Topic: The ONLY solution to the ETH/DAO conundrum.. - page 2. (Read 1700 times)

i am worried about that the law of the country could let them fork EHT also? if not, The ETH and Dao will be blowing.

No. leopard2 and I mean that the intent of the DAO contract is roughly not to allow 1 user take all the value out without consensus voting.

And contract law will likely enforce rule for that intent, regardless of an weakness in the code which prevents enforcing that intent.

Edit: but note it is not clear whether the law could enforce it.

Do you mean the intent of the DAO is not to enrich somebody by $50 million by exploiting a hole in the coding?

What is interesting about all this is that all the outcomes will harm Ether:

1) no fork: attacker gets all these Ethers and he can manipulate the price as he wants.

2) with a fork: attacker doesn't get Ether, but confidence on Ethereum drops and the price goes down

And the "economic" solution (through economic incentives):

3) miners accept the attacker's proposal of one million Ether to reject the soft fork:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/miners-to-be-offered-one-million-ether-claims-daos-alleged-attacker-in-ccn-interview/

"Just speculating (because only 1 million to miners is committed), but it makes sense to have a carrot and a stick. Carrot: return some of the eth to the DAO to make righteous people happy. Stick: return some of the eth to miners if they don’t fork to give monetary incentive to not fork. So… the impact and amounts will be a lot smaller than current estimations."

But even if miners accept the attacker's proposal, there's a risk of the price going down, so the miners will be harmed (unless they're already shorting Ether to gain when the price drops).

Agreed.

My father specializes in contract law, graduated top of his class at L.S.U. and was former West Coast Division Attorney for Exxon.

I once was fretting over the fine print of a contract for a $205,000 license I sold for CoolPage in 2001, and he advised to not kill the contract negotiations because he said the court would not enforce a one-sided contract.

So contract law interprets what is the intent, not just what is written in the contract.

Well said. Happened before to BTC and its yet to happen to ETH as ETH itself has not been hacked. ETH haters need to get over themselves and their disgusting irrational diatribes.

If Vitalik wasn't also a Curator and thus implied promoter of the DAO, then I'd agree with you 100%[1]. Let Tual et al, take any legal liability. But I am thinking maybe Vitalik is legally in deep shit also:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vitalik-and-tual-going-to-end-up-in-jail-1517223

But maybe you are correct and the lawyers will advise the Ethereum Foundation to do nothing, so as to not admit they are the ones "securing" the investments of the users so they don't fall under purview of the securities law. But I still think they are going to damned because they didn't make adequate disclosures.

Nobody from their camp warned anything while the DAO was accumulating $168m. I and others were warning that this huge pot of egold ripe for losses (either exchange value losses or outright technological losses) and not making proper disclosure was going to end up a legal clusterfuck. So now here we are.

Bitcoin didn't have a key personality as a promoter.


[1] But that would mean I also agree the majority can do a 51% attack and change the protocol.

no. BTC was forked before because the community agreed. The community would not agree to do this for a government. 

Dont be childish.

Luckily there is Common law. Contracts are all about consent; abusing a gap/hole/vulnerability in a contract is obviously non-consentual and thus illegal. Without such a legal framework, no contract in the world could exist. No contract is perfect.

http://www.coindesk.com/sue-dao-hacker/

Now about this DAO thing, i don`t know much about it but why they take it down I cannot comprehend.

Why not fix the code, create DAO2.0, and move on? BTC has hard forked before, it is a learning experience. Why do people say ETH is dead? ETH was not even hacked.

BTC was hacked before and survived!!

yep true story
if they can fork this shit...then goverment can let them fork things also

Well.. 24 hrs sure is a long time in crypto land.

As Ethereum worries about the 'piddly' 50 mil 'contractually' obtained from the DAO 'Sloppy' Contract (not sure you could call it Smart).. the ETH market cap has dropped 100's of millions of dollars.

This is NOT because ETH is at fault, or has been hacked, or has behaved abnormally.

But the ridiculous response from the ETH Elite that they will now reverse / fork / magic-away the results of a contract run on their network.

..

There is only one response from the ETH Elite that can save Ethereum.

Stay well away.

This is not your fight. ETH can and will be fine. If it had been a bug in the EVM, fork-away. It wasn't, and all you have done with your meddling is destroy any trust anyone had, in running a trust-less system.

What next ? When will you next decide to fork-away the unwanted.. When will a government decide to force you to fork.. How can you even speak in this way about a decentralised system without  admitting that the system is NOT decentralised ?

Will every Smart Contract to come be surrounded by legal jargon saying that - if you do something 'we' didn't think of - it's illegal !? .. there is more at stake here than just DAO.

..

'.. You've already done enough damage... This mission is OVER.. This mission IS OVER!! ..   .. ( Slams table hard with hand ) .. '

Please, walk away. It's that simple.

..

And as for the DAO.. write better code next time.