3 ms·
We already knew that blockchains are vulnerable to 51% attacks. There are real problems with points of centralization (including the developers), but events lik
by 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 agoIf 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 agoIt'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 agoRolling 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 agoThey 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?