Pages:
Author

Topic: There was no DAO hack - page 2. (Read 11602 times)

hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
Litecoin Association Director
June 26, 2016, 07:40:43 PM
The Ethereum has hard forked several times before. They were all successful. I also voted for the fork to freeze the stolen funds.
So you're stating that this fork was be justified due to previous forks even though they aren't even remotely similar? By voting for this fork you are indirectly stating that you're only interested in greed, not in the principles of cryptocurrencies. ETH, the soon to be: centralized, non-censorship resistant, mutable and government friendly blockchain featuring bailouts.

The majority of the miners think there is a hack are colluding to attack the network and blacklist transactions.
i.e. There is now a DAO hack in progress
I was just about to post practically the same thing. This is them abandoning all the principles of ETH, and blacklisting coins. ETH is the Fed of the cryptocurrency space?


Thanks Lauda, my thoughts exactly.

Greed will consume this community.
legendary
Activity: 3780
Merit: 4842
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
June 26, 2016, 07:33:33 PM
He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join.

IC, thx for clarifying that for me.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
June 26, 2016, 07:07:07 PM
Only systems that are structurally incompatible with fraud don't suffer from the overhang of potential fraud.

This is indeed true. Unfortunately Monero has periodic forks and thus its mining is not structurally incompatible with protocol fucked by the consensus or even a very powerful hashrate adversary.

So to argue that ring sigs are structurally incompatible with blacklisting is not absolutely true, for as long as mining could change the protocol and force every txn to reveal its viewkey.


First of all I thought that the forks were only during beta and second how can you identify someones coins to blacklist them on a fork if they don't share them with you? And arguing that anything is not what it's intended to be because it can be hardforked is really a logic fail. That is like saying gravity is not reliable because one day the world will spiral into the sun.

He was suggesting a fork that would block some or all transactions unless they have ID attached, a form of whitelisting. It is the method of 51% attacking the coin to hold it hostage to demand design changes. It might work, but waiting out the attacker is another option. The more of a backlog of fee-paying transactions develop that the attacker won't process, the more incentive there is for other miners to join.
legendary
Activity: 3780
Merit: 4842
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
June 26, 2016, 06:40:32 PM
Only systems that are structurally incompatible with fraud don't suffer from the overhang of potential fraud.

This is indeed true. Unfortunately Monero has periodic forks and thus its mining is not structurally incompatible with protocol fucked by the consensus or even a very powerful hashrate adversary.

So to argue that ring sigs are structurally incompatible with blacklisting is not absolutely true, for as long as mining could change the protocol and force every txn to reveal its viewkey.


First of all I thought that the forks were only during beta and second how can you identify someones coins to blacklist them on a fork if they don't share them with you? And arguing that anything is not what it's intended to be because it can be hardforked is really a logic fail. That is like saying gravity is not reliable because one day the world will spiral into the sun.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
June 26, 2016, 07:48:51 AM
Only systems that are structurally incompatible with fraud don't suffer from the overhang of potential fraud.

This is indeed true. Unfortunately Monero has periodic forks and thus its mining is not structurally incompatible with protocol fucked by the consensus or even a very powerful hashrate adversary.

So to argue that ring sigs are structurally incompatible with blacklisting is not absolutely true, for as long as mining could change the protocol and force every txn to reveal its viewkey.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
June 26, 2016, 05:10:44 AM


It apprears the problem is the DAO/ETH tokens aren't 100% fungible.  Maybe use Monero for the value/token transfer layer(s), once it has multisig and colored coins?

Or VB can add the Monero-style ring signatures he mentioned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/

Until then, the systems suffer from the overhead of possible fraud and may again cut themselves on your razor.


I had several thousand Monero from the early day in 2014. I did not touch them since after 2 years, there is not much applications of Monero.

Somewhat off topic, but you are indeed using one of the applications of Monero: Secure and private store of value.
hero member
Activity: 1582
Merit: 514
June 26, 2016, 05:06:31 AM


It apprears the problem is the DAO/ETH tokens aren't 100% fungible.  Maybe use Monero for the value/token transfer layer(s), once it has multisig and colored coins?

Or VB can add the Monero-style ring signatures he mentioned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/

Until then, the systems suffer from the overhead of possible fraud and may again cut themselves on your razor.


I had several thousand Monero from the early day in 2014. I did not touch them since after 2 years, there is not much applications of Monero.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
June 26, 2016, 04:37:27 AM
The majority of the miners think there is a hack are colluding to attack the network and blacklist transactions.

i.e. There is now a DAO hack in progress


I hope this blacklisting hack is stopped by the "attacker."

He's a better digital contract lawyer than Team Blacklist.   Cheesy

If counterprotocol blacklisting is possible, I don't see DAO and ETH working until that bug is fixed.

It apprears the problem is the DAO/ETH tokens aren't 100% fungible.  Maybe use Monero for the value/token transfer layer(s), once it has multisig and colored coins?

Or VB can add the Monero-style ring signatures he mentioned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/

Until then, the systems suffer from the overhead of possible fraud and may again cut themselves on your razor.

Only systems that are structurally incompatible with fraud don't suffer from the overhang of potential fraud.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
June 26, 2016, 04:13:15 AM
The Ethereum has hard forked several times before. They were all successful. I also voted for the fork to freeze the stolen funds.
So you're stating that this fork was be justified due to previous forks even though they aren't even remotely similar? By voting for this fork you are indirectly stating that you're only interested in greed, not in the principles of cryptocurrencies. ETH, the soon to be: centralized, non-censorship resistant, mutable and government friendly blockchain featuring bailouts.

The majority of the miners think there is a hack are colluding to attack the network and blacklist transactions.
i.e. There is now a DAO hack in progress
I was just about to post practically the same thing. This is them abandoning all the principles of ETH, and blacklisting coins. ETH is the Fed of the cryptocurrency space?
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
June 26, 2016, 04:01:42 AM
The majority of the miners think there is a hack are colluding to attack the network and blacklist transactions.

i.e. There is now a DAO hack in progress
member
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
June 26, 2016, 03:28:54 AM
The majority of the miners think there is a hack. They will support the freezing of the "stolen" funds, they have voted with their hashing.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
June 23, 2016, 01:16:05 AM
As far as I can tell he is saying there is a feature of EVM that makes it easier to write dangerous contracts. There is still no claim that the EVM did not execute the contract as it was written and according to the specification.

Thanks!   Smiley


Edit:  Does anyone else see more to all this?

That feature is the flaw of Turing-complete scripting, which myself (and numerous others) personally told the founders of Ethereum would lead to the clusterfuck they have now:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15278364
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15284692
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15306066

So the bug is in Ethereum, as explained in layman's terms here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/power-of-unstoppable-organizations-to-self-destruct-1523492

To fix the bug, they have to fix each instance of failure with a fork. This may be seen as a feature by those who are alleged to be behind this alleged conspiracy.

This is an inexorable bug, or until death do us part.
I thought you were in the camp that there was no actual hack and this was really just a shakeout of eth holders to get into btc and have btc dump? (thats what I have been saying is gonna happen for weeks anyways) now your saying its dead in the water or what? I see it as coming back and stronger than ever (eth)
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
June 22, 2016, 06:22:06 PM
As far as I can tell he is saying there is a feature of EVM that makes it easier to write dangerous contracts. There is still no claim that the EVM did not execute the contract as it was written and according to the specification.

Thanks!   Smiley


Edit:  Does anyone else see more to all this?

That feature is the flaw of Turing-complete scripting, which myself (and numerous others) personally told the founders of Ethereum would lead to the clusterfuck they have now:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15278364
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15284692
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15306066

So the bug is in Ethereum, as explained in layman's terms here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/power-of-unstoppable-organizations-to-self-destruct-1523492

To fix the bug, they have to fix each instance of failure with a fork. This may be seen as a feature by those who are alleged to be behind this alleged conspiracy.

This is an inexorable bug, or until death do us part.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
June 20, 2016, 06:41:50 AM
(Unless someone can point to a bug in the EVM that executed the code improperly, but I haven't seen any such claim.)

http://pdaian.com/blog/chasing-the-dao-attackers-wake/

Edit:  Solidity-related, but changes the whole picture.

I'll be daaamned, Simon de la Rouviere claims that the flaw *is* in the EVM...  interesting.  Please note that he is replying to the author.

https://twitter.com/simondlr/status/744793288167694336


Thoughts, smooth?   (or whoever is knowledgeable enough)

As far as I can tell he is saying there is a feature of EVM that makes it easier to write dangerous contracts. There is still no claim that the EVM did not execute the contract as it was written and according to the specification.


full member
Activity: 236
Merit: 100
June 20, 2016, 06:30:34 AM
don't know why but I sold them right before it went haywire. feels good to be lucky

I think that is just good luck. It is time to decide when to buy back in. It depends on if the Etheruem will survive the crisis.
hero member
Activity: 1540
Merit: 500
June 20, 2016, 03:55:22 AM
don't know why but I sold them right before it went haywire. feels good to be lucky
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1048
June 20, 2016, 03:51:20 AM
Maybe it is just all PR

The craziest conspiracy theory is the whales did this on purpose not just to profit by shorting and repurchasing cheaper, but also to create a massive amount of promotion for The DAO.

The any promotion is good promotion school of marketing.

$50 ETH here we come? (note it could also crash to $1 so please don't think I am offering any advice)

Normally it is best to buy when there is "blood in the streets". Ethereum isn't likely dead. So far, CC is a delusion of decentralization any way.

The ETH chart is looking very similar to BTC's 2013/14 crash.

Note after an extended deadcat bounce, then BTC proceeded to make lower lows and eventually found bottom @150ish.

Give this man a cookie. The enthusiast are still convinced this is the " bottom", we will certainly see Grin
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
June 20, 2016, 03:01:14 AM
I'm not defending Eth as I don't have any. Cheesy

However, I think you're mistaken that it will destroy Eth if they forked. You are all proposing that they will no longer be trusted.

I think there is a chance that it might actually increase TRUST in their system as there will be a leadership that will protect the Ethereum masses from hackers and other deviants. In today's world, there is a lot of talk about Socialism and it seems that people like their leaders to take care of them.

I think there could be a greater chance that Ethereum collapses without an intervention. So since they are already headed that way, they might as well do what they can to prevent that.

The Ethereum has hard forked several times before. They were all successful. I also voted for the fork to freeze the stolen funds.
sr. member
Activity: 332
Merit: 250
June 20, 2016, 01:32:26 AM
Personal responsiblity and the Ponzi scam.
https://archive.is/BbeY3#selection-557.0-669.62
Quote
Prosperity is in general the result of the working of free markets. The one caveat to this observation is that market participants have to be responsible. It doesn't matter so much if they are intelligent or not, it doesn't really matter if they're good christians or devout muslims or anything else, but they do have to be responsible.

When some people behave irresponsibly the result is that they lose their money, which flows, albeit indirectly and circumvolutedly but nevertheless unerringly, to more responsible participants.

When a small majority* of participants behave irresponsibly however the net result is not just pain to their own fortunes, but pain spread across the board. All of a sudden you have to be very intelligent, and very experienced, and very well informed to manage to keep your money safe, and often enough even that's not going to suffice.

Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot has the unpleasant effect of creating a high powered idiot. He can now wreak havoc on the exchange rate, which increases volatility and on the long term hurts everyone involved in bitcoins, because volatility is, much like inflation, an indirect tax on users.

Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot has the unpleasant effect of creating half a million bitcoins' worth of valueless receipts, which are pretty much indistinguishable to the naked eye from valid receipts. Thus, if you pay on anyone's credit you are basing your judgment not on actual fact, but on an unknown and pretty much unknowable mixture of fact and hogwash.

Giving over half a million bitcoins to a random idiot is a bad idea. There are people whose personal responsibility in this matter is greater than that of most everyone else, people who have in effect acted as lieutenants for the random idiot. This thread is a convenient spot for all of them to avoid the indignity of being called out, and instead freely and willingly admit their mistake, and by admitting it learn from it. Specifically, learn that they aren't nearly as qualified as they thought to play the "banker", and by this make one step towards maybe one day actually being bankers.

The wanna-be bankers are not alone in their hour of humiliation. There are plenty of others who spend their entire day spouting nonsense on this forum, either under the guise of being "journalists" for some monthly magazine that does a couple issues a year or just as random internet experts in everything. Obviously they won't be learning anything on this opportunity as they haven't learned anything on any of the previous ones in their lives. That's after all fine, what would a mining town be without the drunks and general scum?

Aside from these practical considerations, there are some more general points to be taken home by anybody who wants to be a little smarter today than last month, and possibly have a little better shot at actually making money than before.

1. Learn the pecking order. All opinions are not equal. Some people are to be respected. Learn who. Some people are irrelevant and easily ignored. Learn who. More importantly than the who, learn why. Is it just because "everyone else seems to think so"? That's no good, forget it. Is it because they were right when everyone else was wrong? That's perfect, especially if it occurs with any sort of consistency.

2. Business means something very specific. Only the permanently poor imagine business = "anything to do with money". There's no business without a business plan. If something purports to be a business but "it can't" or it just won't share its business plan it is not a business. This means you can't be investing in it. Sure, you can throw money at anything you wish, as for instance the toilet bowl, Ponzi scams or scantily clad girls. However, in order to invest you absolutely need a business first.

3. Learn how to deal with your own mental limitations. If you think you don't have any you find yourself most likely in the situation described here:

Quote
If one skims through the psychological literature, one will find some evidence that the incompetent are less able than their more skilled peers to gauge their own level of competence. For example, Fagot and O'Brien (1994) found that socially incompetent boys were largely unaware of their lack of social graces (see Bem & Lord, 1979 , for a similar result involving college students). Mediocre students are less accurate than other students at evaluating their course performance ( Moreland, Miller, & Laucka, 1981 ). Unskilled readers are less able to assess their text comprehension than are more skilled readers ( Maki, Jonas, & Kallod, 1994 ). Students doing poorly on tests less accurately predict which questions they will get right than do students doing well ( Shaughnessy, 1979 ; Sinkavich, 1995 ). Drivers involved in accidents or flunking a driving exam predict their performance on a reaction test less accurately than do more accomplished and experienced drivers ( Kunkel, 1971 ).

In short: if you're not aware that there's anything wrong with your judgment of "business", "finance", "investing", "money" and so forth that is almost certainly due to the fact that you are very weak on all of these topics, likely significantly below average. You should spend a good deal of time reading and a greater deal of time testing things out methodically before you promote yourself mentally to "average", or even "crummy". This means years. Years.

The advantage of BTC is that it's a very cheap and very clean way to learn about finance. The disadvantage (if we can call it that) is that it's much akin to falling in love: very, very, very hard on the knees. Vitriolic to the ego.

4. Step outside of your ideology. You might have been brought up in a very repressive social milieu in which some particular ideological slant was drilled into you. This is working to your disadvantage, get rid of it. Are you sticking up for your friends because they're your friends rather than because they have a point? Great for facebook, horrible for BTC. You will lose money. Are you following the crowd like a welfare state lemming? Great for the white collar slave, horrible for BTC. You will lose money. Do you think form is above content and as such it's okay to invade foreign countries and slaughter civilians just as long as nobody says shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker or tits on TV? Great for being an American, horrible for the free world. You will lose money.

5. Re-read this entire post. It probably didn't fully sink in on the first pass. Seriously. Alternatively it is always easier to just not like me. You will lose money.

---------
* This term of... art, let's say, will go down in BTC history.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
June 20, 2016, 12:25:10 AM
Quote
The ability to reverse exploits that violate the intent and good faith actions of thousands of people will promote mainstream adoption - not hinder it.

Just make a federated currency with a large group of arbiters administering it. No need for all this fancy stuff. No need for code, just use English for contracts.

That might sound snarky or sarcastic, but it's not meant to be. What you're proposing is just fundamentally different than what cryptocurrency was created for and how it's been used thus far. And that's not necessarily a bad thing if that's what people want. If people want what you propose then there's no need for a lot of this technological overhead that we deal with here. A system based on decentralized social governance and subjectivity could be quite interesting, but it's certainly not what Ethereum was meant to be as far as I know.


Andrew Vegetabile, Director of the Litecoin Association, came out against a fork of Ethereum/The DAO, Decrying interference with The DAO by outside crypto developers in an open letter to  “Vitalik Buterin, The DAO, future smart contract developers, and the throngs of individuals within the crypto ecosystem” today.

To Vitalik Buterin, fellow Ethereum developers (to include the DAO developers) and the Ethereum
Foundation:

A smart contract was set up, with the indications that the “code” was the contract itself. It was not only
a ridiculous idea to state this, but shows your shortcomings as leaders within the community without
added language.

Whomever you have as your advisors have failed not only you, but the Ethereum community as a whole.

My word of advice to all of you is to do absolutely nothing at all.

Never in the history of crypto for as far as I can remember has a developer been intimately involved with
a third party application in attempting to resolve said applications issues.

The best analogy that I can think of at this point is if there was a bug in counterparty code and the Bitcoin
core devs got involved.

I am truly sorry that such a large marketcap was involved in the DAO. But by the nature of your system,
it enabled this to happen. Failure to plan accordingly has caused this, and I implore you all to take the
time to review code and consider all ramifications before releasing something in the future. I can’t help
but feel that a mix between trying to non-organically throw Ethereum on a pedestal (through promotion)
along with a desire to dominate entangled with greed has brought us to this point.

Your direct actions will ripple throughout the crypto ecosystem, much broader than Paycoin or MT GOX.
Your involvement thus far is unprecedented, and needs to stop. An analogy to recent events ca
n equate to the banking bailout, where the leaders in charge have stepped in because they have deemed this
application “to big to fail”.

Where does it end? Is there a threshold of Ethereum market cap which implores you to act on the failure of a
third party application? If so, you should state that. Or better yet, force Ethereum to only allow up to a max
of a % of total Ethereum to be utilized in a third party application.

Forking and leadership

As if the involvement of leaders in Ethereum wasn’t enough, the talk of soft and hard forks has been
brought up numerous times under the guise of developing a “fix”, with letting the community decide
how it should proceed.

Here is the problem with that.

Vitalik, you are what Charlie Lee is to Litecoin and Satoshi is to Bitcoin. You are the guidance, leadership,
and vision to Ethereum. Being in such a position of power influences the future of Ethereum, to include
forks. The mere suggestion to fork (short of a major bug in the base software) in your circumstance is
irresponsible. Because you are the lead developer and creator, involvement of any type would again set
a dangerous precedent in uncharted territories. This could have consequences worldwide in legislation,
where I fear your actions today will be debated tomorrow in every congress in democratic states.

A developer’s influence shapes a coin’s community a nd developers worldwide should stand up with me
and announce their disapproval of any action on your part. Developing the code and throwing it into the
wild in order for the community to decide whether to fork or not does not abstain you from the future
of Ethereum due to your influence. Once the word “fork” leaves your lips for others to hear, you have
already swayed the masses to a degree.

The program was set up as a contract, pointing to the code as the final word. Therefore, interpretations
of the code (including bugs) are tantamount to the legalities of the “attacker(s)”. In other words, I
personally believe that the attacker was well within his rights to exploit this contract. And now the
community suffers for a poor implementation of a contract.
Pages:
Jump to: