The DAO FAIL | Bitcointalksearch.org

glerand

member

Activity: 100

Merit: 10

Quote from: anthonydar on September 02, 2016, 02:20:54 AM

Quote from: bbc.reporter on August 19, 2016, 09:18:25 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 19, 2016, 11:52:58 AM

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

The DAO didn't fail, it was hacked.

Quoted for hilarity.

Nice distinction without a difference you've made there. Cheesy

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

I hope there is a DAO2.0. I'll invest in it in a heartbeat.

Also quoted for hilarity. Grin

If Mindcrash didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. Nobody else so neatly encapsulates the blithering hubris of the ETH Bailout Fork mindset better than he does.

Minecache is so desperate that he will say anything to justify his denial and blindness. The DAO did fail because it was hacked. You know why it was hacked? The answer will give you more clarity. I suggest you read and reread everything that happened with the DAO hack. It was not secure. It was a failure waiting to happen the day it was released.

I hope you invest in the DAO 2.0 too. Cheesy

I also hope the slock.it team is the one developing it again. Good luck bagholding that because you will be the only investor. Cheesy

If the DAO 2.0 is secure, I will invest in it. But I will just invest in a smaller amount. After it is proved safe, I might invest more.

I might not invest in DAO 2.0. I will wait for the ETC to implement something like that, and wait after a few more months.

anthonydar

full member

Activity: 203

Merit: 100

★CryptoGamesFX.com★

Quote from: bbc.reporter on August 19, 2016, 09:18:25 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 19, 2016, 11:52:58 AM

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

The DAO didn't fail, it was hacked.

Quoted for hilarity.

Nice distinction without a difference you've made there. Cheesy

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

I hope there is a DAO2.0. I'll invest in it in a heartbeat.

Also quoted for hilarity. Grin

If Mindcrash didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. Nobody else so neatly encapsulates the blithering hubris of the ETH Bailout Fork mindset better than he does.

Minecache is so desperate that he will say anything to justify his denial and blindness. The DAO did fail because it was hacked. You know why it was hacked? The answer will give you more clarity. I suggest you read and reread everything that happened with the DAO hack. It was not secure. It was a failure waiting to happen the day it was released.

I hope you invest in the DAO 2.0 too. Cheesy

I also hope the slock.it team is the one developing it again. Good luck bagholding that because you will be the only investor. Cheesy

If the DAO 2.0 is secure, I will invest in it. But I will just invest in a smaller amount. After it is proved safe, I might invest more.

bbc.reporter

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 1460

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 19, 2016, 11:52:58 AM

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

The DAO didn't fail, it was hacked.

Quoted for hilarity.

Nice distinction without a difference you've made there. Cheesy

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

I hope there is a DAO2.0. I'll invest in it in a heartbeat.

Also quoted for hilarity. Grin

If Mindcrash didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. Nobody else so neatly encapsulates the blithering hubris of the ETH Bailout Fork mindset better than he does.

Minecache is so desperate that he will say anything to justify his denial and blindness. The DAO did fail because it was hacked. You know why it was hacked? The answer will give you more clarity. I suggest you read and reread everything that happened with the DAO hack. It was not secure. It was a failure waiting to happen the day it was released.

I hope you invest in the DAO 2.0 too. Cheesy

I also hope the slock.it team is the one developing it again. Good luck bagholding that because you will be the only investor. Cheesy

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

The DAO didn't fail, it was hacked.

Quoted for hilarity.

Nice distinction without a difference you've made there. Cheesy

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

I hope there is a DAO2.0. I'll invest in it in a heartbeat.

Also quoted for hilarity. Grin

If Mindcrash didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. Nobody else so neatly encapsulates the blithering hubris of the ETH Bailout Fork mindset better than he does.

loveofmylife

member

Activity: 91

Merit: 10

Quote from: spartak_t on August 19, 2016, 02:08:37 AM

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

The DAO didn't fail, it was hacked. There is a MASSIVE difference.

Your stupidity always amuses me. Cheesy

Quote from: Minecache on August 03, 2016, 11:52:26 AM

Fantastic article by Alex Van de Sande dispelling all the FUD and lies currently being propagated by the ETC criminal coin tards.

https://medium.com/@avsa/the-truth-about-the-fork-fd040c7ca955#.ho7lo8uxv

LOL, stupid people wouldn't admit dao has been failed, it is delisted from coinmarketcap, which means dao has been officially dead.

spartak_t

legendary

Activity: 1960

Merit: 1176

@FAILCommunity

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

The DAO didn't fail, it was hacked. There is a MASSIVE difference.

Your stupidity always amuses me. Cheesy

Quote from: Minecache on August 03, 2016, 11:52:26 AM

Fantastic article by Alex Van de Sande dispelling all the FUD and lies currently being propagated by the ETC criminal coin tards.

https://medium.com/@avsa/the-truth-about-the-fork-fd040c7ca955#.ho7lo8uxv

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: Minecache on August 18, 2016, 06:07:59 PM

The DAO didn't fail, it was hacked. There is a MASSIVE difference.

"the safe didn't fail, it got cracked by the burglar".
A smart contract "getting hacked" according to its own terms, is about the biggest failure you can imagine for a smart contract.

It is the equivalent of having on your fire insurance contract small print that says that you owe the insurance company 10 times the value of your own house if they re-imburse you for fire. And then you are amazed that you're broke whenever your house burns down and they send you a lawyer to get 9 times your house's value from you. Wonder whether you would consider that fire insurance a great success or a failure.

Quote

I hope there is a DAO2.0. I'll invest in it in a heartbeat.

Give me the weekend, I'll write one for you. On ETH if you want...

Hueristic

legendary

Activity: 3836

Merit: 4969

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

Quote from: spartak_t on August 18, 2016, 06:14:58 AM

Quote from: Hueristic on August 17, 2016, 11:20:44 AM

The night is young my friend, it will come to pass. Wink

Sure, agreed, but that won't change the fact that probably some people out there committed a suicide because of what happened.

Many people deserved alot more pain than the bailout scumsuckers ended up getting.

Minecache

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1024

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

The DAO didn't fail, it was hacked. There is a MASSIVE difference.

And even if it had failed, which it didn't, there is no dishonour in trying to innovate or succeed. The shame is in doing nothing.

I hope there is a DAO2.0. I'll invest in it in a heartbeat.

spartak_t

legendary

Activity: 1960

Merit: 1176

@FAILCommunity

Quote from: Hueristic on August 17, 2016, 11:20:44 AM

The night is young my friend, it will come to pass. Wink

Sure, agreed, but that won't change the fact that probably some people out there committed a suicide because of what happened.

Quote from: dinofelis on August 18, 2016, 03:34:08 AM

Quote from: Gaugh on August 18, 2016, 03:11:41 AM

There should be a regulatory body to ensure coins comply with a set of minimum standards.

You really understood the sense of crypto, didn't you ? Cheesy

Sounds funny, but I was implying this in my previous comment.

nova-rider

member

Activity: 70

Merit: 10

Hard to know that's the biggest crowdfunding ever in crypto.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: Gaugh on August 18, 2016, 03:11:41 AM

There should be a regulatory body to ensure coins comply with a set of minimum standards.

You really understood the sense of crypto, didn't you ? Cheesy

Gaugh

full member

Activity: 135

Merit: 100

There should be a regulatory body to ensure coins comply with a set of minimum standards.
Developers have to stop rolling out coins that are copies of existing ones, and their coins must not be of low standards.

Ruhtilg

full member

Activity: 151

Merit: 100

Quote from: dinofelis on August 17, 2016, 11:46:45 PM

Quote from: Fanpant on August 17, 2016, 12:58:46 PM

That is right. In the future, all the program/codes need to be tested throughly on the testnet before they can be released on the main net.

I think that is not sufficient. First of all, you can hardly test a contract for a year on a test net, because then it is much less hassle to go through the normal legal system. The idea was to make contracting "light quick and easy". Also, contracts can contain ideas, and agreements which are confidential until they are made. If you make them public before the deal is real, you lose a lot of competitive edge.

But most of all, if contracts run on a testnet, there will not be the same incentive to hack them than if they are for real. In fact, I would look at contracts running on test nets, try to find hacks into them, not reveal them until the contract runs for real and then attack it. The test net phase simply gives me more time to find a hack.

That is right. It is quite difficult to test the contracts on the test net. Hackers will not be interested. They have less incentive to do that.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: Fanpant on August 17, 2016, 12:58:46 PM

That is right. In the future, all the program/codes need to be tested throughly on the testnet before they can be released on the main net.

I think that is not sufficient. First of all, you can hardly test a contract for a year on a test net, because then it is much less hassle to go through the normal legal system. The idea was to make contracting "light quick and easy". Also, contracts can contain ideas, and agreements which are confidential until they are made. If you make them public before the deal is real, you lose a lot of competitive edge.

But most of all, if contracts run on a testnet, there will not be the same incentive to hack them than if they are for real. In fact, I would look at contracts running on test nets, try to find hacks into them, not reveal them until the contract runs for real and then attack it. The test net phase simply gives me more time to find a hack.

Fanpant

full member

Activity: 214

Merit: 100

Quote from: raphma on August 17, 2016, 11:03:47 AM

Quote from: anthonydar on August 17, 2016, 03:30:40 AM

Quote from: q835197677 on August 16, 2016, 11:43:56 PM

Personally, I think DAO is a joke, from a certain point of view, it personally split the ETH, the emergence of ETH and ETC

That was not intended as a joke. It was a good experiment. But it failed due to a bug in the software implementation.

it was a joke... the biggest crowdfunding ever without proper auditing and testing... a joke.

That is right. In the future, all the program/codes need to be tested throughly on the testnet before they can be released on the main net.

Hueristic

legendary

Activity: 3836

Merit: 4969

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

Quote from: spartak_t on August 17, 2016, 05:45:14 AM

Quote from: dinofelis on August 17, 2016, 04:50:25 AM

Quote from: anthonydar on August 17, 2016, 03:30:40 AM

Quote from: q835197677 on August 16, 2016, 11:43:56 PM

Personally, I think DAO is a joke, from a certain point of view, it personally split the ETH, the emergence of ETH and ETC

That was not intended as a joke. It was a good experiment. But it failed due to a bug in the software implementation.

As if it can be expected that complex code will not contain a bug or an exploit. That was the first failure but it is a *fundamental* failure: one cannot write complex software from scratch, without having it used, and the guarantee that no bug or exploit will exist.
Normal software gets around this, by updates, when bugs or exploits are detected. But, by definition, smart contracts cannot be updated because they are a contract which has, of course, to remain in place as it was originally convened (unless you make the update part of the contract, which opens even more the Pandora's box of potential bugs and exploits).

The principle of complex, Turing complete, bug free and exploit free smart contracts from the start, unstoppable and unalterable, is an oxymoron.

Moreover, the *economic function* of the DAO was ridiculous, as I posted earlier. There's nothing the DAO could economically accomplish which simple crowd funding cannot accomplish. It just got vastly more complicated, where some privileged got more to say about other people's money.

I really wonder what was the sense of this experiment, of which the disastrous outcome was evidently predictable. Did one really need to mess with $150 million to find out the obvious ?

Keep in mind that not only the DAO got hurt, but the entire market. Before the attack, market cap of the cryptocurrencies was about $14.2Bn and it was shrinked to ~$12.5Bn in a ~week. Bitcoin was at its peak since the beginning of 2014. Look what I've said 2 days before the attack:

Quote from: spartak_t on June 14, 2016, 05:01:13 PM

You can't just take $200Mn from the people, without doing vast amount of researches on your product (though I admit again that I didn't make any deep researches on ETH or DAO)! This could kill all the crypto!

... and what Hueristic answered:

Quote from: Hueristic on June 14, 2016, 06:54:40 PM

Quote from: spartak_t on June 14, 2016, 05:01:13 PM

...This could kill all the crypto!...

LOL, not a chance in hell. When it crashes and burns it'll just get more peops interested.

I believe its safe to say that the DAO failure caused a few hundred million $ (quite possible to be even over a billion $) in losses. Its not like I'm bragging or anything, but I was expecting this to happen and it was the main reason to start this thread. Projects are coming and going all the time, but when it comes to a project with such funds, then we should all worry about on what may happen in future.

The night is young my friend, it will come to pass. Wink

raphma

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: anthonydar on August 17, 2016, 03:30:40 AM

Quote from: q835197677 on August 16, 2016, 11:43:56 PM

Personally, I think DAO is a joke, from a certain point of view, it personally split the ETH, the emergence of ETH and ETC

That was not intended as a joke. It was a good experiment. But it failed due to a bug in the software implementation.

it was a joke... the biggest crowdfunding ever without proper auditing and testing... a joke.

Ultrabat

member

Activity: 117

Merit: 10

Quote from: spartak_t on August 17, 2016, 07:55:54 AM

I like how you think, but its not necessary to talk about long term "value". There are also a lot of "day traders" and I was mainly referring to them. On the other hand, my personal opinion (well, it may sound like a conspiracy theory, but its what I think) is that Bitcoin (by saying BTC I am referring to the entire market of cryptocurrencies) is still "working", because some "people" are still allowing it. And if we want things to stay this way, then we'd better not screwing with ICO's/crowdsales/whatever, because some authorities can find their reasons to get more deeply involved and then we are all f*cked.

You are right about the day traders. The volume of ETC + ETH was about 100,000 bitcoins a few weeks ago. But today's volume is just 15,000.

spartak_t

legendary

Activity: 1960

Merit: 1176

@FAILCommunity

I like how you think, but its not necessary to talk about long term "value". There are also a lot of "day traders" and I was mainly referring to them. On the other hand, my personal opinion (well, it may sound like a conspiracy theory, but its what I think) is that Bitcoin (by saying BTC I am referring to the entire market of cryptocurrencies) is still "working", because some "people" are still allowing it. And if we want things to stay this way, then we'd better not screwing with ICO's/crowdsales/whatever, because some authorities can find their reasons to get more deeply involved and then we are all f*cked.

Topic: The DAO FAIL (Read 20478 times)