4 ms·

In other words, this contract is too big to fail?

• lazaroclapp 10y ago
  Perhaps, but: a) It is being bailed out by referendum, not mandate. Everyone gets a vote, if you don't want to install the patch, don't do it. b) The funds to bail it out are those stolen by the attacker. Nobody is asking people without DAO tokens to suddenly contribute their ether to restoring the DAO or take debt.
  • CoryG89 10y ago
    I disagree in part with (b). A hard fork could split the community and cause the price of ether to crash further. While miners who fork may not actually lose ether in the process, they may actively cause it to lose whatever value it has left. Of course, miners not associated with the DAO would never normally consider risking such a thing, but the rapidly falling price of their ether may convince them that it's the safest move.
  • akhilcacharya 10y ago
    1) TARP arguably had a referendum immediately afterward in the form of the election. 2) The American people were paid back.
  • jjnoakes 10y ago
    Is there really an attacker and stolen funds though? I mean, the contract executed exactly as specified. If the system was well designed, there would be no way to undo the results. Such a system may never exist, but the fact that ethereum can sometimes change contract results means it isn't living up to its ideals.