3 ms·
I'm going to be a little polemic here. It's this an attack? It's not the problem that those technologies try to solve, to get rid of subjectivity?. In a way,
by RobertoG 10y ago
I'm going to be a little polemic here.
It's this an attack?
It's not the problem that those technologies try to solve, to get rid of subjectivity?. In a way, this could be interpreted as trying to be free of politics.
If my understanding of what they are trying to accomplish here is correct, if the system allow it, then, by definition, it's legal.
If you require a framework where something allowed by the code but with unexpected consequences is illegal, you are again where you started.
- wyager 10y agoYou're being thoroughly downvoted, but I don't see anything wrong with your argument. The person who pulled off this "hack" was following all the rules. In fact, I could even see the argument that by undoing this transaction, the people who started the DAO are in fact going back on their word. They promised that they would build a system which would obey certain rules. By undoing this transaction, they are no longer following those rules. Now, obviously there's a strong argument for rolling back the transactions, but at this point ethereum has lost any claim to objectivity or decentralization.
- developer2 10y ago>> obviously there's a strong argument for rolling back the transactions Absolutely not. Such an act would entirely destroy the credibility of the entire system and its future. If not rolling this back is detrimental to the system, then it has already failed and should be dismantled. Who would continue to use a blockchain that permits such a thing? It completely defeats the purpose.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]