4 ms·

What's funny is that the message in Bitcoin's genesis block is about this. The idea of doing something better than current financial systems gained traction aft

by api 10y ago

What's funny is that the message in Bitcoin's genesis block is about this. The idea of doing something better than current financial systems gained traction after the US Fed hard forked the dollar to fix the housing bubble crash. (The degree of manipulation in 2008 to reflate the banking system resembles a hard fork.) Money is a signaling mechanism. It carries information. If you invalidate mistakes, you keep the economic system from learning.

zanny 10y ago
Except "learning" in Etherium's case would have been to abandon the currency due to its insecurity, probably fork the code, and just start over from block 0 again. The fact that didn't happen meant most people didn't want it to happen. If people did want a reset to compensate for the insecurity in the DAO it would have happened.
- rsync 10y ago
  "Except "learning" in Etherium's case would have been to abandon the currency due to its insecurity, probably fork the code, and just start over from block 0 again." Aren't you confusing Etherium with The Dao ? Yes, the dao needed to be abandoned due to its insecurity, but my understanding is that the Etherium base itself was not at fault.
  - jude- 10y ago
    Sure, the EVM may be fine, but the biggest flaws lie in the design of Solidity. Solidity makes it very easy to introduce reentrancy bugs like the one that led the DAO to be exploited. As long as Solidity remains the de facto smart contract programming language, I don't expect overall security of smart contracts to improve much.
  - zanny 10y ago
    My point is that if 60 million dollars were stolen in Eth without no recourse that would permanently tarnish the name Ether. Nobody would care that the DAO did not represent the whole project, the fact a huge portion of the economy was pushed and then destroyed would ruin the brand entirely.
yarrel 10y ago
Bitcoin had to hard fork to revert transactions early on due to a bug in the code (not a bug in code written on the platform, a bug in the platform itself).

by api 10y ago

zanny 10y ago

Except "learning" in Etherium's case would have been to abandon the currency due to its insecurity, probably fork the code, and just start over from block 0 again. The fact that didn't happen meant most people didn't want it to happen. If people did want a reset to compensate for the insecurity in the DAO it would have happened.

rsync 10y ago
"Except "learning" in Etherium's case would have been to abandon the currency due to its insecurity, probably fork the code, and just start over from block 0 again." Aren't you confusing Etherium with The Dao ? Yes, the dao needed to be abandoned due to its insecurity, but my understanding is that the Etherium base itself was not at fault.
- jude- 10y ago
  Sure, the EVM may be fine, but the biggest flaws lie in the design of Solidity. Solidity makes it very easy to introduce reentrancy bugs like the one that led the DAO to be exploited. As long as Solidity remains the de facto smart contract programming language, I don't expect overall security of smart contracts to improve much.
- zanny 10y ago
  My point is that if 60 million dollars were stolen in Eth without no recourse that would permanently tarnish the name Ether. Nobody would care that the DAO did not represent the whole project, the fact a huge portion of the economy was pushed and then destroyed would ruin the brand entirely.

yarrel 10y ago

Bitcoin had to hard fork to revert transactions early on due to a bug in the code (not a bug in code written on the platform, a bug in the platform itself).