4 ms·

> -Ethereum broke trust and "code is law" when self-interested parties were able to rewrite history. Transaction malleability is a terrible property for a "stor

> -Ethereum broke trust and "code is law" when self-interested parties were able to rewrite history. Transaction malleability is a terrible property for a "store of value." It leaves the currency open to government interference, manipulation, etc. Rebuttal: a) This isn't a technological feature/fault of Ethereum. What you really mean to say is that 1) Ethereum foundation broke trust by supporting a fork 2) Most Ethereum users chose to go with the fork. Technically you can be with ETC (the unforked version of ETH). b) Bitcoin can be forked too, there is nothing technological safeguard in there in it for it to be not forked, because it's literally impossible to build a technology which can't be forked(unless enforced by the govt). c) The DAO fork was made possible by a bunch of factors: 1. The money the hacker stole was locked in a contract where he couldn't touch it for 30 days. This bought Ethereum foundation time to do something about it. If Polo gets hacked tomorrow, there is nothing Ethereum foundation can do anything about. 2. ETH is based on accounts model, rather than bitcoin's UTXO model. This means Bitcoin can't go with a fork even if they wanted to even if somehow DAO was implemented in an n-lock transaction for 30 days. d) Ethereum gets crap for breaking "trust" when as a bitcoin holder I would have totally supported a fork to prevent MtGox or Bitfinix's funds being recovered from the thieves. The fundamental question which everybody who is pondering over this argument on Ethereum needs to answer is this, "If you're using technology X, and a certain malicious entity/bug has affected a significant majority of the other users of technology X,then would you be willing to make attempts to thwart the actions of the malicious users." Ethereum people showed that they would prefer such an action. Bitcoiners who don't have any stake in this, love to criticize Ethereumers for this.

antocv 10y ago
It was not a bug it was not a theft, the DAO worked perfectly as designed. Ethereum failed to work as designed and intented, by its creators it was hacked and funds stolen from the genius hacker.
- splintercell 10y ago
  > It was not a bug it was not a theft, the DAO worked perfectly as designed. By that definition of a 'bug', all bugs work perfectly as designed. I mean what is your definition of a bug then? The DAO's code allowed a person to ask for money to be taken out before the balance was fully updated, this resulted in the attacker taking money out over and over and over. This clearly was not the 'intent' of the creators or any of it's investors.
  - antocv 10y ago
    The intent was "code as law", then it changed to "authority together with amount of money invested by creators and other investors is the law". All code has bugs, but you dont go asking Satoshi to give your bitcoins back you sent them to the wrong address. "Oops that was not the intent".

antocv 10y ago

It was not a bug it was not a theft, the DAO worked perfectly as designed. Ethereum failed to work as designed and intented, by its creators it was hacked and funds stolen from the genius hacker.

splintercell 10y ago
> It was not a bug it was not a theft, the DAO worked perfectly as designed. By that definition of a 'bug', all bugs work perfectly as designed. I mean what is your definition of a bug then? The DAO's code allowed a person to ask for money to be taken out before the balance was fully updated, this resulted in the attacker taking money out over and over and over. This clearly was not the 'intent' of the creators or any of it's investors.
- antocv 10y ago
  The intent was "code as law", then it changed to "authority together with amount of money invested by creators and other investors is the law". All code has bugs, but you dont go asking Satoshi to give your bitcoins back you sent them to the wrong address. "Oops that was not the intent".