4 ms·

> Can the transactions then be rolled back? No -- well, kinda. This is unintentionally hilarious because, of course, Ethereum has done just that once before.

> Can the transactions then be rolled back? No -- well, kinda. This is unintentionally hilarious because, of course, Ethereum has done just that once before. By creating a new network that picked up from just before the "fradulent" activity. The part that might be confusing to some folks is that in order to operate a truly trustless and decentralized cryptocoin ecosystem, we have no way of distinguishing between "fraudulent transactions" and legitimate ones. They're all legitimate otherwise they'd have been rejected by the network.

cortesoft 9y ago
So there IS a way - if it was rejected by the network, it was fraudulent.
- dasil003 9y ago
  Sure, but it also wasn't a transaction.
- wyldfire 9y ago
  Necessary but not sufficient.... I can't quite tell whether you're trying to underscore a point about cryptocoins' benefits or if you're misunderstanding the conversation. Just in case it's the latter -- I was probably a bit too fast n loose with the quotes around "fraudulent" so I will explain in more detail. From the article: > Phishing was the most widely used hacking technique for ICOs, with hackers stealing up to $1.5 million in ICO proceeds per month, according to the report. This is a kind of "fraud" which cryptocoins are not designed to thwart. If you steal someone's keys and take their money, it can't be returned to them unless the thief decides to return it. This is very much like cash. The problem comes from decentralization. In the Real World, we usually defer to authorities when it comes to crime and restitution. The authorities come to a determination and publish their decree. This is very much centralized. Cryptocoins are decentralized and are simple automata. There's no authority that we can appeal to in order to reverse a transaction that was executed in bad faith. Part of the problem is that there's no way for the automaton to trust this authority without destabilizing the entire system.
- wickedlogic 9y ago
  Except the network actually forked, and both half's still exist (ETH and ETC) and both are still used. Really, it should not viewed 'a way'. The fun part will be when half the world forks bitcoin, but forcefully takes over the network. The incentives at play do not cover this well, but it is also unlikely... but only because there is too much money is false signaling and playing both (many) sides of the battle. To clarify, the network would basically be agreeing to honor the possibly already spent coins... and that isn't really going to happen at this point.
kss238 9y ago
" By creating a new network that picked up from just before the "fradulent" activity." I thought they just created a new transaction that moved all the stolen funds to a new smart contract?
- SahAssar 9y ago
  Wouldn't that be even worse?
  - kss238 9y ago
    My understanding was that if they rolled back the entire network to just before the hack, lots of transactions would be rolled back that didn't need to be. That's why, from what I remember, when etheruem was hardforked created a transaction from the thief's wallet to a new smart contract, and everyone agreed to validate that transaction even though it wasn't signed by a private key.
    - SahAssar 9y ago
      Yeah, thats what I mean, isn't it worse to be able to create a forced transaction than to be able to fork the chain at any given point?
- celticninja 9y ago
  No the stolen funds remained on the original chain, ETC on most exchanges, and the attacker maintained ownership.
  - kss238 9y ago
    That doesn't contradict my understanding of how the hard for occurred though. Obviously the etc chain didn't change.
    - speakeron 9y ago
      The Ethereum Classic chain changed later in a hardfork. While this was a 'cleanup' job to remove empty accounts belonging to the DAO hacker, it was done without using his private key and puts lie to the claim that the ETC chain is 'immutable'.

cortesoft 9y ago

So there IS a way - if it was rejected by the network, it was fraudulent.

dasil003 9y ago
Sure, but it also wasn't a transaction.
wyldfire 9y ago
Necessary but not sufficient.... I can't quite tell whether you're trying to underscore a point about cryptocoins' benefits or if you're misunderstanding the conversation. Just in case it's the latter -- I was probably a bit too fast n loose with the quotes around "fraudulent" so I will explain in more detail. From the article: > Phishing was the most widely used hacking technique for ICOs, with hackers stealing up to $1.5 million in ICO proceeds per month, according to the report. This is a kind of "fraud" which cryptocoins are not designed to thwart. If you steal someone's keys and take their money, it can't be returned to them unless the thief decides to return it. This is very much like cash. The problem comes from decentralization. In the Real World, we usually defer to authorities when it comes to crime and restitution. The authorities come to a determination and publish their decree. This is very much centralized. Cryptocoins are decentralized and are simple automata. There's no authority that we can appeal to in order to reverse a transaction that was executed in bad faith. Part of the problem is that there's no way for the automaton to trust this authority without destabilizing the entire system.
wickedlogic 9y ago
Except the network actually forked, and both half's still exist (ETH and ETC) and both are still used. Really, it should not viewed 'a way'. The fun part will be when half the world forks bitcoin, but forcefully takes over the network. The incentives at play do not cover this well, but it is also unlikely... but only because there is too much money is false signaling and playing both (many) sides of the battle. To clarify, the network would basically be agreeing to honor the possibly already spent coins... and that isn't really going to happen at this point.

kss238 9y ago

" By creating a new network that picked up from just before the "fradulent" activity." I thought they just created a new transaction that moved all the stolen funds to a new smart contract?

SahAssar 9y ago
Wouldn't that be even worse?
- kss238 9y ago
  My understanding was that if they rolled back the entire network to just before the hack, lots of transactions would be rolled back that didn't need to be. That's why, from what I remember, when etheruem was hardforked created a transaction from the thief's wallet to a new smart contract, and everyone agreed to validate that transaction even though it wasn't signed by a private key.
  - SahAssar 9y ago
    Yeah, thats what I mean, isn't it worse to be able to create a forced transaction than to be able to fork the chain at any given point?
celticninja 9y ago
No the stolen funds remained on the original chain, ETC on most exchanges, and the attacker maintained ownership.
- kss238 9y ago
  That doesn't contradict my understanding of how the hard for occurred though. Obviously the etc chain didn't change.
  - speakeron 9y ago
    The Ethereum Classic chain changed later in a hardfork. While this was a 'cleanup' job to remove empty accounts belonging to the DAO hacker, it was done without using his private key and puts lie to the claim that the ETC chain is 'immutable'.