5 ms·

Ethereum takes the record for paying out $53 million dollars (943 BTC X 53 = lots). Technically, it wasn't even theft or a bug since Ethereum & DAO proudly clai

Ethereum takes the record for paying out $53 million dollars (943 BTC X 53 = lots). Technically, it wasn't even theft or a bug since Ethereum & DAO proudly claimed "Code is Final Law". I almost feel like cryptocoin and blockchains are set out to do 1 thing really well-show how superior centralized systems are and how easy it is to trick people with pseudo academic jargon-just read Vitalik's writing peppered with superficial pseudo-academia-charlatan pendant language it's zealots gladly eat up-with little to know effort to dissect and analyze fact from fiction.

wyager 10y ago
While I don't feel that your argument generalizes (e.g. Bitcoin actually probably is the best extant value exchange mechanism in many ways), the whole Ethereum thing was embarrassing. People fell for the mumbo-jumbo and then the whole project rendered itself pointless by going back on its "code is law" principle.
- blunte 10y ago
  In a way, they did actually prove that code is law - but they proved that "currently consensus-agreed-upon code is law." That old buggy code was law until the new code became law and changed the rules :). But of course its redundant to say "current code is law" because it's obvious by the logic of how consensus works. The confusion for people was their belief that code at one point in history would forever remain "the law".
  - wyager 10y ago
    Most people consider ex post facto enforcement to be a trademark of a thoroughly broken legal system.
  - imaginenore 10y ago
    "code is law" and "currently consensus-agreed-upon code is law" are not the same though, not even close. One allows for human intervention and the other one doesn't. Moreover, consensus means that it's possible that >50% participants can one day to decide and take the money from the other participants. By declaring them hackers / evil / etc, for example. Which is basically what happened.
    - blunte 10y ago
      Yes, consensus does mean that the group "in power" can change the rules in ways that can harm those outside the consensus. This is kind of scary, but on the other hand I think it won't be exercised in too strong a way - or at least in a way that harms a large number of people. The reason it won't happen is that aggressive moves that harm too many players threaten the whole game. So those in power have to consider whether their actions could ultimately undermine their own value, since the value is agreed upon by a larger market than just the people with consensus. Now, if you have a pile of nerds with more interest in ego or "correctness" than in financial value, then wild changes can occur. I don't mean to suggest that's always a bad thing either. It's a bit like choosing when to evolve in a backward compatible way or when to make changes that are good for the long term but which annoy or frustrate some people in the short term. For me, the takeaway of most interesting events in the blockchain world is that it's still quite young. There's a lot to learn, and it will take time to stabilize and become boring and reliable (or at least more predictable).
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
guard-of-terra 10y ago
> how superior centralized systems are Tell us? Because around here, I saw a huge number of bank fraud basically unpunished. "Yes those guys duplicated your SIM and stole all your funds. Too bad for you since we're not going to even try to catch them." Centralized systems might be efficient but the rule is, they don't care about you, so it's not your problems that they're going to solve. At least I can have some faith in the code, which is the final law.
- mark_edward 10y ago
  Code is law until well connected people need a bailout
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    Law is code until well connected people need a bailout.
- brilliantcode 10y ago
  For one, a theft on banks is extremely hard and rest of the system hums along. Mt Gox and DAO however resulted in catastrophic failure where everyone was collectively punished. On a personal level, there are good channels to get your money back where in a decentralized market, there's zero chance. It's better to have other humans keeping check on each other than code watching other code because it will not take into account the "spirit of contract".
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    In a centralized system, sometimes people can help you get your money back, but it is also possible that they'll help taking money away from you. "Spirit of contract" is usually taking money from less well-connected and awarding it to more well-connected. Have zero faith in it in XXI century.
  - mrb 10y ago
    "a theft on banks is extremely hard and rest of the system hums along. Mt Gox and DAO however resulted in catastrophic failure where everyone was collectively punished." Not "everyone" was punished. Only users of Mt Gox. And only investors of the DAO. Also both Bitcoin and Ethereum survived these incidents very well. With legacy financial systems (banks, cash) there are plenty of scenarios where you may never get your money back, eg.: lose your wallet/cash, 2016 Bangladesh Bank SWIFT hack where $60M was never recovered, etc.
lftl 10y ago
But Ethereum didn't pay out right? Didn't they fork to pull those coins back?
- dahdum 10y ago
  Yep, forked to swap the contract and survived, then survived more creative attacks for the remainder of year. Doing pretty well now.
drcode 10y ago
The truth is that people always agree that there are limits to the law and that the law at some level has to be aligned with common sense and the interests of the community... except in the case when saying "LOL CODE IS LAW!" gives them an opportunity stroke their smug egos.

wyager 10y ago

While I don't feel that your argument generalizes (e.g. Bitcoin actually probably is the best extant value exchange mechanism in many ways), the whole Ethereum thing was embarrassing. People fell for the mumbo-jumbo and then the whole project rendered itself pointless by going back on its "code is law" principle.

blunte 10y ago
In a way, they did actually prove that code is law - but they proved that "currently consensus-agreed-upon code is law." That old buggy code was law until the new code became law and changed the rules :). But of course its redundant to say "current code is law" because it's obvious by the logic of how consensus works. The confusion for people was their belief that code at one point in history would forever remain "the law".
- wyager 10y ago
  Most people consider ex post facto enforcement to be a trademark of a thoroughly broken legal system.
- imaginenore 10y ago
  "code is law" and "currently consensus-agreed-upon code is law" are not the same though, not even close. One allows for human intervention and the other one doesn't. Moreover, consensus means that it's possible that >50% participants can one day to decide and take the money from the other participants. By declaring them hackers / evil / etc, for example. Which is basically what happened.
  - blunte 10y ago
    Yes, consensus does mean that the group "in power" can change the rules in ways that can harm those outside the consensus. This is kind of scary, but on the other hand I think it won't be exercised in too strong a way - or at least in a way that harms a large number of people. The reason it won't happen is that aggressive moves that harm too many players threaten the whole game. So those in power have to consider whether their actions could ultimately undermine their own value, since the value is agreed upon by a larger market than just the people with consensus. Now, if you have a pile of nerds with more interest in ego or "correctness" than in financial value, then wild changes can occur. I don't mean to suggest that's always a bad thing either. It's a bit like choosing when to evolve in a backward compatible way or when to make changes that are good for the long term but which annoy or frustrate some people in the short term. For me, the takeaway of most interesting events in the blockchain world is that it's still quite young. There's a lot to learn, and it will take time to stabilize and become boring and reliable (or at least more predictable).

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

guard-of-terra 10y ago

> how superior centralized systems are Tell us? Because around here, I saw a huge number of bank fraud basically unpunished. "Yes those guys duplicated your SIM and stole all your funds. Too bad for you since we're not going to even try to catch them." Centralized systems might be efficient but the rule is, they don't care about you, so it's not your problems that they're going to solve. At least I can have some faith in the code, which is the final law.

mark_edward 10y ago
Code is law until well connected people need a bailout
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  Law is code until well connected people need a bailout.
brilliantcode 10y ago
For one, a theft on banks is extremely hard and rest of the system hums along. Mt Gox and DAO however resulted in catastrophic failure where everyone was collectively punished. On a personal level, there are good channels to get your money back where in a decentralized market, there's zero chance. It's better to have other humans keeping check on each other than code watching other code because it will not take into account the "spirit of contract".
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  In a centralized system, sometimes people can help you get your money back, but it is also possible that they'll help taking money away from you. "Spirit of contract" is usually taking money from less well-connected and awarding it to more well-connected. Have zero faith in it in XXI century.
- mrb 10y ago
  "a theft on banks is extremely hard and rest of the system hums along. Mt Gox and DAO however resulted in catastrophic failure where everyone was collectively punished." Not "everyone" was punished. Only users of Mt Gox. And only investors of the DAO. Also both Bitcoin and Ethereum survived these incidents very well. With legacy financial systems (banks, cash) there are plenty of scenarios where you may never get your money back, eg.: lose your wallet/cash, 2016 Bangladesh Bank SWIFT hack where $60M was never recovered, etc.

lftl 10y ago

But Ethereum didn't pay out right? Didn't they fork to pull those coins back?

dahdum 10y ago
Yep, forked to swap the contract and survived, then survived more creative attacks for the remainder of year. Doing pretty well now.

drcode 10y ago

The truth is that people always agree that there are limits to the law and that the law at some level has to be aligned with common sense and the interests of the community... except in the case when saying "LOL CODE IS LAW!" gives them an opportunity stroke their smug egos.