10 ms·

Just remember, when the developers inevitably appear with suggestions about how to stop the hack, roll back the blockchain, or come up with other schemes to blo

Just remember, when the developers inevitably appear with suggestions about how to stop the hack, roll back the blockchain, or come up with other schemes to block the hackers, they are showing everyone that all the talk of blockchains being decentralised, or being beyond the control of governments or other powers... is a complete lie. If this hack can be stopped, then it demonstrates that the currency can be manipulated, that the decentralised system is not so fault tolerant or uncensored after all, and that people out there know this.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
AnonymousPlanet 10y ago
Let's call it self delusion. A "lie" needs the intention to deceive. I think most developers of these systems truly believe that they are building the First Distributed Republic or something like that.
btrask 10y ago
We already knew that blockchains are vulnerable to 51% attacks. There are real problems with points of centralization (including the developers), but events like this don't prove anything. Edit: to be clear, the 51% attack I'm referring to is actually the defense of the network by developers/miners/users that the parent post is complaining about.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  If this is just a 51% attack then we didn't learn anything about etherium qua etherium or blockchains qua blockchains... but we'll learn something about the lower bound for being big enough that they're not a realistic possibility.
  - joosters 10y ago
    It's an interesting question - is the DAO 'too big to fail' ? I wonder how different ether will turn out to be, will they bail it out by rolling back the blockchain?
    - buttershakes 10y ago
      Rolling back the blockchain would have some pretty serious ramifications, as the possibility of that becomes greater it makes sense to sell as quickly as possible into another chain to retain value.
- joosters 10y ago
  They do if the developers suddenly come up with schemes to block the attack or hack the DAO. vbuterin has posted on reddit a plea for any DAO holders who were about to 'split' their holdings to contact him - presumably he has a way to hack the DAO more effectively and so grab the money before the attackers grab it. But when did he know how to do this? Was it a secret that he was sitting on, or has he only learnt about it from the existing attack?
nullc 10y ago
> all the talk of blockchains being decentralised All the talk of /ethereum/ being decentralized.
- joosters 10y ago
  True! It's definitely a situation where the 'market cap' of bitcoin gives it some extra stability. If the DAO contained bitcoins, it would be a far smaller % of the total and there would be fewer calls to roll back the logs.
infodroid 10y ago
Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder and Chief Scientist of Ethereum, just called for a DAO and ETH trading halt at all Ethereum exchanges: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oif2x/dao_attack_exchanges_please_pause_eth_and_dao/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oif2x/dao_attack...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mpeg 10y ago
  Apparently all that talk of decentralisation goes out the window when you're losing money. Ha
  - curiousgal 10y ago
    Huh? What does halting trading has to do with compromising decentralization? You do know what "decentralization" mean right?
    - mpeg 10y ago
      They're now talking about essentially blacklisting the hacker's ETH address, how is that decentralised? Halting trading is a show of force too, if they believed a single thing of what they preach they'd let the free market continue its course with the hacker walking away with the money. Looking at your comment history it seems clear you have an agenda here, so I'll ignore the ad hominem.
      - parasubvert 10y ago
        Decentralization doesn't mean complete lack of central control, or anarchy, it means that balance of power is in the periphery with the broader organization largely controlled by protocol and policy. Issuing an edict in a crisis doesn't necessarily imply centralization if the member nodes can ignore the edict. In the history of organization structures, for example, Peter Drucker in 1946 wrote the "Concept of the Corporation", a study on General Motors, which was arguably one of the early detailed studies of Decentralized governance in an organization.
tinkerrr 10y ago
Also remember that this isn't the first time this idea of 'lets rollback a blockchain due to a hack/attack' has been floated or even tried. The first major blockchain rollback almost completely destroyed the cryptocurrency [1]. Since then, some major hacks have happened and the community/developers rejected the idea of a rollback [2][3]. That was a hard lesson, and hopefully the current developers will learn from the short history. Also to your point, yes, Ethereum is not as decentralized as some would like to claim, either from a stakeholder perspective, or from a mining perspective, or even from a 'who holds the power' perspective. I suspect that's what makes it so efficient though, in terms of changing protocol, or making decisions on behalf of stakeholders. [1] http://247cryptonews.com/vericoin-lack-integrity-bailout-mintpal-mistake/ http://247cryptonews.com/vericoin-lack-integrity-bailout-min... [2] https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/official-nxt-decision-blockchain-rollback/ https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/official-nxt-decision-blockc... [3] http://www.newsbtc.com/2014/12/17/opal-recovers-1-7-million-coins-cancels-blockchain-rollback/ http://www.newsbtc.com/2014/12/17/opal-recovers-1-7-million-...
- jpereira 10y ago
  One could argue that at this point in its history it stands to benefit more from that efficiency than it would from more robust decentralization. When adoption is low it stands to reason centralization would be high, and so it enables them to move faster to increase adoption, and hence lower centralization as other players and stakeholders enter the game. However it does also stand the risk of allowing the current influential parties (the developers or miners) to influence the system in their favor. So far though, I don't think this has been the case, but we'll see how this situation plays out.
  - tinkerrr 10y ago
    There is no doubt that centralization is more efficient than decentralization. The problem comes when developers or other stakeholders don't understand or underplay this feature. Also, centralization/decentralization is a a scale, not discrete boolean values. It will definitely be interesting to see how this plays out. Good luck to everyone involved.
rlpb 10y ago
If there is consensus that this is a problem and shouldn't be allowed, then there presumably is also consensus for even a hard fork if necessary. As an outside observer, I don't see why this is a demonstration that the decentralised system can be manipulated, is not fault tolerant, or censored. Since if this is a problem and will be fixed, it will presumably be by consensus. We already know that with consensus the entire system can be changed (or forked, if you like). This is no secret and there was never any claim otherwise. This is exactly what they mean by decentralised. What should worry you is if a change happens without consensus, but there is no such indication here.
- makomk 10y ago
  slock.it are now implying that opponents of the proposed hardfork are probably the thief and asking people to contact them with information about the identity of anyone who organizes opposition to it: https://twitter.com/christopherhesh/status/743794479736496128 https://twitter.com/christopherhesh/status/74379447973649612... It's going to be a very interesting kind of "consensus", that's for sure.
  - aw3c2 10y ago
    Ah, vigilantism. How incredibly fitting into the whole cryptocurrency ghetto. So very unprofessional.
ottodev 10y ago
If there is network consensus to do the rollback, then the blockchain stays decentralised.
- 746F7475 10y ago
  So can random people who agree with each other completely control everything that happens with the currency? So if there is a company who they dislike can they just decide that they have no money?
  - verroq 10y ago
    Majority of ethereum holders would want to rollback. That is consensus. If they don't hard fork they can keep running an old node. What is the problem?
    - 1019301911 10y ago
      How do you know? Of course, it could be established using "safe" blockchain voting technology...
      - verroq 10y ago
        The longest fork wins.
        detaro 10y ago
        Isn't that basically measuring which side has more hashing power? It's not obvious to me why that necessarily represents "the majority of ethereum holders". Or am I missing a mechanism?
        wolfgke 10y ago
        The hashing power is the voting power. Since it is not obvious how one could even define what "the majority of ethereum holders" even means (and who says that every ethereum holder who is a physical person has to have the same voting power? If this were the case one would simply split your ethereum "account" into many who are hold by stooges).
ottodev 10y ago
If there is network consensus to do the rollback, then the blockchain stays decentralised.
oelmekki 10y ago
And if it can't be stopped, the argument about decentralized apps being "unstoppable" won't be that appealing anymore after all :) It's sad, being able to write blockchain apps like with ethereum and lisk is cool tech, but we'll have to deal with the idea that once is out, it's out. Programming NASA style.
vessenes 10y ago
This is FUD, broadly speaking. The devs have put out a patch for miners which allows them to decide whether or not they wish to fork over these transactions. Centralization is not required for this decision, instead, distributed consensus. The counterpoint to your statements is simply that consumers need safety with their money. It is no badge of honor to let unsophisticated technical people lose money for some extreme libertarian ideals.
- pYQAJ6Zm 10y ago
  I agree with your points. But the miners who actually have a say, if I am not mistaken, are the big ones and the pool owners. These are just a small fraction of all people running mining software. A soft fork will undeniably require distributed consensus. It is the number of people with the actual right to vote that may be worrisome. Perhaps the pool owners should extend their voting rights to their pool contributors, pooling votes as they pool mining shares. (Disclaimer: I hold a small amount of ETH and participate in a mining pool.)
  - vessenes 10y ago
    Or, pool owners could announce their position, and you could switch pools. This has happened in Bitcoin, albeit very occasionally.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > This is FUD, broadly speaking. The devs have put out a patch for miners which allows them to decide whether or not they wish to fork over these transactions. Centralization is not required for this decision, instead, distributed consensus. With all respect Peter, this is not FUD and OP is raising a valid concern. Yes, the miners vote on the patch - but given the infant state of the ecosystem and the large loss incurred, even further controversy or delay in finding a resolution may cause them permanent economic harm; so it would appear that there is little leeway in the choice involved. > The counterpoint to your statements is simply that consumers need safety with their money. It is no badge of honor to let unsophisticated technical people lose money for some extreme libertarian ideals. Yes, that's certainly the argument, particularly that if there is majority agreement than the protocol change is justified. But this doesn't at all invalidate OP's concern that fundamentally algorithmic contract's aren't binding if such an alteration can be adopted. The case could be made that in a more mature ecosystem such case specific alterations are more potentially damaging than useful and that this is a transitional phase, yet I think the burden of proof is on the one responding.
DennisP 10y ago
The only way any of that can happen is if most of the community agrees to run the software implementing the change. If you know of a way to get more decentralized than that, I'd like to hear about it.
jpereira 10y ago
It looks like the developers are proposing a soft fork to block certain transactions, followed by a hard fork to allow retrieval of funds. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oiqj7/critical_update_re_dao_vulnerability/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oiqj7/critical_u...
codingmyway 10y ago
If it takes a vast majority of participants to agree, then not really. It's decentralized, not 100% immutable. Will get harder as it gets larger but at this stage it is good to still have the ability.
- viraptor 10y ago
  Vast majority however means most mining pools. In practice that's not that many people making the decision.
  - codingmyway 10y ago
    At this stage yes. That's why I don't hold ether as being solid enough yet to be a store of value, aside from the fact that it's being inflated at ~25% pa. Needs to go through these teething problems now while that is still the case.
    - codingmyway 10y ago
      As 'fuel' for programming smart contracts it's still a valuable tool but it doesn't make writing those contracts easy.
    - xg15 10y ago
      Why would that be different at later stages? Bitcoin grew more centralized with time, not decentralized: The miners with the most powerful equipment also have the most ability to become even more powerful. Why is that different for Ethereum?
      - codingmyway 10y ago
        It's not that it's centralised, it's that the cost of the precedent set by a fork and rollback doesn't mean it is seen as a terminal failure.
      - xorcist 10y ago
        It's not that simple. In the end it's what users actually use that matters. Mining on a fork that sees no use would be suicidal. So miners need to follow users, or their investment is for nothing. And users tend to follow developers, at least until there is a contentious fork. So while there is no clear single party that makes decisions, active developers have the most say.
ThomPete 10y ago
It's a size issue not a security issue or put another way the insecurity is the small size. Once it gets bigger the security goes up as events like this affect the currency less and less.
abrkn 10y ago
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident
kachnuv_ocasek 10y ago
But if the hack can't be stopped, then… it demonstrates that the currency can't be manipulated…? Wait a minute.
ultramancool 10y ago
> If this hack can be stopped, then it demonstrates that the currency can be manipulated, that the decentralised system is not so fault tolerant or uncensored after all, and that people out there know this. My thought exactly. And despite putting a little money into the DAO myself, this is the kind of risk I was willing to take. I should lose my money. Miners should vote strongly against this fork. I know in the Bitcoin community this wouldn't be accepted, not so sure about Ethereum though where the developers have a lot more control (than they should IMO).
alvarosm 10y ago
Hopefully this will make the idiot "investors" realize what a piece of crap Ethereum (and anything related) is.
Everhusk 10y ago
Also just remember, that Rome was not built in one day. Progressing mankind with a functioning DAO is most likely worth much more than even a $200M failure (worst case scenario) if you look at how it could increase world productivity/efficiency.
ewams 10y ago
The developers appear to be treating this as a dev environment - "We were starting a new team (welcome @hiddentao, @evertonfraga and @luclu) and I was pushing for weekly releases, without proper testing. Meanwhile the DAO happened, and we wanted to make a release that had support for events subscription without realizing the performance impact it would have..." https://github.com/ethereum/mist/releases/tag/0.7.5 https://github.com/ethereum/mist/releases/tag/0.7.5 I realize this is the wallet development but they are absolutely related and shows the culture of this software is not as professional or thought out as it should be.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

AnonymousPlanet 10y ago

Let's call it self delusion. A "lie" needs the intention to deceive. I think most developers of these systems truly believe that they are building the First Distributed Republic or something like that.

btrask 10y ago

We already knew that blockchains are vulnerable to 51% attacks. There are real problems with points of centralization (including the developers), but events like this don't prove anything. Edit: to be clear, the 51% attack I'm referring to is actually the defense of the network by developers/miners/users that the parent post is complaining about.

johncolanduoni 10y ago
If this is just a 51% attack then we didn't learn anything about etherium qua etherium or blockchains qua blockchains... but we'll learn something about the lower bound for being big enough that they're not a realistic possibility.
- joosters 10y ago
  It's an interesting question - is the DAO 'too big to fail' ? I wonder how different ether will turn out to be, will they bail it out by rolling back the blockchain?
  - buttershakes 10y ago
    Rolling back the blockchain would have some pretty serious ramifications, as the possibility of that becomes greater it makes sense to sell as quickly as possible into another chain to retain value.
joosters 10y ago
They do if the developers suddenly come up with schemes to block the attack or hack the DAO. vbuterin has posted on reddit a plea for any DAO holders who were about to 'split' their holdings to contact him - presumably he has a way to hack the DAO more effectively and so grab the money before the attackers grab it. But when did he know how to do this? Was it a secret that he was sitting on, or has he only learnt about it from the existing attack?

nullc 10y ago

> all the talk of blockchains being decentralised All the talk of /ethereum/ being decentralized.

joosters 10y ago
True! It's definitely a situation where the 'market cap' of bitcoin gives it some extra stability. If the DAO contained bitcoins, it would be a far smaller % of the total and there would be fewer calls to roll back the logs.

infodroid 10y ago

Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder and Chief Scientist of Ethereum, just called for a DAO and ETH trading halt at all Ethereum exchanges: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oif2x/dao_attack_exchanges_please_pause_eth_and_dao/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oif2x/dao_attack...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mpeg 10y ago
Apparently all that talk of decentralisation goes out the window when you're losing money. Ha
- curiousgal 10y ago
  Huh? What does halting trading has to do with compromising decentralization? You do know what "decentralization" mean right?
  - mpeg 10y ago
    They're now talking about essentially blacklisting the hacker's ETH address, how is that decentralised? Halting trading is a show of force too, if they believed a single thing of what they preach they'd let the free market continue its course with the hacker walking away with the money. Looking at your comment history it seems clear you have an agenda here, so I'll ignore the ad hominem.
    - parasubvert 10y ago
      Decentralization doesn't mean complete lack of central control, or anarchy, it means that balance of power is in the periphery with the broader organization largely controlled by protocol and policy. Issuing an edict in a crisis doesn't necessarily imply centralization if the member nodes can ignore the edict. In the history of organization structures, for example, Peter Drucker in 1946 wrote the "Concept of the Corporation", a study on General Motors, which was arguably one of the early detailed studies of Decentralized governance in an organization.

tinkerrr 10y ago

Also remember that this isn't the first time this idea of 'lets rollback a blockchain due to a hack/attack' has been floated or even tried. The first major blockchain rollback almost completely destroyed the cryptocurrency [1]. Since then, some major hacks have happened and the community/developers rejected the idea of a rollback [2][3]. That was a hard lesson, and hopefully the current developers will learn from the short history. Also to your point, yes, Ethereum is not as decentralized as some would like to claim, either from a stakeholder perspective, or from a mining perspective, or even from a 'who holds the power' perspective. I suspect that's what makes it so efficient though, in terms of changing protocol, or making decisions on behalf of stakeholders. [1] http://247cryptonews.com/vericoin-lack-integrity-bailout-mintpal-mistake/ http://247cryptonews.com/vericoin-lack-integrity-bailout-min... [2] https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/official-nxt-decision-blockchain-rollback/ https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/official-nxt-decision-blockc... [3] http://www.newsbtc.com/2014/12/17/opal-recovers-1-7-million-coins-cancels-blockchain-rollback/ http://www.newsbtc.com/2014/12/17/opal-recovers-1-7-million-...

jpereira 10y ago
One could argue that at this point in its history it stands to benefit more from that efficiency than it would from more robust decentralization. When adoption is low it stands to reason centralization would be high, and so it enables them to move faster to increase adoption, and hence lower centralization as other players and stakeholders enter the game. However it does also stand the risk of allowing the current influential parties (the developers or miners) to influence the system in their favor. So far though, I don't think this has been the case, but we'll see how this situation plays out.
- tinkerrr 10y ago
  There is no doubt that centralization is more efficient than decentralization. The problem comes when developers or other stakeholders don't understand or underplay this feature. Also, centralization/decentralization is a a scale, not discrete boolean values. It will definitely be interesting to see how this plays out. Good luck to everyone involved.

rlpb 10y ago

If there is consensus that this is a problem and shouldn't be allowed, then there presumably is also consensus for even a hard fork if necessary. As an outside observer, I don't see why this is a demonstration that the decentralised system can be manipulated, is not fault tolerant, or censored. Since if this is a problem and will be fixed, it will presumably be by consensus. We already know that with consensus the entire system can be changed (or forked, if you like). This is no secret and there was never any claim otherwise. This is exactly what they mean by decentralised. What should worry you is if a change happens without consensus, but there is no such indication here.

makomk 10y ago
slock.it are now implying that opponents of the proposed hardfork are probably the thief and asking people to contact them with information about the identity of anyone who organizes opposition to it: https://twitter.com/christopherhesh/status/743794479736496128 https://twitter.com/christopherhesh/status/74379447973649612... It's going to be a very interesting kind of "consensus", that's for sure.
- aw3c2 10y ago
  Ah, vigilantism. How incredibly fitting into the whole cryptocurrency ghetto. So very unprofessional.

ottodev 10y ago

If there is network consensus to do the rollback, then the blockchain stays decentralised.

746F7475 10y ago
So can random people who agree with each other completely control everything that happens with the currency? So if there is a company who they dislike can they just decide that they have no money?
- verroq 10y ago
  Majority of ethereum holders would want to rollback. That is consensus. If they don't hard fork they can keep running an old node. What is the problem?
  - 1019301911 10y ago
    How do you know? Of course, it could be established using "safe" blockchain voting technology...
    - verroq 10y ago
      The longest fork wins.
      - detaro 10y ago
        Isn't that basically measuring which side has more hashing power? It's not obvious to me why that necessarily represents "the majority of ethereum holders". Or am I missing a mechanism?
        wolfgke 10y ago
        The hashing power is the voting power. Since it is not obvious how one could even define what "the majority of ethereum holders" even means (and who says that every ethereum holder who is a physical person has to have the same voting power? If this were the case one would simply split your ethereum "account" into many who are hold by stooges).

ottodev 10y ago

If there is network consensus to do the rollback, then the blockchain stays decentralised.

oelmekki 10y ago

And if it can't be stopped, the argument about decentralized apps being "unstoppable" won't be that appealing anymore after all :) It's sad, being able to write blockchain apps like with ethereum and lisk is cool tech, but we'll have to deal with the idea that once is out, it's out. Programming NASA style.

vessenes 10y ago

This is FUD, broadly speaking. The devs have put out a patch for miners which allows them to decide whether or not they wish to fork over these transactions. Centralization is not required for this decision, instead, distributed consensus. The counterpoint to your statements is simply that consumers need safety with their money. It is no badge of honor to let unsophisticated technical people lose money for some extreme libertarian ideals.

pYQAJ6Zm 10y ago
I agree with your points. But the miners who actually have a say, if I am not mistaken, are the big ones and the pool owners. These are just a small fraction of all people running mining software. A soft fork will undeniably require distributed consensus. It is the number of people with the actual right to vote that may be worrisome. Perhaps the pool owners should extend their voting rights to their pool contributors, pooling votes as they pool mining shares. (Disclaimer: I hold a small amount of ETH and participate in a mining pool.)
- vessenes 10y ago
  Or, pool owners could announce their position, and you could switch pools. This has happened in Bitcoin, albeit very occasionally.
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> This is FUD, broadly speaking. The devs have put out a patch for miners which allows them to decide whether or not they wish to fork over these transactions. Centralization is not required for this decision, instead, distributed consensus. With all respect Peter, this is not FUD and OP is raising a valid concern. Yes, the miners vote on the patch - but given the infant state of the ecosystem and the large loss incurred, even further controversy or delay in finding a resolution may cause them permanent economic harm; so it would appear that there is little leeway in the choice involved. > The counterpoint to your statements is simply that consumers need safety with their money. It is no badge of honor to let unsophisticated technical people lose money for some extreme libertarian ideals. Yes, that's certainly the argument, particularly that if there is majority agreement than the protocol change is justified. But this doesn't at all invalidate OP's concern that fundamentally algorithmic contract's aren't binding if such an alteration can be adopted. The case could be made that in a more mature ecosystem such case specific alterations are more potentially damaging than useful and that this is a transitional phase, yet I think the burden of proof is on the one responding.

DennisP 10y ago

The only way any of that can happen is if most of the community agrees to run the software implementing the change. If you know of a way to get more decentralized than that, I'd like to hear about it.

jpereira 10y ago

It looks like the developers are proposing a soft fork to block certain transactions, followed by a hard fork to allow retrieval of funds. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oiqj7/critical_update_re_dao_vulnerability/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oiqj7/critical_u...

codingmyway 10y ago

If it takes a vast majority of participants to agree, then not really. It's decentralized, not 100% immutable. Will get harder as it gets larger but at this stage it is good to still have the ability.

viraptor 10y ago
Vast majority however means most mining pools. In practice that's not that many people making the decision.
- codingmyway 10y ago
  At this stage yes. That's why I don't hold ether as being solid enough yet to be a store of value, aside from the fact that it's being inflated at ~25% pa. Needs to go through these teething problems now while that is still the case.
  - codingmyway 10y ago
    As 'fuel' for programming smart contracts it's still a valuable tool but it doesn't make writing those contracts easy.
  - xg15 10y ago
    Why would that be different at later stages? Bitcoin grew more centralized with time, not decentralized: The miners with the most powerful equipment also have the most ability to become even more powerful. Why is that different for Ethereum?
    - codingmyway 10y ago
      It's not that it's centralised, it's that the cost of the precedent set by a fork and rollback doesn't mean it is seen as a terminal failure.
    - xorcist 10y ago
      It's not that simple. In the end it's what users actually use that matters. Mining on a fork that sees no use would be suicidal. So miners need to follow users, or their investment is for nothing. And users tend to follow developers, at least until there is a contentious fork. So while there is no clear single party that makes decisions, active developers have the most say.

ThomPete 10y ago

It's a size issue not a security issue or put another way the insecurity is the small size. Once it gets bigger the security goes up as events like this affect the currency less and less.

abrkn 10y ago

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident

kachnuv_ocasek 10y ago

But if the hack can't be stopped, then… it demonstrates that the currency can't be manipulated…? Wait a minute.

ultramancool 10y ago

> If this hack can be stopped, then it demonstrates that the currency can be manipulated, that the decentralised system is not so fault tolerant or uncensored after all, and that people out there know this. My thought exactly. And despite putting a little money into the DAO myself, this is the kind of risk I was willing to take. I should lose my money. Miners should vote strongly against this fork. I know in the Bitcoin community this wouldn't be accepted, not so sure about Ethereum though where the developers have a lot more control (than they should IMO).

alvarosm 10y ago

Hopefully this will make the idiot "investors" realize what a piece of crap Ethereum (and anything related) is.

Everhusk 10y ago

Also just remember, that Rome was not built in one day. Progressing mankind with a functioning DAO is most likely worth much more than even a $200M failure (worst case scenario) if you look at how it could increase world productivity/efficiency.

ewams 10y ago

The developers appear to be treating this as a dev environment - "We were starting a new team (welcome @hiddentao, @evertonfraga and @luclu) and I was pushing for weekly releases, without proper testing. Meanwhile the DAO happened, and we wanted to make a release that had support for events subscription without realizing the performance impact it would have..." https://github.com/ethereum/mist/releases/tag/0.7.5 https://github.com/ethereum/mist/releases/tag/0.7.5 I realize this is the wallet development but they are absolutely related and shows the culture of this software is not as professional or thought out as it should be.