The Market is not wrong, Vitalik Buterin is. - page 4.

toknormal

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1188

Quote from: Minecache on July 27, 2016, 06:56:52 PM

Yes if someone steals from you that person who stole from you is a thief whether or not you report it to the authorities.

But stealing the authenticity of an asset from its thousands of holders does not a crime remedy.

Shame the ETH devs hadn't studied history.

iamnotback

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 265

Quote from: mining1 on July 27, 2016, 05:21:43 PM

I still don't believe people believe the thief is right.

Correct and the thief is Vitalik.

The DAO beneficiary followed the rules of the contract exactly. He did not break any rules.

You thieves want to break the rules because you decided AFTER THE FACT that you didn't like the rules you had agreed to.

Spoetnik

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1011

FUD Philanthropist™

Quote from: vincentvincent on July 27, 2016, 04:15:26 PM

Totally agree with OP. Too many bankers are involved in ETH, they think that it is still possible to change history for their own good like they used to.

Whether the DAO attacker is a thief or not is a NON issue in this matter. The code is the law and that is what the attacker used. Take your loss and get over it.

Exactly.. they love to warp the truth !

The DAO attacker simply exploited the system as it is..
He did not "Hack" into the system and "steal" anything.
He simply exploited the platform for financial gain by playing within the rules set out for the system.
And this my profiteer friends is EXACTLY what your whole entire Crypto Scene "Profit Game" is all about !

All of you out there are using ANY means you can think of to get an advantage to profit from this stuff.
You are simply jealous that the guy found such a good way he managed to make more than you !

There was nothing hacked nor anything stolen.. you ETH Fork supporters are simply jealous.
You wish you thought of it and did it first

You fork fans are full of shit big time !
Your making it sound like the guy put on a ski mask and broke the lock on the bank vault.
He simply exploited the system fairly just like the hacker did when he exploited Cryptsy's Points market..
And yeah Cryptsy also swiftly did a role back on it too.

This rollback / fork type shit simply erodes the credibility & integrity of Crypto.
Yeah the losses in a DAO incident can be huge but it's the price you pay when doing the right thing.

You fork fans are like guys playing a board game and when someone playing the game by the rules wins big you want to flip the board over & start all over again.

Maybe taking a big loss is a painful lesson but it's the risk we take playing the game.
Want to corrupt the game ? People simply won't play anymore !

billotronic

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1000

Crackpot Idealist

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:56:18 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:48:39 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:45:07 PM

Next is thief
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+steal&ie=&oe=#q=define+thief
Happy reading...

"a person who steals another person's property, especially by stealth and without using force or threat of violence."

Ok, as he didn't steal, he's not a thief. He didn't steal, as per all the definitions you gave above, as I showed you, because in order to steal, you have to assign yourself unlawfully/wrongly other people's property, and that didn't happen. He assigned himself lawfully and hence rightly that property, because rightful and legal is defined by the code, and he asked the code, and the code gave it to him.

So now that we all agree that it wasn't theft, and that he wasn't a thief, were do we stand ?

Nice words. Very intelligent. I'm just glad you read what was contained in those links. The man is a stone cold thief. Defend him if you want to. I never will. I don't defend thieves.

A thief is a thief is a thief

I will agree he/she/it is a thief if you admit you are stupid and know nothing about what you are defending. I think we could all agree on those terms.

Munti

hero member

Activity: 661

Merit: 504

Quote from: Minecache on July 27, 2016, 06:56:52 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 06:40:50 PM

Quote from: Minecache on July 27, 2016, 06:34:02 PM

Incorrect. Apparently the law is also the law. I remember him threatening legal action if he was denied his ill gotten coins. Well then where is he? Where is his legal challenge? His legal authority? Oh yes he's not here and he has none. All the characteristics of a thief. Argued you sheeple blindly follow as you hide behind immutability. Pathetic.

So if a victim of theft doesn't go to court with all the hassle, then he must be a thief ?

He probably won't attempt any legal action, because for human law, "the code is the law" is probably not a human legal concept in itself. In which case the DAO guys where scammers because that's what they sold.

But that doesn't change the fact that IN THE FRAME OF A SMART CONTRACT where the code IS the law, the full law, and the only law, he didn't steal anything, but obtained perfectly legally his coins.

Yes if someone steals from you that person who stole from you is a thief whether or not you report it to the authorities.

And you can quit fudding already. The only reason he's not sought legal action is because he knows that he stole and that he's a thief. Otherwise he must be a very rich thief not to seek back his rightful, in your immature eyes, $60,000,000.

I get it. You define him as a thief. Now please tell us how you define a community that says the code is not the law after all when they don't like the outcome of the law.

Minecache

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1024

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 06:40:50 PM

Quote from: Minecache on July 27, 2016, 06:34:02 PM

Incorrect. Apparently the law is also the law. I remember him threatening legal action if he was denied his ill gotten coins. Well then where is he? Where is his legal challenge? His legal authority? Oh yes he's not here and he has none. All the characteristics of a thief. Argued you sheeple blindly follow as you hide behind immutability. Pathetic.

So if a victim of theft doesn't go to court with all the hassle, then he must be a thief ?

He probably won't attempt any legal action, because for human law, "the code is the law" is probably not a human legal concept in itself. In which case the DAO guys where scammers because that's what they sold.

But that doesn't change the fact that IN THE FRAME OF A SMART CONTRACT where the code IS the law, the full law, and the only law, he didn't steal anything, but obtained perfectly legally his coins.

Yes if someone steals from you that person who stole from you is a thief whether or not you report it to the authorities.

And you can quit fudding already. The only reason he's not sought legal action is because he knows that he stole and that he's a thief. Otherwise he must be a very rich thief not to seek back his rightful, in your immature eyes, $60,000,000.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: Minecache on July 27, 2016, 06:34:02 PM

Incorrect. Apparently the law is also the law. I remember him threatening legal action if he was denied his ill gotten coins. Well then where is he? Where is his legal challenge? His legal authority? Oh yes he's not here and he has none. All the characteristics of a thief. Argued you sheeple blindly follow as you hide behind immutability. Pathetic.

So if a victim of theft doesn't go to court with all the hassle, then he must be a thief ?

He probably won't attempt any legal action, because for human law, "the code is the law" is probably not a human legal concept in itself. In which case the DAO guys where scammers because that's what they sold.

But that doesn't change the fact that IN THE FRAME OF A SMART CONTRACT where the code IS the law, the full law, and the only law, he didn't steal anything, but obtained perfectly legally his coins.

Minecache

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1024

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 06:28:42 PM

Quote from: Minecache on July 27, 2016, 06:17:09 PM

If he's not a thief then where is he? Where is his legal representatives to his rightful DAO that he was denied?

Because the only law was the code, which was running on a block chain that has been forked. In smart contracts, there are no "legal representatives" or "judges" or anything. There's just the code, and the substrate that is supposed to run that code in an unaltered and unstoppable way. If you kill the substrate on which the code is running, then you are screwing the engagement you had with all participants. That failure in keeping your engagements can of course be a bonus to those that make a profit from that, but at least we know now that the substrate providers weren't honest when they made their engagement of unaltered and unstoppable, which was the condition for running smart contracts in the first place.

That a honest man playing by the rules was screwed, is bad enough. That you call him a thief, while he's not the one that didn't keep his engagements, is highly immoral.

Incorrect. Apparently the law is also the law. I remember him threatening legal action if he was denied his ill gotten coins. Well then where is he? Where is his legal challenge? His legal authority? Oh yes he's not here and he has none. All the characteristics of a thief. Argued you sheeple blindly follow as you hide behind immutability. Pathetic.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: Minecache on July 27, 2016, 06:17:09 PM

If he's not a thief then where is he? Where is his legal representatives to his rightful DAO that he was denied?

Because the only law was the code, which was running on a block chain that has been forked. In smart contracts, there are no "legal representatives" or "judges" or anything. There's just the code, and the substrate that is supposed to run that code in an unaltered and unstoppable way. If you kill the substrate on which the code is running, then you are screwing the engagement you had with all participants. That failure in keeping your engagements can of course be a bonus to those that make a profit from that, but at least we know now that the substrate providers weren't honest when they made their engagement of unaltered and unstoppable, which was the condition for running smart contracts in the first place.

That a honest man playing by the rules was screwed, is bad enough. That you call him a thief, while he's not the one that didn't keep his engagements, is highly immoral.

DrkLvr_

hero member

Activity: 724

Merit: 500

AFAIK Vitalik wasn't especially pro-fork. I hate ETH as much as the next guy, but this thread is some BS

Time to take a closer look at the REAL dirtbags involved behind the scenes.. so which of the Devs/Foundation members had the most to lose in the DAO?

Minecache

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1024

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:48:39 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:45:07 PM

Next is thief
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+steal&ie=&oe=#q=define+thief
Happy reading...

"a person who steals another person's property, especially by stealth and without using force or threat of violence."

Ok, as he didn't steal, he's not a thief. He didn't steal, as per all the definitions you gave above, as I showed you, because in order to steal, you have to assign yourself unlawfully/wrongly other people's property, and that didn't happen. He assigned himself lawfully and hence rightly that property, because rightful and legal is defined by the code, and he asked the code, and the code gave it to him.

So now that we all agree that it wasn't theft, and that he wasn't a thief, were do we stand ?

If he's not a thief then where is he? Where is his legal representatives to his rightful DAO that he was denied? Why doesn't he reveal himself? I'll tell you why, because he knows himself as nothing more than a disgusting filthy thief. He knows he stole. And he knows he has no legal recourse to take. But he'll be laughing his face off at the tards of your ilk who support him.

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: Minecache on July 27, 2016, 06:10:34 PM

Well said. The jumped up intellectually challenged tards on this site that think hiding daylight theft of millions behind immutability is a joke. All the while desperately trying to wrap their FUD up in a coating of morality. The attacker and these sheep that try to justify him are putting back crypto currencies investment back to the dark ages. I actually despair that these cretins can call themselves human. To me they are Untermensch.

I see that your arguments are just as watertight as your buddy's...

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:56:18 PM

Nice words. Very intelligent. I'm just glad you read what was contained in those links. The man is a stone cold thief. Defend him if you want to. I never will. I don't defend thieves.

A thief is a thief is a thief

Well, I haven't seen any argument as to why he was a thief. The arguments you gave all indicated he wasn't, under the assumption that the code was the law, and determined hence what was lawful/right and illegal/wrong.

Is your next assumption now that the code wasn't, after all, the law ?

Minecache

legendary

Activity: 2184

Merit: 1024

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 03:46:32 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 03:06:00 PM

Quote from: shyliar on July 27, 2016, 12:15:28 PM

Frankly I think the pro-fork people need to watch Inside Job and the Big Short to understand anti-fork people. Additionally, it might help them to look at other historical economic disasters such as the one created (on purpose) in the late 70s and early 80s to slap down working people.

While I don't disagree with their viewpoint that the DAO hack was theft (no matter the situation taking something that belongs to someone else is) they seem to completely not understand evil and corruption in a political or economic system. Their philosophy has unfortunately demonstrated a complete disrespect for the cryptocurrency scene, the technology and what it wants to achieve. ETH is no different than fiat as a result.

In what way is playing by the rules, even if you didn't understand them that way, "taking something that belongs to someone else" ?
The "DAO hacker event" is somewhat similar to you playing chess against someone else, and suddenly that guy applies castling and you are check mate. You had never heard of castling and you call him a cheater. However, you had subscribed to the official chess rules, and castling IS part of the chess rules even if you didn't hear of it.

However, in what way is CHANGING the rules, and undoing your castling, not cheating ? Now, who were the thieves here ? The DAO hacker who played by the DAO rules (using a feature nobody had thought about, using infinite recursion and a funny property of Solidity - castling) or the forkers who decided that, against everything that was announced "the code is the law", changed the rules, and undid the castling by the hacker-player ?

WHO took property from someone else ?

Absolute rubbish. A thief is a thief is a thief. It's the equivalent of hacking into a bank terminal via the web, transferring a shedload of money to your own offshore account and then claiming that because the bank has a security department and security policy posted online, and you've been able to breach it, that you're somehow now the rightful owner. It's only because crypto is under the radar right now that this joker isn't sitting in a cell somewhere being mocked by local police.

Pseudo-intellectuals on this site think they're showing brainpower by backing a thief. Idiots who want to raise their profile but have little brain power join them (like unknowing sheep) in declaring this thief/hacker a genius who legitimately found a flaw. For every genius crypto hacker from a higher level you bet me, I'll raise you two Nigerian identity theft scammers and four Russian NFC card crackers.

Absolute bullshit. If I ever meet this hacker goat I'll tell him to his fat pimpled face that he's a thief and I'm one individual who's not convinced by him.

A thief is a thief is a thief

Roll Eyes

Well said. The jumped up intellectually challenged tards on this site that think hiding daylight theft of millions behind immutability is a joke. All the while desperately trying to wrap their FUD up in a coating of morality. The attacker and these sheep that try to justify him are putting back crypto currencies investment back to the dark ages. I actually despair that these cretins can call themselves human. To me they are Untermensch.

StinkyLover

sr. member

Activity: 454

Merit: 250

This industry is pure fiction

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:48:39 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:45:07 PM

Next is thief
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+steal&ie=&oe=#q=define+thief
Happy reading...

"a person who steals another person's property, especially by stealth and without using force or threat of violence."

Ok, as he didn't steal, he's not a thief. He didn't steal, as per all the definitions you gave above, as I showed you, because in order to steal, you have to assign yourself unlawfully/wrongly other people's property, and that didn't happen. He assigned himself lawfully and hence rightly that property, because rightful and legal is defined by the code, and he asked the code, and the code gave it to him.

So now that we all agree that it wasn't theft, and that he wasn't a thief, were do we stand ?

Nice words. Very intelligent. I'm just glad you read what was contained in those links. The man is a stone cold thief. Defend him if you want to. I never will. I don't defend thieves.

A thief is a thief is a thief

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:45:07 PM

Next is thief
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+steal&ie=&oe=#q=define+thief
Happy reading...

"a person who steals another person's property, especially by stealth and without using force or threat of violence."

Ok, as he didn't steal, he's not a thief. He didn't steal, as per all the definitions you gave above, as I showed you, because in order to steal, you have to assign yourself unlawfully/wrongly other people's property, and that didn't happen. He assigned himself lawfully and hence rightly that property, because rightful and legal is defined by the code, and he asked the code, and the code gave it to him.

So now that we all agree that it wasn't theft, and that he wasn't a thief, were do we stand ?

StinkyLover

sr. member

Activity: 454

Merit: 250

This industry is pure fiction

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:40:21 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:32:38 PM

Is that all you saw?...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

I'm getting tired of this game, but OK:

: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal

: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission

: to wrongly take and use (another person's idea, words, etc.)

I will take it that right/wrong is the same as legal/illegal in the frame of a smart contract because in that frame there's no other basis of what's right and wrong. So all right/wrong and legal/illegal is based on the code, the full code, and nothing but the code - that's the fundamental principle of a smart contract.

Now: to take something that does not belong to you in a way that is against the code: nope, it wasn't against the code, and the code said it was his now.

to take something that you are not supposed to have without asking for permission: the code said that he was supposed to have it. Asking the code for permission is executing the code and see what it tells you.

to wrongly take and use: the code said it was right, so it wasn't wrong, as the code is the sole judge of right and wrong.

Next ?

Next is thief
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+steal&ie=&oe=#q=define+thief
Happy reading...

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:32:38 PM

Is that all you saw?...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

I'm getting tired of this game, but OK:

: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal

: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission

: to wrongly take and use (another person's idea, words, etc.)

I will take it that right/wrong is the same as legal/illegal in the frame of a smart contract because in that frame there's no other basis of what's right and wrong. So all right/wrong and legal/illegal is based on the code, the full code, and nothing but the code - that's the fundamental principle of a smart contract.

Now: to take something that does not belong to you in a way that is against the code: nope, it wasn't against the code, and the code said it was his now.

to take something that you are not supposed to have without asking for permission: the code said that he was supposed to have it. Asking the code for permission is executing the code and see what it tells you.

to wrongly take and use: the code said it was right, so it wasn't wrong, as the code is the sole judge of right and wrong.

Next ?

StinkyLover

sr. member

Activity: 454

Merit: 250

This industry is pure fiction

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:29:56 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:26:57 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:24:51 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:21:57 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:20:35 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:16:59 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:12:53 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 04:50:30 PM

For all you 'intelligent' people out there, define 'steal' for me.

UNLAWFULLY taking away other people's property without their consent.

And now you show yourself for who you are. That is only HALF of the definition. Are you going to put the whole definition or do you want me to do it??

Be my guest, because to me, stealing is exactly that: unlawfully taking away other people's property without their consent. So I'm curious.

Read
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+steal&ie=&oe=

Yeah:

"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"

So if you HAVE the legal right, it is not stealing, right ! Given that the guy HAD the legal right (the code was the law), it was not stealing.

There's a whole page of definitions there. Read...

No, the only other one is this:

"move somewhere quietly or surreptitiously" but I suppose that was not what you meant...

Is that all you saw?...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

dinofelis

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 629

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:26:57 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:24:51 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:21:57 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:20:35 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 05:16:59 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on July 27, 2016, 05:12:53 PM

Quote from: StinkyLover on July 27, 2016, 04:50:30 PM

For all you 'intelligent' people out there, define 'steal' for me.

UNLAWFULLY taking away other people's property without their consent.

And now you show yourself for who you are. That is only HALF of the definition. Are you going to put the whole definition or do you want me to do it??

Be my guest, because to me, stealing is exactly that: unlawfully taking away other people's property without their consent. So I'm curious.

Read
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+steal&ie=&oe=

Yeah:

"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"

So if you HAVE the legal right, it is not stealing, right ! Given that the guy HAD the legal right (the code was the law), it was not stealing.

There's a whole page of definitions there. Read...

No, the only other one is this:

"move somewhere quietly or surreptitiously" but I suppose that was not what you meant...

Topic: The Market is not wrong, Vitalik Buterin is. - page 4. (Read 4334 times)