4 ms·
The ETH wasn't really stolen though. I thought a contract was submitted and then executed?
by jsprogrammer 10y ago
The ETH wasn't really stolen though. I thought a contract was submitted and then executed?
- triadicmonad 10y agoDo you really find that answer a satisfying resolution?
- jsprogrammer 10y agoI do. Unless someone can show that the DAO was hacked (a system was compromised and common code was modified), the contract appears to be entirely valid and wholly in the spirit of cryptocurrencies. I don't think Nazis are still around are they? I also don't see how lying to Nazis about Jews has any relevance here? Personally, I don't trust much that doesn't have a simulator, or at least some kind of test procedure. Edit: Parent has since removed Nazi references. My post will remain unmodified except for this edit.
- beefield 10y agoI do not think there exists a satisfying resolution. In the terms of Chess, this is pretty much a definition of checkmate. Either you think that the intent of the DAO actually was specified in the code, thus it was not a theft, or you think that the intent of the DAO actually was _not_ specified in the code, but somewhere else[1], and the whole raison d'etre of DAO disappears to the air as a puff of smoke. No moves left either way. [1]Where?
- landryraccoon 10y agoIt is the resolution that the architects of the DAO themselves argued. They literally said there is no contract or intention outside of the code of the DAO. Now that the code doesn't work in their favor they want to backtrack on that. In that case, what was the DAO in the first place?
- UweSchmidt 10y agoEvery single word in the cryptocurrency world is a methaphor, including "currency", "wallet" and, apparently, "to steal". Some cavepeople figured out what stealing is a long time ago. We haven't quite decided if executing a contract code is stealing just yet.