14 ms·

[citation needed] Perhaps you meant ETC?

by zionic 6y ago

twox2 6y ago
I would also like to see this claim backed up or at least offered with more context.
- croes 6y ago
  https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/bug-causes-chaos-on-the-ethereum-blockchain https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/bug-causes-chaos-on-the-et... https://our.status.im/vitalik-escalates-eth-2-0-merge-as-miners-plan-a-51-attack/ https://our.status.im/vitalik-escalates-eth-2-0-merge-as-min...
Scoundreller 6y ago
Wasn’t present-day ETH a 51% attack against now-called Ethereum Classic (ETC) because they wanted to roll-back a transaction/vulnerability they didn’t like?
- crazydoggers 6y ago
  No. ETC was simply a hard fork of a minority of people that didn’t like a change to the blockchain that fixed that DAO contract bug. A 51% attack involves a group acquiring 51% of the hashing power in order to confirm transactions that otherwise would be rejected (like double spends) Any group of miners (less than 51% in the case of ETC) are free to update or not update their clients as they choose. When any set of groups begin to diverge, then you have a hard fork. The difference being with a 51% attack there’s one chain everyone agrees on, however, someone’s been able to get everyone to agree on fraudulent transactions. A hard fork creates 2 chains that those two groups then maintain totally separate transaction histories on.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    Okay, but which coding errors/vulnerabilities get on the agenda to fix via rollback and which don’t? That couldn’t be the first or last contract bug like this. If I come across a bug, will it only be fixed if I only exploit it to a large degree? What’s the limit to “sorry for your loss”?
    - crazydoggers 6y ago
      It’s a democracy. If you can convince enough people that it makes sense then you can implement a change. The ETC fork occurred because ETH was in its infancy and it was deemed by that majority that there was a legitimate bug that wasn’t in the interest of anyone to allow to go unfixed. Anyone is free to disagree. The value in the blockchain is in its democracy. As soon as you fork, if you have enough people you still maintain value in both forks, so it’s no loss to anyone.
      - Scoundreller 6y ago
        Sounds like a terrible place to execute MY code. A rollback has occurred and there’s no policy on when/why they’d encourage it again.
        crazydoggers 6y ago
        It’s not YOUR code. It’s a PUBLIC blockchain. The contract you publish is public! Your gifting your code to the world in the hopes it solves a real world problem, and it depends on me and everyone else who runs your code on my/their computer with my/their resources to care or agree. There’s not “code roll back”. That’s not a thing, that doesn’t exists. A hard fork is possible, which is very different; it requires the consensus of millions of miners. The contract and transactions and history still all exist. And why would your little contract get changed? Why would that happen? It wouldn’t. Again, it’s public, it’s consensus driven. These are just uneducated straw man fallacy fud stuff that gets passed around. If you don’t understand how the blockchain works on a fundamental level then please spare us all from political comments. Let’s talk about facts and technology. Educate yourself before you comment. Read something other than Twitter and Reddit. I give up.
        jki275 6y ago
        ETH was a hard fork with the sole purpose of rolling back the DAO fuckup. Your comments are nonsensical and completely uninformed on this topic.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    So, then the parent is right: it was rolling back a transaction (smartcontract with oversight) they didn't like. It wasn't like a bug with the reference implementation, it was one of a zillion contracts where the code diverged from author intent, on a platform that defines itself by "code is law, trust the code over any natural language description thereof". And the only reason this transaction got rolled back -- rather than the numerous others that had such a problem -- is because it affected a lot of wealthy insiders. A platform created to resist elite corruption of the contract law, has its elite corrupt its contract law.
    - crazydoggers 6y ago
      You guys are hilarious. I don’t know why I bother commenting here anymore. It’s basically Reddit now. Facts just countered with incoherent nonsense. The parent is not right, because by definition it is not a 51% attack. Plain and simple, that’s something entirely different. The blockchain is a democracy. It’s consensus. If you want to fix something you convince the community it’s worth it. It has nothing to do with wealth insiders etc etc. lol. Even with ETC which was a minority, if it was done for sound reasons it would have succeeded. But it wasn’t, it was just a cash grab using excuses to seem legitimate. Here’s finally a financial solution where people have open insight and can openly participate... a lot less insider than any other banking system. Go have fun with your GameStop stock lol... I’ll have fun with being financial successful why you all complain... and keep shorting you with options and making a killing. It’s called being smart, nothing wealth, conspiracy, insider to it.
      - Scoundreller 6y ago
        It’s consensus going-forward. So I can write code and you can be confident that the code is what I said it was. Once you start rewriting the past, it’s no longer append-only and you’ve thrown away the basic fundamental of a blockchain.
        nootropicat 6y ago
        It wasn't technically rolled back, a hard fork moved funds out of contract. There was a big push to make another recovery via a hardfork in 2018 (Parity multisig hack) and it failed, so most likely no hack is ever going to be big enough again
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jki275 6y ago
    ETC is the original chain. The current ETH was the forced hard fork to roll back the fuckup that was the DAO.
    - crazydoggers 6y ago
      You’re clearly shilling for something here or just like to be contrarian. And who “forced” whom?? I’m pretty sure I chose to upgrade the software because it made more sense to me.. just like everyone that upgraded. There’s no such thing as the “original chain”. ETC has itself had multiple hard forks (ie Agharta and Atlantis) Every time the software is updated in a way that requires clients to upgrade, you get a hard fork. It’s simply that in most cases, no one keeps the old software, so you don’t have a second blockchain fork that lives on. So what’s the “original”. If you mean Ethereum as it was prior to the DAO fix, then literally no one is running that chain. I’ll go run some mining clients pre ETC Agharta and call it “Ethereum Classic Classic” and then post stupid comments all over forums how it’s the “original” Edit: Ahhh... you’re shilling. You’ve got ADA and Tezos... I’m guessing ETC as well. I read back through your history. For those reading, just goes to show you kiddies, don’t believe everything you read online. Do you’re own research, and a lot of it. And research doesn’t mean what people post on forums, it means original sources, code, technical papers, etc. When people have vested interests like with investment stuff, there’s lots of FUD. I’ve got tokens in ADA, DOT, ETC, ETH, BTC, etc etc etc. I am interested in discussing the facts and technology of blockchains, not in pumping some single coin I have.
      - jki275 6y ago
        I'm not pumping anything. I haven't shilled for anything. I've never told you to buy anything. But if you believe ETH is the original chain, you're simply wrong -- and technically you are actually the one shilling ETH. Yes, I have ADA and XTZ, both of which are far superior in technology to ETH. I have a bunch of others as well (not ETC or ETH). I'm not telling anyone to buy anything, certainly not on my word. In fact I generally tell people NOT to get involved if they're asking questions because they're just going to lose money. Everybody jumping into ADA at 1.25 going "it must go up since it went on coinbase yesterday!!" might just get destroyed. Or they might not, who knows. I'm not in it for the money, I'm in it for the technology. Always have been.
  - Annabelle75 6y ago
    Technically, ETC carried on the existing chain leaving the DAO child hacker's coins intact, and ETH hard forked to restore them. It's an important distinction as it shows only bitcoin is (probably? hopefully?) immutable. It was a tumultuous and amazingly interesting time, with the hacker claiming the child dao function was used legally and threatening legal action if ETH forked. Of course the thief never stepped into the light, the (explicative) coward, as he would've definitely been litigated back to the stone ages, and probably jailed. Worth reading up on...
croes 6y ago
https://our.status.im/vitalik-escalates-eth-2-0-merge-as-miners-plan-a-51-attack/ https://our.status.im/vitalik-escalates-eth-2-0-merge-as-min...

[citation needed] Perhaps you meant ETC?

by zionic 6y ago

[citation needed] Perhaps you meant ETC?

twox2 6y ago

I would also like to see this claim backed up or at least offered with more context.

croes 6y ago
https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/bug-causes-chaos-on-the-ethereum-blockchain https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/bug-causes-chaos-on-the-et... https://our.status.im/vitalik-escalates-eth-2-0-merge-as-miners-plan-a-51-attack/ https://our.status.im/vitalik-escalates-eth-2-0-merge-as-min...

Scoundreller 6y ago

Wasn’t present-day ETH a 51% attack against now-called Ethereum Classic (ETC) because they wanted to roll-back a transaction/vulnerability they didn’t like?

crazydoggers 6y ago
No. ETC was simply a hard fork of a minority of people that didn’t like a change to the blockchain that fixed that DAO contract bug. A 51% attack involves a group acquiring 51% of the hashing power in order to confirm transactions that otherwise would be rejected (like double spends) Any group of miners (less than 51% in the case of ETC) are free to update or not update their clients as they choose. When any set of groups begin to diverge, then you have a hard fork. The difference being with a 51% attack there’s one chain everyone agrees on, however, someone’s been able to get everyone to agree on fraudulent transactions. A hard fork creates 2 chains that those two groups then maintain totally separate transaction histories on.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  Okay, but which coding errors/vulnerabilities get on the agenda to fix via rollback and which don’t? That couldn’t be the first or last contract bug like this. If I come across a bug, will it only be fixed if I only exploit it to a large degree? What’s the limit to “sorry for your loss”?
  - crazydoggers 6y ago
    It’s a democracy. If you can convince enough people that it makes sense then you can implement a change. The ETC fork occurred because ETH was in its infancy and it was deemed by that majority that there was a legitimate bug that wasn’t in the interest of anyone to allow to go unfixed. Anyone is free to disagree. The value in the blockchain is in its democracy. As soon as you fork, if you have enough people you still maintain value in both forks, so it’s no loss to anyone.
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      Sounds like a terrible place to execute MY code. A rollback has occurred and there’s no policy on when/why they’d encourage it again.
      - crazydoggers 6y ago
        It’s not YOUR code. It’s a PUBLIC blockchain. The contract you publish is public! Your gifting your code to the world in the hopes it solves a real world problem, and it depends on me and everyone else who runs your code on my/their computer with my/their resources to care or agree. There’s not “code roll back”. That’s not a thing, that doesn’t exists. A hard fork is possible, which is very different; it requires the consensus of millions of miners. The contract and transactions and history still all exist. And why would your little contract get changed? Why would that happen? It wouldn’t. Again, it’s public, it’s consensus driven. These are just uneducated straw man fallacy fud stuff that gets passed around. If you don’t understand how the blockchain works on a fundamental level then please spare us all from political comments. Let’s talk about facts and technology. Educate yourself before you comment. Read something other than Twitter and Reddit. I give up.
        jki275 6y ago
        ETH was a hard fork with the sole purpose of rolling back the DAO fuckup. Your comments are nonsensical and completely uninformed on this topic.
- SilasX 6y ago
  So, then the parent is right: it was rolling back a transaction (smartcontract with oversight) they didn't like. It wasn't like a bug with the reference implementation, it was one of a zillion contracts where the code diverged from author intent, on a platform that defines itself by "code is law, trust the code over any natural language description thereof". And the only reason this transaction got rolled back -- rather than the numerous others that had such a problem -- is because it affected a lot of wealthy insiders. A platform created to resist elite corruption of the contract law, has its elite corrupt its contract law.
  - crazydoggers 6y ago
    You guys are hilarious. I don’t know why I bother commenting here anymore. It’s basically Reddit now. Facts just countered with incoherent nonsense. The parent is not right, because by definition it is not a 51% attack. Plain and simple, that’s something entirely different. The blockchain is a democracy. It’s consensus. If you want to fix something you convince the community it’s worth it. It has nothing to do with wealth insiders etc etc. lol. Even with ETC which was a minority, if it was done for sound reasons it would have succeeded. But it wasn’t, it was just a cash grab using excuses to seem legitimate. Here’s finally a financial solution where people have open insight and can openly participate... a lot less insider than any other banking system. Go have fun with your GameStop stock lol... I’ll have fun with being financial successful why you all complain... and keep shorting you with options and making a killing. It’s called being smart, nothing wealth, conspiracy, insider to it.
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      It’s consensus going-forward. So I can write code and you can be confident that the code is what I said it was. Once you start rewriting the past, it’s no longer append-only and you’ve thrown away the basic fundamental of a blockchain.
      - nootropicat 6y ago
        It wasn't technically rolled back, a hard fork moved funds out of contract. There was a big push to make another recovery via a hardfork in 2018 (Parity multisig hack) and it failed, so most likely no hack is ever going to be big enough again
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jki275 6y ago
  ETC is the original chain. The current ETH was the forced hard fork to roll back the fuckup that was the DAO.
  - crazydoggers 6y ago
    You’re clearly shilling for something here or just like to be contrarian. And who “forced” whom?? I’m pretty sure I chose to upgrade the software because it made more sense to me.. just like everyone that upgraded. There’s no such thing as the “original chain”. ETC has itself had multiple hard forks (ie Agharta and Atlantis) Every time the software is updated in a way that requires clients to upgrade, you get a hard fork. It’s simply that in most cases, no one keeps the old software, so you don’t have a second blockchain fork that lives on. So what’s the “original”. If you mean Ethereum as it was prior to the DAO fix, then literally no one is running that chain. I’ll go run some mining clients pre ETC Agharta and call it “Ethereum Classic Classic” and then post stupid comments all over forums how it’s the “original” Edit: Ahhh... you’re shilling. You’ve got ADA and Tezos... I’m guessing ETC as well. I read back through your history. For those reading, just goes to show you kiddies, don’t believe everything you read online. Do you’re own research, and a lot of it. And research doesn’t mean what people post on forums, it means original sources, code, technical papers, etc. When people have vested interests like with investment stuff, there’s lots of FUD. I’ve got tokens in ADA, DOT, ETC, ETH, BTC, etc etc etc. I am interested in discussing the facts and technology of blockchains, not in pumping some single coin I have.
    - jki275 6y ago
      I'm not pumping anything. I haven't shilled for anything. I've never told you to buy anything. But if you believe ETH is the original chain, you're simply wrong -- and technically you are actually the one shilling ETH. Yes, I have ADA and XTZ, both of which are far superior in technology to ETH. I have a bunch of others as well (not ETC or ETH). I'm not telling anyone to buy anything, certainly not on my word. In fact I generally tell people NOT to get involved if they're asking questions because they're just going to lose money. Everybody jumping into ADA at 1.25 going "it must go up since it went on coinbase yesterday!!" might just get destroyed. Or they might not, who knows. I'm not in it for the money, I'm in it for the technology. Always have been.
- Annabelle75 6y ago
  Technically, ETC carried on the existing chain leaving the DAO child hacker's coins intact, and ETH hard forked to restore them. It's an important distinction as it shows only bitcoin is (probably? hopefully?) immutable. It was a tumultuous and amazingly interesting time, with the hacker claiming the child dao function was used legally and threatening legal action if ETH forked. Of course the thief never stepped into the light, the (explicative) coward, as he would've definitely been litigated back to the stone ages, and probably jailed. Worth reading up on...

croes 6y ago

https://our.status.im/vitalik-escalates-eth-2-0-merge-as-miners-plan-a-51-attack/ https://our.status.im/vitalik-escalates-eth-2-0-merge-as-min...