Topic: The DAO FAIL - page 4. (Read 20499 times)

FAILCommunity

If Mr. Barry Silbert likes the ETC so much, the DAO hackers (white + black) should sell the ETC to him.

Try to be more positive.

Thx, I have tons Of good idea's that could launch this branch but zero incentive.

That might end up as a good idea. I mean if the attacker give part of the coins in his possesion for the ETC development. It would be a good answer to what EF did. About 2 weeks ago Mr. Barry Silbert said that the first coin (other than Bitcoin), which he bought was ETC at $0.50. From what I've heard he invested 5% from his BTC, which should be a pretty big amount. This clearly shows that some serious players are supporting ETC and you can see that it has twice the trade volume of ETH (leaving conspiracy theories aside).

If I gave a shit I would call for a Dev team formation and create proposals for funding goals and request the Dao holder to pledge funds from the diverted dao to an ongoing dev schedule, but what do I know.

It would be a good idea to ask the DAO hacker to donate his "stolen" coins and support the development of ETC.

Why do not you ask the DAO hackers to return the DAO he stole? If he returned it, there was no need for the hard fork.

PETITION CALLING FOR MEMBERS OF THE ETHEREUM FOUNDATION/TEAM AND OTHERS (WHITE HACKERS) TO RETURN ETC TO DAO HOLDERS ADDRESSES.

SEE POST BELOW & SIGN THE PETITION.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15827434

https://www.change.org/p/ethereum-foundation-members-of-ethereum-team-white-hats-to-return-etc-to-dao-holders

The smart contract is programmed by human, there will be human errors. So there should be other forms  of contract.

FTFY

also acceptable:


 

That was exactly the value proposition of smart contracts (and of crypto in general): to get rid of humanity, no ?

My point was that the whole value proposition of ethereum (from the beginning) is now dead.  The DAO has shown that "code is law" is a screwed concept, because in a complex contract, there is always the *possibility* of bugs and exploits.  That the Slock-it guys were particularly sloppy is not a reason to think that it cannot happen again.

The whole adventure has shown people that there is in fact no secure way to do smart contracting.  The forking has shown that if it goes wrong, then it is not simple to bail out.  Nobody in his right mind (and certainly not corporations) are going to take the risk to put a lot of money in something that can be exploited, and one cannot guarantee that one will not have written a code that has NO security hole in it.

So the value proposition of ethereum is over.  There won't be big smart contracts any more on it.  In fact, the DAO guys and the hacker did us an enormous favor.  Imagine, in ethereum's wet dreams, that a good part of the corporate world would be running smart contracts on ethereum, and then, say, Apple's funds get pumped into Samsung's :-)  What crisis would that not be ?

This apprentice sorcerer's game stopped in time.

Afraid you lost me with all the adolescent absolutism bs, but i can agree to this

Yes, in the case of Bitcoin and Satoshi, he wanted to come to the valid function of immutable past, and of the acceptance rules of a currency (the seigniorage mechanism and the transaction mechanism) and of the *irreversibility of a transaction*.   The consensus was "a past everyone agrees on", but this was only a TOOL to obtain the "true past with the true rules".  The idea being that amongst a lot of adversaries, there would not be ever a way to implement a DEVIATING consensus from the truth (that is, the real past, and the original rules) because that advantage would always be only to a minority that would not be able to impose their deviant rules to their advantage.  The deviation from those original rules would be a breakdown of the system (even if there was "consensus"), called a 51% attack.

If there would have been 5000 DAO, then if one had been hacked, nobody would have forked over it, because the "immutability" proposition would be perceived much more profitable than the victims of one single DAO hack.  That's why bitcoin didn't fork, not even over MtGox.

The problem was that ETH was essentially a one-DAO system, so in the end you had DAO holders + ETH holders that saw the sole value of ETH in the DAO, versus the hacker, and the first community could easily form a 51% majority to do a 51% attack, which is what happened.

Other people see "consensus" as in "democracy".  But that is not the solution to the Byzantine Generals's problem.  That is like the generals not agreeing on a time of attack, but agreeing to go and drink a beer, after all.

Ethereum needed adoption from corporate CTOs (much like Ripple does)...
Small startups have yet to deliver anything useful on Ethereum after 2 years... so that won't cut it. Too bad.

After the multiple debacles of he previous 2 months CTOs will review their options...
Because that cool game of "core wars" that gets Ethereum fetishists hard...
Is viewed as avoid-these-clowns-at-all costs by adults running billion $$$ businesses.

It's got nothing to do with crypto religion... it's all about control and running a stable business.

Yeah gud wholesome morals like bankrolling a thief.

Au contraire, the forking off of VitalikCoin and its hubris/moral hazard/centralization/dictatorship has *SAVED* the dream of ethereum.

With the single-point-of-failure voluntarily self-exiled to the BailoutEdition, ETC may spread its wings unencumbered by the nasty legacy of the DAO's ignoble TARP.

ETC is ready for prime time, now that it has demonstrated true decentralization and antifragility in the face of adversity.

Honestly, i don't care. But I never ceased to be amazed at how quickly mankind (collectively) gives up its compassion and humanity in its quest for ideological purity.

Valid ?

~LOL~