4 ms·
> In June 2016, users exploited a vulnerability in The DAO code to enable them to siphon off one-third of The DAO's funds to a subsidiary account. On 20 July 20
by viklove 6y ago
> In June 2016, users exploited a vulnerability in The DAO code to enable them to siphon off one-third of The DAO's funds to a subsidiary account. On 20 July 2016 01:20:40 PM +UTC at Block 1920000, the Ethereum community decided to hard-fork the Ethereum blockchain to restore virtually all funds to the original contract.[11] This was controversial, and led to a fork in Ethereum, where the original unforked blockchain was maintained as Ethereum Classic, thus breaking Ethereum into two separate active blockchains, each with its own cryptocurrency.
Is this what you're referring to? The vulnerability has been patched, so I'm not sure what your argument here is. Are you saying we should never use code because code can have flaws?
- ceejayoz 6y agoI'm saying "smart contracts" nearly immediately wound up breaking the "code is law" principle it claimed to be built on. It didn't survive its first big challenge.
- lakecresva 6y agoI think the more important lesson from the DAO hack was the fork itself, and that by organizing it, Vitalik and friends saved their own wallets (after hilariously asking exchanges to stop trading). If the people holding the reigns can get what they want by applying the right amount of influence, it's not any better than what we already have, and is probably not a great vehicle for realizing the utility of self-executing financial or legal agreements.