, he would lose in court and I personally never received a "cease and desist letter."  If it forks, it's the community that's forking it....he'd have to send everybody a "cease and desist."  And, the intent of the contract is what will take precedence in a court and it was obviously not intended for the exploiter to steal all our funds. Maybe he'd get one count of wire fraud per investor frauded....He should take the profits from his ETH short and run before a hot curling iron introduces his butt hairs to a perm, IMHO!

Your "analogy" between DAO investors and murder (and not the attacker) makes no sense, this is why I'm asking you who devil is - or simply: wth are you talking about.
Regardless of mine (and yours) English - your name, status and tone seams flame seeking troll wannabe to me and therefore I'm done feeding you.

^^
Devil's advocate here:
>it is called "experiment"
So is Bitcoin

>it is another crypto project where every newbie manual repeats:"high risk investment"
This shit don't fly IRL courts.

>it is unregulated unprotected digital universe disconnected from real world financial and legal systems
Oft-disproved argument; see: BTC

>it is all involved investors intention to make profit by smart actions at right time; "The Attaker" made best smart move and suddenly others want do change rules to reverse his result
Theft and murder may also be "smart actions at the right time," which is not to say "approved by the courts."

>they would never consider anything wrong if investment would multiply in their favour.
True, though irrelevant.

===== BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE =====
To the DAO and the Ethereum community,
 
I have carefully examined the code of The DAO and decided to participate after finding the feature where splitting is rewarded with additional ether. I have made use of this feature and have rightfully claimed 3,641,694 ether, and would like to thank the DAO for this reward. It is my understanding that the DAO code contains this feature to promote decentralization and encourage the creation of "child DAOs".
 
I am disappointed by those who are characterizing the use of this intentional feature as "theft". I am making use of this explicitly coded feature as per the smart contract terms and my law firm has advised me that my action is fully compliant with United States criminal and tort law. For reference please review the terms of the DAO:
 
"The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation."
 
A soft or hard fork would amount to seizure of my legitimate and rightful ether, claimed legally through the terms of a smart contract. Such fork would permanently and irrevocably ruin all confidence in not only Ethereum but also the in the field of smart contracts and blockchain technology. Many large Ethereum holders will dump their ether, and developers, researchers, and companies will leave Ethereum. Make no mistake: any fork, soft or hard, will further damage Ethereum and destroy its reputation and appeal.
 
I reserve all rights to take any and all legal action against any accomplices of illegitimate theft, freezing, or seizure of my legitimate ether, and am actively working with my law firm. Those accomplices will be receiving Cease and Desist notices in the mail shortly.
 
I hope this event becomes an valuable learning experience for the Ethereum community and wish you all the best of luck.
 
Yours truly,
"The Attacker"
===== END SIGNED MESSAGE =====
 
Message Hash (Keccak): 0xaf9e302a664122389d17ee0fa4394d0c24c33236143c1f26faed97ebbd017d0e
Signature: 0x5f91152a2382b4acfdbfe8ad3c6c8cde45f73f6147d39b072c81637fe81006061603908f692dc 15a1b6ead217785cf5e07fb496708d129645f3370a28922136a32

http://pastebin.com/CcGUBgDG

EDIT:  


https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/exclusive-full-interview-transcript-alleged-dao-attacker/

Mr 1 post NOOBY account..

YOU are the one who needs to STFU.. HERO accounts here are speaking !

Maybe if you shut your mouth and opened your ears you would learn something NOOB.

LOL
noobs these days are pretty damn mouthy.. someone needs a spanking and their mouth washed out with soap.

Some snotty little shit thinks he can impune my glorious divine legendary Crypto-Cred ?
..i think not  

Ok, Im sorry to hear about your problems. I really am.

But hey, heres a tip to make things better (I hope you can read this). Please do not abuse me & troll me if you want things to get better. It will get you nowhere. I can play with you all day long lol. Its me that owns your ass, not vice-versa.

- signed Hero Member (seeing as this means so much to you)

But note the "attacker" may have committed an illegal action or at least violated contract law...

How would he lose? He did avid by the rules of the DAO smart contract, he did not modify anything as far as I know, so being strict the definition of decentralized smart contract, he did not do anything illegal... very tricky scenario.

Bitcoin is an interesting case here. In general, it seems to be much closer to a DAO than a DO. However, there was one incident in 2013 where the reality proved to be rather different. What happened was that an exceptional block was (at least we hope) accidentally produced, which was treated as valid according to the BitcoinQt 0.8 clients, but invalid according to the rules of BitcoinQt 0.7. The blockchain forked, with some nodes following the blockchain after this exceptional block (we’ll call this chain B1), and the other nodes that saw that block as invalid working on a separate blockchain (which we’ll call B2). Most mining pools had upgraded to BitcoinQt 0.8, so they followed B1, but most users were still on 0.7 and so followed B2. The mining pool operators came together on IRC chat, and agreed to switch their pools to mining on B2, since that outcome would be simpler for users because it would not require them to upgrade, and after six hours the B2 chain overtook B1 as a result of this deliberate action, and B1 fell away. Thus, in this case, there was a deliberate 51% attack which was seen by the community as legitimate, making Bitcoin a DO rather than a DAO. In most cases, however, this does not happen, so the best way to classify Bitcoin would be as a DAO with an imperfection in its implementation of autonomy.

Well, he would lose in court and I personally never received a "cease and desist letter."  If it forks, it's the community that's forking it....he'd have to send everybody a "cease and desist."  And, the intent of the contract is what will take precedence in a court and it was obviously not intended for the exploiter to steal all our funds. Maybe he'd get one count of wire fraud per investor frauded....He should take the profits from his ETH short and run before a hot curling iron introduces his butt hairs to a perm, IMHO!

If you were the boss of a large mining pool, would you accept money from that smart contract the attacker wants to set up?

You would be exposing yourself to criminal charges because you accept stolen funds, and on top, you accept stolen funds in return for mining transactions that transport further stolen funds.

For small miners, not a problem. Owners of large pools...beware of extradition. 

Vulnerable to what, a lawsuit? That's about as fanciful as the idea the daoattacker will sue the Ethereum Foundation really. It would also bring in to question the whole legality and regulation (or lack thereof) of TheDAO.

This doesn't mean I think they'll accept it of course.

That's NOT the attacker.

Vulnerable to what, a lawsuit? That's about as fanciful as the idea the daoattacker will sue the Ethereum Foundation really. It would also bring in to question the whole legality and regulation (or lack thereof) of TheDAO.

This doesn't mean I think they'll accept it of course.

From interview with alleged DAO "attacker":

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/exclusive-full-interview-transcript-alleged-dao-attacker/

Yeah just that you cannot legally give away stolen funds...so the miners would make themselves legally vulnerable.

(3) the point of this pastebin is open dialog; soon we will have a smart contract to reward miners who oppose the soft fork and mines the transaction. 1 million ether + 100 btc will be shared with miners.

The pastebin is fake in the sense that it’s not a signed message from the attacker, but that doesn’t mean the message it conveys is fake, or, not from the attacker.

Also true troll style. For every bitcoin cultist not burstin' with schadenfreude, I'll give you one who's just itching to capitalize on this. I'll even start: You.
*not defending The[lol]DAO, which is arguably the most ether-frollicky thing ever, just pointing out that posting signed messages that fail to verify does not a cypherpunk make.

Why sending to 1BitcoinEater? That is $747 gone forever, as nobody will ever have the private key to that address.