4 ms·
I am not convinced that this is actually theft. The "exploit" was simply code. And code rules, in the "The DAO"/ethereum world. Indeed, isn't it arguable that
by vegabook 10y ago
I am not convinced that this is actually theft. The "exploit" was simply code. And code rules, in the "The DAO"/ethereum world.
Indeed, isn't it arguable that said insider(s) (and I agree it's probably an inseder) should identify themselves and challenge the leadership who are damaging their own credibility and that of ethereum generally? All these rollbacks -> they are the ones which are arguably illegal as they override the code. In my view, the so-called thieves have a legitimate claim on the ETH they have made and the investors in the DAO should respect the old caveat-emptor idea which is axiomatic to all investments, both inside and outside the blockchain world. They invested in a dog, and they should lose all their money. This is efficient markets at work.
- jsmeaton 10y agoIt's more like they invested in a VC firm which then siphoned off all the money into a Swiss account. You'd have recourse through the court system.
- vegabook 10y agono, because the VC is ruled by law, and The DAO was ruled only by code, even if it contained exploits. As such the rules of the code - the law of The DAO - were followed. The correct analogy is that the exploiters shorted the investment after performing thorough due diligence, and made a profit doing so, at the expense of more ignorant investors. That those more ignorant investors included the founders of ethereum and the authors of the code, is deliciously ironic especially considering (perhaps even because of) their own self-importance[1], but it is ultimately immaterial. [1] https://daohub.org/curator.html https://daohub.org/curator.html
- tamana 10y agoEverything is ruled by law, unless you are stateless. In USA, it is legally impossible for some one with net worth under a $1million to sign away protections by claiming due diligence.
- vegabook 10y agoquestion: say it is ascertained that 80% of the value of the DAO was tightly held by a small number of people all worth > 1m USD, then have those people signed away their due diligence through the explicit primacy of the code as per the DAO's terms? question 2: those worth less than 1m USD -> who do they sue? The "thieves" who were acting according to the terms and conditions? Or the DAO itself?
- kahnpro 10y agoThe DAO, ultimately, is a human construct and subject to human laws. Just because you write a something in code and do a bit of hand waving, it doesn't mean that contract law, etc, magically ceases to exist.
- vegabook 10y agoit is ironic that The DAO will then rely on something which they were trying to supplant.
- antisthenes 10y agoYes, an irony most likely lost on the libertarian populace.
- johnzim 10y agoThink you might have Libertarian and Anarchist conflated there.