3 ms·

Ya the big problem with it is that not only would a bad actor get rich (not so bad), but he'd likely flood the markets with eth, tanking the price which would h

by darawk 10y ago

Ya the big problem with it is that not only would a bad actor get rich (not so bad), but he'd likely flood the markets with eth, tanking the price which would hurt people that didn't even invest in the DAO. And secondly, it'd make switching to proof of stake in the future a more dubious proposition, knowing that a known malicious actor controlled 10% or more of all the ether in existence. Those IMO are the big reasons to soft fork, not to prevent the enrichment of the thief. IMO really, the guy deserves something for finding the flaw. If it were up to me, i'd give him some of the money - just not enough to cause problems for the network.

zenogais 10y ago
You can't have the same actor both flood the markets to temporarily drive down the price and control a major stake of Ether - it's an either or proposition. In the first case, assuming the move was purely malicious rather than self-interested, the price dip would likely not be fatal to Ethereum, but it would suck for a bit. The more likely move is sell-offs in chunks at price highs, as this would maximize profit which would seem to be the motive here so far. In the second case, the actor still doesn't control a majority, Ethereum's disinflationary nature erodes at that percentage stake at regular intervals, and they are incentivized to act positively wrt the Ethereum network to protect the value of their sizable assets. I think it comes down to a matter of time preference. People who want their money back now or justice for the wronged aren't acting in a way that is seemingly interested in the longterm health of Ethereum. They just want what's best for them whether money or the gratification of revenge, and they want it now. The best longterm thing for Ethereum is for the investors to eat their losses, and for the appropriate amount of risk aversion to enter the ecosystem. This will create massive, positive incentives to create ways of reliably building and vetting future contracts. IMO that is better long term for Ethereum than the short term gains of a hard or soft fork.
Trundle 10y ago
If you think an asset is worth $x and it drops below that amount for a while. That's a benefit isn't it? You get to invest more at a lower price. When the asset returns to its true value you now have more of it.
bcbrown 10y ago
> a known malicious actor Isn't the entire idea of trustless systems that everyone is assumed malicious?

by darawk 10y ago

zenogais 10y ago

You can't have the same actor both flood the markets to temporarily drive down the price and control a major stake of Ether - it's an either or proposition. In the first case, assuming the move was purely malicious rather than self-interested, the price dip would likely not be fatal to Ethereum, but it would suck for a bit. The more likely move is sell-offs in chunks at price highs, as this would maximize profit which would seem to be the motive here so far. In the second case, the actor still doesn't control a majority, Ethereum's disinflationary nature erodes at that percentage stake at regular intervals, and they are incentivized to act positively wrt the Ethereum network to protect the value of their sizable assets. I think it comes down to a matter of time preference. People who want their money back now or justice for the wronged aren't acting in a way that is seemingly interested in the longterm health of Ethereum. They just want what's best for them whether money or the gratification of revenge, and they want it now. The best longterm thing for Ethereum is for the investors to eat their losses, and for the appropriate amount of risk aversion to enter the ecosystem. This will create massive, positive incentives to create ways of reliably building and vetting future contracts. IMO that is better long term for Ethereum than the short term gains of a hard or soft fork.

Trundle 10y ago

If you think an asset is worth $x and it drops below that amount for a while. That's a benefit isn't it? You get to invest more at a lower price. When the asset returns to its true value you now have more of it.

bcbrown 10y ago

> a known malicious actor Isn't the entire idea of trustless systems that everyone is assumed malicious?