3 ms·

This holds true, even when the system assures you that it is immutable. I recall when a hacker noticed a vulnerability in some Ethereum smart contracts and used

This holds true, even when the system assures you that it is immutable. I recall when a hacker noticed a vulnerability in some Ethereum smart contracts and used it to "steal" ETHs, the transactions were swiftly reversed and the whole concept of "the code is the contract" was thrown out of the window in the process. https://www.wired.com/2016/06/50-million-hack-just-showed-dao-human/ https://www.wired.com/2016/06/50-million-hack-just-showed-da...

klipt 6y ago
Wasn't the blockchain forked? So technically there is still a version of Ethereum out there that makes it easy for hackers to steal your stuff, but for some reason nobody wants to use that version.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  The bug was not in Ethereum, it was in the contracts. And before this incident, the philosophy of Ethereum was that "the code is the contract". The hacker did not breach the contract. They noticed a bug, or as one could say, a loophole, and used it to their benefit. I don't know what the mechanism of enforcement was. Whether it was a fork or something else, the net effect was that a) the history was rewritten, the contract terms changed retroactively, and the monies were returned to their source; and b) the concept of code is contract was effectively showed to be an empty gesture and the philosophy was effectively abandoned.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    It was a fork. Ethereum Classic, the original chain, is still in operation, and in that fork, the DAO fix never happened. But since the DAO affected the core Ethereum developers and early proponents and backers of the system, all the talent stayed with the chain that corrected the issue. To me, that's a fair outcome. Forkability is a necessary feature, not a bug, of immutable blockchains. Just like it is for open source.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Plenty of people still use ETC lol. That's crypto for ya, though. This is such a great example, because it's an obvious case of "trustless for you but none for me thanks" -- if Vitalik believed that "code is law" was better than having the ability to amend the transaction, he'd just be on ETC dealing with the mess. If grandma's life savings gets stolen, well sucks for grandma. When it's Vitalik, well, it's time to fork the blockchain.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    I mean, it was up to the community at large to ultimately support the new fork. As an example, Bitcoin forked into Bitcoin Cash, but the community largely stuck with the main chain. It's really a market-driven decision which chains or forks thrive and which ones don't. At any rate, it's more and more expensive to do forks as a chain grows in maturity and adoption.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      Sure, but do you think "the community at large" really makes such decisions in any meaningful way? Overwhelmingly, "the community" blindly follows a few leaders who happen to have a high profile or make the most noise in the right forums. Which means that in practice, these "immutable" blockchains and their "code-is-law" contracts are immutable for the masses, but can be modified (in effect, by forking) when it's in the interest of a few powerful individuals/entities to do so. So what have we gained, really?

klipt 6y ago

Wasn't the blockchain forked? So technically there is still a version of Ethereum out there that makes it easy for hackers to steal your stuff, but for some reason nobody wants to use that version.

smnrchrds 6y ago
The bug was not in Ethereum, it was in the contracts. And before this incident, the philosophy of Ethereum was that "the code is the contract". The hacker did not breach the contract. They noticed a bug, or as one could say, a loophole, and used it to their benefit. I don't know what the mechanism of enforcement was. Whether it was a fork or something else, the net effect was that a) the history was rewritten, the contract terms changed retroactively, and the monies were returned to their source; and b) the concept of code is contract was effectively showed to be an empty gesture and the philosophy was effectively abandoned.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  It was a fork. Ethereum Classic, the original chain, is still in operation, and in that fork, the DAO fix never happened. But since the DAO affected the core Ethereum developers and early proponents and backers of the system, all the talent stayed with the chain that corrected the issue. To me, that's a fair outcome. Forkability is a necessary feature, not a bug, of immutable blockchains. Just like it is for open source.
arcticbull 6y ago
Plenty of people still use ETC lol. That's crypto for ya, though. This is such a great example, because it's an obvious case of "trustless for you but none for me thanks" -- if Vitalik believed that "code is law" was better than having the ability to amend the transaction, he'd just be on ETC dealing with the mess. If grandma's life savings gets stolen, well sucks for grandma. When it's Vitalik, well, it's time to fork the blockchain.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  I mean, it was up to the community at large to ultimately support the new fork. As an example, Bitcoin forked into Bitcoin Cash, but the community largely stuck with the main chain. It's really a market-driven decision which chains or forks thrive and which ones don't. At any rate, it's more and more expensive to do forks as a chain grows in maturity and adoption.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    Sure, but do you think "the community at large" really makes such decisions in any meaningful way? Overwhelmingly, "the community" blindly follows a few leaders who happen to have a high profile or make the most noise in the right forums. Which means that in practice, these "immutable" blockchains and their "code-is-law" contracts are immutable for the masses, but can be modified (in effect, by forking) when it's in the interest of a few powerful individuals/entities to do so. So what have we gained, really?