7 ms·

Setting aside the question of whether the letter is genuine, the attacker is perfectly free to enjoy the ether he stole. However, the rest of us are also perfe

Setting aside the question of whether the letter is genuine, the attacker is perfectly free to enjoy the ether he stole. However, the rest of us are also perfectly free to adopt a fork if we wish.

jacquesm 10y ago
Yes, but that would be breach of contract.
- mbrock 10y ago
  Can you clarify who would be breaching which contract?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    The attackers claim (assuming that's who wrote the message) that he merely took advantage of the contract as written is at first reading a plausible one. To change a contract after it has been written and executed and to try to 'undo' a done deal based on actions the contract and its context fairly explicitly ruled out prior to the execution would seem to me to be against both the letter and the spirit of the contract. I get why everybody is upset, but this was pretty much bound to happen. Security of this kind is an all-or-nothing item, you have to get it 100% right or it might just as well not happen at all. So all this backpedaling and fixing does absolutely nothing in my view to strengthen the concept. The only way forward would be to declare this version a total loss and to do a reboot with a better core and then to see how long that one will stand up. Rinse and repeat until one really stands (by then confidence will likely be quite low) and accept that it could still go down at any point in the future. A bit like the Monty Python sketch about the castle built on swampland. Anything less will not do, either the contract is all there is or it is pointless.
    - jackgavigan 10y ago
      Well, the attacker is welcome to try to get a UK court to injunct me against adopting a fork. How far do you think he'll get with that?
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        It doesn't matter, if that what's required the DAO is dead. After all, if it needs the courts then one of the major principles of it appears to be broken beyond repair. Which may have been the whole point of the attack.
        jackgavigan 10y ago
        Let me get this straight: You are saying that if the attacker has to resort to taking me to court to prevent me from forking, the DAO is dead? I beg to differ. If those events come to pass, the DAO will be far from dead!
        jacquesm 10y ago
        You're missing an essential point of the whole argument. Either the DAO as it is is self-contained or it is a failure. If it needs the courts, either to enforce a contract or to try to prevent enforcing a contract then the whole thing is dead. On which side of such a lawsuit you are is not important, the fact that the DAO can not be trusted to be complete and that there is a possibility that contracts once executed can be rolled back makes it un-viable in this incarnation. Personally I think it was oversold, this lesson could have been learned a lot cheaper but that's easy to say after the fact. As bug bounties come this was a pretty good one, and I'd be highly surprised if it was the only flaw in the present implementation.
        jackgavigan 10y ago
        You want to make that point. I don't care. The attacker tried to exploit a flaw in TheDAO's code to steal its ether, not because it was designed to allow that or because that was the intent of its designers, but because he could. Well, the Ethereum community can also do something that was neither intended nor planned for. You say that doing so would be a breach of contract. I say: Well, go ahead and sue me.
    - LoSboccacc 10y ago
      If I understood it correctly the letter claims Ethereum wrote in the end user contract that anything ammissible by the contract is the contract. So not upholding that would be breach of contract.
      - rabz 10y ago
        Not a lawyer, but a contract requires that all parties must gain some consideration for their entry into the contract. That the blockchain enforces the proposer's "smart contract" without giving material return to the token-holders means that the proposer's claim is unenforceable in a real-life court. No consideration, no (real-world) contract, no breach if some consensus fork emerges.
        LoSboccacc 10y ago
        same ianal disclaimer, but here's the thing, this was built for allowing anonymous contract participation, if you can't participate in a contract without agreement from all parties that'd put the whole smart contract to an end. everyone would be able to seek damages from etherium from transactions they didn't like
    - mbrock 10y ago
      Legally this all seems very esoteric and shaky. Philosophically I wonder about this "the exact code defines the semantics of the DAO" clause because, well, nobody's suggesting to change the code; the fork proposals would just change how the code is interpreted. Kind of like "this exact Java code defines the terms of the contract" but then a new version of Java makes that code behave differently... So the clause depends not only on the Solidity code but also on the Ethereum virtual machine's interpretation of that code, and the question now is whether that interpretation is constant or mutable. And, like, what's even the legal status of the https://daohub.org/explainer.html https://daohub.org/explainer.html document? It has a list of things to which anyone who interacts with "The DAO" supposedly agrees, which seems like a typical groundless EULA and anyone who "invested" could just say "uh, I didn't agree to any of that stuff". I'm not really making an argument, I just find it bewildering to even imagine how any of this stuff would be interpreted by lawyers.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        > I just find it bewildering to even imagine how any of this stuff would be interpreted by lawyers. Agreed, and that's essentially what we're seeing here, some kind of rough equivalent between lawywers hacking human language and programmers hacking code. A 'smart' lawyer is equivalent to a hacker, finding a loophole in the law to enforce some novel interpretation of the letter rather than the intent of the law. Trying to do an end-run around a whole bunch of established systems all to end up with re-inventing the exact problems of those systems that you were trying to get away from in the first place, it's kind of funny.
- theli0nheart 10y ago
  Curious, is there a contractual clause that prevents any members of the DAO from adopting or starting a fork?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    First part of the explanation of the terms: "The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation." Emphasis mine. from: https://daohub.org/explainer.html https://daohub.org/explainer.html So yes, I'd interpret that as forks being 'right out'. It's either 'all terms' or it isn't.
    - theli0nheart 10y ago
      Thanks. I'll admit that this is way over my head. Is there a concise summary of what's contained in the "smart contract code" at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413?
      - rabz 10y ago
        The code at that location in the Ethereum blockchain implements a Decentralized Autonomous Organization that takes Ether from participants in exchange for tokens granting them the right to vote on proposals for this specific DAO to fund and the right to receive any benefits from the execution of funded proposals. This is the primer to the how it is supposed to work: https://blog.slock.it/a-primer-to-the-decentralized-autonomous-organization-dao-69fb125bd3cd https://blog.slock.it/a-primer-to-the-decentralized-autonomo... Here is how it was attacked: http://vessenes.com/deconstructing-thedao-attack-a-brief-code-tour/ http://vessenes.com/deconstructing-thedao-attack-a-brief-cod...

Setting aside the question of whether the letter is genuine, the attacker is perfectly free to enjoy the ether he stole. However, the rest of us are also perfectly free to adopt a fork if we wish.

jacquesm 10y ago

Yes, but that would be breach of contract.

mbrock 10y ago
Can you clarify who would be breaching which contract?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  The attackers claim (assuming that's who wrote the message) that he merely took advantage of the contract as written is at first reading a plausible one. To change a contract after it has been written and executed and to try to 'undo' a done deal based on actions the contract and its context fairly explicitly ruled out prior to the execution would seem to me to be against both the letter and the spirit of the contract. I get why everybody is upset, but this was pretty much bound to happen. Security of this kind is an all-or-nothing item, you have to get it 100% right or it might just as well not happen at all. So all this backpedaling and fixing does absolutely nothing in my view to strengthen the concept. The only way forward would be to declare this version a total loss and to do a reboot with a better core and then to see how long that one will stand up. Rinse and repeat until one really stands (by then confidence will likely be quite low) and accept that it could still go down at any point in the future. A bit like the Monty Python sketch about the castle built on swampland. Anything less will not do, either the contract is all there is or it is pointless.
  - jackgavigan 10y ago
    Well, the attacker is welcome to try to get a UK court to injunct me against adopting a fork. How far do you think he'll get with that?
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      It doesn't matter, if that what's required the DAO is dead. After all, if it needs the courts then one of the major principles of it appears to be broken beyond repair. Which may have been the whole point of the attack.
      - jackgavigan 10y ago
        Let me get this straight: You are saying that if the attacker has to resort to taking me to court to prevent me from forking, the DAO is dead? I beg to differ. If those events come to pass, the DAO will be far from dead!
        jacquesm 10y ago
        You're missing an essential point of the whole argument. Either the DAO as it is is self-contained or it is a failure. If it needs the courts, either to enforce a contract or to try to prevent enforcing a contract then the whole thing is dead. On which side of such a lawsuit you are is not important, the fact that the DAO can not be trusted to be complete and that there is a possibility that contracts once executed can be rolled back makes it un-viable in this incarnation. Personally I think it was oversold, this lesson could have been learned a lot cheaper but that's easy to say after the fact. As bug bounties come this was a pretty good one, and I'd be highly surprised if it was the only flaw in the present implementation.
        jackgavigan 10y ago
        You want to make that point. I don't care. The attacker tried to exploit a flaw in TheDAO's code to steal its ether, not because it was designed to allow that or because that was the intent of its designers, but because he could. Well, the Ethereum community can also do something that was neither intended nor planned for. You say that doing so would be a breach of contract. I say: Well, go ahead and sue me.
  - LoSboccacc 10y ago
    If I understood it correctly the letter claims Ethereum wrote in the end user contract that anything ammissible by the contract is the contract. So not upholding that would be breach of contract.
    - rabz 10y ago
      Not a lawyer, but a contract requires that all parties must gain some consideration for their entry into the contract. That the blockchain enforces the proposer's "smart contract" without giving material return to the token-holders means that the proposer's claim is unenforceable in a real-life court. No consideration, no (real-world) contract, no breach if some consensus fork emerges.
      - LoSboccacc 10y ago
        same ianal disclaimer, but here's the thing, this was built for allowing anonymous contract participation, if you can't participate in a contract without agreement from all parties that'd put the whole smart contract to an end. everyone would be able to seek damages from etherium from transactions they didn't like
  - mbrock 10y ago
    Legally this all seems very esoteric and shaky. Philosophically I wonder about this "the exact code defines the semantics of the DAO" clause because, well, nobody's suggesting to change the code; the fork proposals would just change how the code is interpreted. Kind of like "this exact Java code defines the terms of the contract" but then a new version of Java makes that code behave differently... So the clause depends not only on the Solidity code but also on the Ethereum virtual machine's interpretation of that code, and the question now is whether that interpretation is constant or mutable. And, like, what's even the legal status of the https://daohub.org/explainer.html https://daohub.org/explainer.html document? It has a list of things to which anyone who interacts with "The DAO" supposedly agrees, which seems like a typical groundless EULA and anyone who "invested" could just say "uh, I didn't agree to any of that stuff". I'm not really making an argument, I just find it bewildering to even imagine how any of this stuff would be interpreted by lawyers.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > I just find it bewildering to even imagine how any of this stuff would be interpreted by lawyers. Agreed, and that's essentially what we're seeing here, some kind of rough equivalent between lawywers hacking human language and programmers hacking code. A 'smart' lawyer is equivalent to a hacker, finding a loophole in the law to enforce some novel interpretation of the letter rather than the intent of the law. Trying to do an end-run around a whole bunch of established systems all to end up with re-inventing the exact problems of those systems that you were trying to get away from in the first place, it's kind of funny.
theli0nheart 10y ago
Curious, is there a contractual clause that prevents any members of the DAO from adopting or starting a fork?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  First part of the explanation of the terms: "The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAO’s code. Any and all explanatory terms or descriptions are merely offered for educational purposes and do not supercede or modify the express terms of The DAO’s code set forth on the blockchain; to the extent you believe there to be any conflict or discrepancy between the descriptions offered here and the functionality of The DAO’s code at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413, The DAO’s code controls and sets forth all terms of The DAO Creation." Emphasis mine. from: https://daohub.org/explainer.html https://daohub.org/explainer.html So yes, I'd interpret that as forks being 'right out'. It's either 'all terms' or it isn't.
  - theli0nheart 10y ago
    Thanks. I'll admit that this is way over my head. Is there a concise summary of what's contained in the "smart contract code" at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413?
    - rabz 10y ago
      The code at that location in the Ethereum blockchain implements a Decentralized Autonomous Organization that takes Ether from participants in exchange for tokens granting them the right to vote on proposals for this specific DAO to fund and the right to receive any benefits from the execution of funded proposals. This is the primer to the how it is supposed to work: https://blog.slock.it/a-primer-to-the-decentralized-autonomous-organization-dao-69fb125bd3cd https://blog.slock.it/a-primer-to-the-decentralized-autonomo... Here is how it was attacked: http://vessenes.com/deconstructing-thedao-attack-a-brief-code-tour/ http://vessenes.com/deconstructing-thedao-attack-a-brief-cod...