There was no DAO hack - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

bitboy11

hero member

Activity: 534

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 02:53:16 AM

You're mixing apples and potatoes here. Bitcoin mostly uses soft-forks in order to improve its capabilities. Bitcoin has never used any kind of coin-control or bailouts which is exactly what ETH is going to do. If they do that, ETH is not immutable. Period.

Forking to remove 184 billion Bitcoins is a form of coin control.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 12:13:58 AM

There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it?

How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it?

The way a soft fork works is that miners not only don't include the transactions but won't build on a block that does. You only need 50%+ of the miners to sign on to pull of the attack, not every single miner.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: coinyard on June 19, 2016, 02:44:50 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 02:07:45 AM

In other words: ETH is centralized and susceptible to corruption. Roll Eyes

I thought that is democracy. Like bitcoin, it has forked many times. Every new version coming out, the community decides if it wants to upgrade or not.

You're mixing apples and potatoes here. Bitcoin mostly uses soft-forks in order to improve its capabilities. Bitcoin has never used any kind of coin-control or bailouts which is exactly what ETH is going to do. If they do that, ETH is not immutable. Period.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 02:49:03 AM

In Bitcoin it would take total overwhelming concensus to hard fork a change like this.

Which is obviously never going to happen. Only foolish people would support something like this.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 02:49:03 AM

And if it was soft forked in under the table presumably the value would plummet because of it?

The instinct value of a blockchain lies in the decentralization and immutability. Such a move would negate both, so I expect the answer to that question to be yes.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: coinyard on June 19, 2016, 02:44:50 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 02:07:45 AM

Quote from: anthonydar on June 18, 2016, 03:44:32 PM

If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker.

In other words: ETH is centralized and susceptible to corruption. Roll Eyes

I thought that is democracy. Like bitcoin, it has forked many times. Every new version coming out, the community decides if it wants to upgrade or not.

In Bitcoin it would take total overwhelming concensus to hard fork a change like this. And if it was soft forked in under the table presumably the value would plummet because of it?

coinyard

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

Quote from: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 02:07:45 AM

Quote from: anthonydar on June 18, 2016, 03:44:32 PM

If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker.

In other words: ETH is centralized and susceptible to corruption. Roll Eyes

I thought that is democracy. Like bitcoin, it has forked many times. Every new version coming out, the community decides if it wants to upgrade or not.

coinyard

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

Quote from: USB-S on June 19, 2016, 12:29:02 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 12:13:58 AM

There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it?

How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it?

Miners don't give a fuck. They'll include anything that has high enough bribe for them.

That is right. If the attacker can give back most of the Ethereum to the DAO investors, I will support not to fork.

boomboom

hero member

Activity: 1068

Merit: 523

Quote from: USB-S on June 19, 2016, 01:16:46 AM

choke hazard ...

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: anthonydar on June 18, 2016, 03:44:32 PM

If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker.

In other words: ETH is centralized and susceptible to corruption. Roll Eyes

Quote from: funbitcoins on June 18, 2016, 11:52:52 PM

For most coin holders, serious bugs that can ruin a coin should not be acceptable.

For any single rational person, decentralization and immutability should be the priority in these coins. Without that aspect, you're just left with inefficient systems.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 12:45:14 AM

As it should be. If crypto isn't censorship-resistant it's a toy. What has to happen to block the fork? Anything miners or nodes can do to stop it?

Miners and nodes should be able to stop it (unless it works a bit differently with ETH). As long as they don't update, then everything is fine.

USB-S

sr. member

Activity: 574

Merit: 250

In XEM we trust

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 12:45:14 AM

Quote from: USB-S on June 19, 2016, 12:29:02 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 12:13:58 AM

There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it?

How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it?

Miners don't give a fuck. They'll include anything that has high enough bribe for them.

As it should be. If crypto isn't censorship-resistant it's a toy. What has to happen to block the fork? Anything miners or nodes can do to stop it?

But it is vitaliks centrally planned toy. Vitalik has been and will be the central weak link of the project. If he wishes to break the immutability of the blockchain. Let it be so!

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: USB-S on June 19, 2016, 12:29:02 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 12:13:58 AM

There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it?

How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it?

Miners don't give a fuck. They'll include anything that has high enough bribe for them.

As it should be. If crypto isn't censorship-resistant it's a toy. What has to happen to block the fork? Anything miners or nodes can do to stop it?

darkagentx

full member

Activity: 213

Merit: 100

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on June 18, 2016, 10:58:06 PM

People, take from someone who actually understands exploits.

This was no hack.

This was built into the code and it executed as designed.

It was there from the second it was launched.

It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug.

Don't be stupid.

This was an inside job.

~BCX~

Then those who audited the code should already be aware of the "bug" since in the beginning of the implementation or they are not very good coders not to take notice of it. And this guy made the first move to exploit it before others can.

USB-S

sr. member

Activity: 574

Merit: 250

In XEM we trust

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on June 19, 2016, 12:13:58 AM

There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it?

How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it?

Miners don't give a fuck. They'll include anything that has high enough bribe for them.

meme magic

member

Activity: 115

Merit: 10

Ok so ethereum comes about as an independent platform designed to displace billions of dollars in already existing and functonal financial structure, on which dao, an adc, which is supposed to displace yet again billions of dollars in already existing financial agreements through trusted third parties, who i feel i should remind you are all paying taxes to ... tptb.

And now you want these same tptb to spank some coder that basically made a fool of you after you shit the bed?

did i get that right?

sure there might be an investigation, but i bet nothing comes out of it.

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Quote from: funbitcoins on June 18, 2016, 11:52:52 PM

Quote from: fairglu on June 18, 2016, 11:24:30 PM

Quote from: darkagentx on June 18, 2016, 09:04:15 PM

Quote from: J1mb0 on June 18, 2016, 08:59:06 PM

Quote from: darkagentx on June 18, 2016, 08:36:32 PM

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it

I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork.

A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end.

Code ALWAYS has bugs. Even very trivial innocuous looking code can have bugs. Even heavily peer reviewed code still has bugs. In the end code is written by humans...

More interesting questions are whether this was a bug, a poorly thought out feature or a back door hidden in plain sight.

And beyond: how can smart contracts be made more resilient to bugs ? Smart contracts being code, they will have bugs.

Minor bugs are acceptable.

For most coin holders, serious bugs that can ruin a coin should not be acceptable.

Minor or major is a human judgement, it cannot be automated, and it being a human judgement it is susceptible to bugs... What is judged a minor bug can later prove as a major vulnerability, and a fix to a perceived major flaw led to disaster because the fix was worse than the bug.

There is no easy trick out of this I'm afraid, especially when millions are at risk and everything happens in real time...

boomboom

hero member

Activity: 1068

Merit: 523

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on June 18, 2016, 10:58:06 PM

People, take from someone who actually understands exploits.

This was no hack.

This was built into the code and it executed as designed.

It was there from the second it was launched.

It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug.

Don't be stupid.

This was an inside job.

~BCX~

if it's an inside job someone will squeal eventually, TPTB will put their balls in a vice, so a conspiracy like this will fall over. professional criminals know how to perform in an interview with the cops, The DAO guys are computer nerds, and only one would have to fail under the blow torch

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

There should always be miners selfish enough to mine any transaction. Isn't it?

How do you get every single miner to collude not to do it?

funbitcoins

full member

Activity: 191

Merit: 100

Let's have fun!

Quote from: fairglu on June 18, 2016, 11:24:30 PM

Quote from: darkagentx on June 18, 2016, 09:04:15 PM

Quote from: J1mb0 on June 18, 2016, 08:59:06 PM

Quote from: darkagentx on June 18, 2016, 08:36:32 PM

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it

I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork.

A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end.

Code ALWAYS has bugs. Even very trivial innocuous looking code can have bugs. Even heavily peer reviewed code still has bugs. In the end code is written by humans...

More interesting questions are whether this was a bug, a poorly thought out feature or a back door hidden in plain sight.

And beyond: how can smart contracts be made more resilient to bugs ? Smart contracts being code, they will have bugs.

Minor bugs are acceptable.

For most coin holders, serious bugs that can ruin a coin should not be acceptable.

Spoetnik

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1011

FUD Philanthropist™

Quote from: BitcoinEXpress on June 18, 2016, 10:58:06 PM

People, take from someone who actually understands exploits.

This was no hack.

This was built into the code and it executed as designed.

It was there from the second it was launched.

It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug.

Don't be stupid.

This was an inside job.

~BCX~

I really wonder myself but am not 100% sure on that..
i DO find it suspicious it happened during a period of time
i would view s a lull in the action where it had no place to go but down.
I'd say the ETH & DAO hit it's high point and the "attacker" made his move at a strategic point in time for a reason.

How inside of a job though ?
Like a guy that seen ETH and thought hey maybe i can cook up an ICO money making scheme
then thought oh hell wait a minute i found something here to exploit ?
This hypothetical ETH "user" would have to be pretty damns mart to have spotted the potential.
And did so in a fairly quick time frame.

OR..

I sit more likely the person or person(s) behind it were the main ETH dev's or main DAO dev's ?
(i have no idea how many of those class of coders are out there)
They would know the code better than anyone i would have to guess.

Hmm
Maybe if the attacker is getting chatty with one of us we can simply ASK HIM !
Ask him.. hey so how did this happen ? How did you get the idea to do this and were you alone on it ?

Hey attacker if you want to tell me some Info head over to Freenode #Ethereum
I will go there right now.. i can hang out and FUD all those mETH heads while i wait for you to show up ROFL

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Quote from: darkagentx on June 18, 2016, 09:04:15 PM

Quote from: J1mb0 on June 18, 2016, 08:59:06 PM

Quote from: darkagentx on June 18, 2016, 08:36:32 PM

The bug on DAO has been known for weeks but no substantial effort has been made in order to fix it

I thought that the whole point of Decentralised Autonomous Organisations is that once they are out there, they are immutable. Hence Vitalik's dylemma with ETH fork.

A code should be immutable unless there is a bug in it and people with dark agenda will try to abuse it to no end.

Code ALWAYS has bugs. Even very trivial innocuous looking code can have bugs. Even heavily peer reviewed code still has bugs. In the end code is written by humans...

More interesting questions are whether this was a bug, a poorly thought out feature or a back door hidden in plain sight.

And beyond: how can smart contracts be made more resilient to bugs ? Smart contracts being code, they will have bugs.

BitcoinEXpress

legendary

Activity: 1210

Merit: 1024

People, take from someone who actually understands exploits.

This was no hack.

This was built into the code and it executed as designed.

It was there from the second it was launched.

It was too well formed and executed too quickly to be a bug.

Don't be stupid.

This was an inside job.

~BCX~

Topic: There was no DAO hack - page 4. (Read 11675 times)