4 ms·
Im failing to see how what the DAO exploiter did was actually illegal. The software IS law in the world of Etherium. There is a reason they are called "Smart
by holtalanm 9y ago
Im failing to see how what the DAO exploiter did was actually illegal.
The software IS law in the world of Etherium. There is a reason they are called "Smart Contracts", instead of "methods" or "functions". They are designed to be binding.
The DAO having a faulty smart contract is akin to someone agreeing to a bad deal. They feel cheated, but there is nothing legally that they can do.
Personally, I believe there should never have been a hard fork. The people that invested in the DAO were stupid to do so.
- flashmob 9y agotbf, the bug was triggered not only because of theDao's code, but because of a combination of other conditions, including the way the virtual machine executed the code. The meat of the exploit was executed in the attacker's contract, as explained here https://medium.com/@MyPaoG/explaining-the-dao-exploit-for-beginners-in-solidity-80ee84f0d470 https://medium.com/@MyPaoG/explaining-the-dao-exploit-for-be... The token holders of theDao did not approve running of the attacker's contract, since they did not agree to the attacker's contract. At least that's how I interpret it. Also, the word "contract" is not the same as a contract in law, it's more of a buzzword. They are just programs. So I don't think a program can have legal meaning by itself because it also depends of the semantics of the machine & how it interprets the programs. What happens if the code is correct, but something in the machine is broken? The rules of the Ethereum virtual machine were altered later. I think the 'fallback function' now has a limit of 23k gas, correct me if I'm wrong, so attacks like these are more difficult, if even possible.