7 ms·

How can you verify that? currently everybody just listens to what he has to say, when he decided to undo the DAO hack, the original "immutable" chain just died

How can you verify that? currently everybody just listens to what he has to say, when he decided to undo the DAO hack, the original "immutable" chain just died off because Vitalik put his vote on ETH. Sincerely, I really wish he hadn't done that. (I'm guessing vbuterin is THE vbuterin here)

suikadayo 5y ago
Vitalik didn't decide to undo the DAO hack, there was a community vote (http://v1.carbonvote.com/ http://v1.carbonvote.com/), unlike Satoshi who singlehandedly rolled back the chain in 2010 after the 184 billion BTC hack. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9573#msg9573 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9573#msg9573
- grubles 5y ago
  Coinvotes in the context of massive insider premines is completely useless. Of course a coinvote would reflect "Yes to censoring the DAO hacker" because the DAO hacker controlled more ETH than the top 3 current ETH accounts. And the insiders stand to benefit the most from proof of stake because it's a system designed to further enrich the already rich.
- fredfoobar 5y ago
  Satoshi fixed a bug (that reverted it back to the initial rules everyone agreed upon). The DAO hack actually was an exploitation of the rules that everyone agreed upon in the DAO, recursively calling a function in your smart contract layer is not a bug. This brings us to an interesting topic, bugs are common in software, * Should you make the protocol layer so complex that it increases the probability of bugs being found, being harder to understand and potentially grind the whole system to a halt if a bug is found. OR * Should you break them up into layers where each layer has one responsibility (base monetary layer, a smart contract layer, a micro payments layer etc.)
  - fredfoobar 5y ago
    I want to add to this, some additional material, anyone interested in the current state of DeFi can understand this https://medium.com/coinmonks/demystify-the-dark-forest-on-ethereum-sandwich-attacks-5a3aec9fa33e https://medium.com/coinmonks/demystify-the-dark-forest-on-et...
  - jude- 5y ago
    > Satoshi fixed a bug (that reverted it back to the initial rules everyone agreed upon). The Bitcoin chain fork where the bug manifested wasn't reverted. Instead, a chain fork where the bug didn't manifest outgrew the one that did, and is now the canonical fork. If they wanted, miners could continue to mine the fork where the bug manifested. The point is, the Bitcoin protocol didn't change at all -- it merely presented miners and users a choice between two conflicting histories. You can start up a miner on the other fork today if you wanted. This is not true for Ethereum. Because the undecidability of the EVM precludes miners from determining whether or not a given transaction would touch the DAO contract without first executing the transaction for less than the cost of executing them, there was really no good answer to dealing with the DAO hack. The options were: * Let the DAO hacker keep the proceeds (this became Ethereum Classic) * Change the network protocol to prevent the DAO code from ever running (this is Ethereum today) * Change the EVM so it would permit miners to determine which contract(s) are reachable from a given transaction, thereby allowing them to filter out contracts that could move the DAO funds (a path not taken, because censorship)
    - fredfoobar 5y ago
      > The Bitcoin chain fork where the bug manifested wasn't reverted. Instead, a chain fork where the bug didn't manifest outgrew the one that did, and is now the canonical fork. That's right, thank you for adding the missing nuance.
hanniabu 5y ago
Every single one of your comments up and down this thread is incorrect misinformation and it's extremely tiring. 1) His address is public (which I'm sure you're well aware and are intentionally ignoring so you can FUD): https://etherscan.io/address/0xab5801a7d398351b8be11c439e05c5b3259aec9b https://etherscan.io/address/0xab5801a7d398351b8be11c439e05c... 2) The blockchain wasn't mutated after the DAO hack. This has been well reported. 3) "He" didn't decide to do anything, the Ethereum community did. Stop with the endless BTC maxi talking points and misinformation warfare.
- grubles 5y ago
  Why did you edit out the actual address?
- fredfoobar 5y ago
  > The blockchain wasn't mutated after the DAO hack. This has been well reported. https://web.archive.org/web/20201214170136if_/https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201214170136if_/https://www.re... from another post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27202347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27202347
  - hanniabu 5y ago
    That's a post on Reddit spewing a lot of provenly false Bitcoin-maxi tropes. Same old tired song and game. Bitcoin relies on misinforming people in order to stay relevant. Good day to you sir.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - fredfoobar 5y ago
      I'm not a Bitcoin-maxi, calling someone a "bitcoin-maxi" and dismissing their argument isn't a valid way to counter. Kindly explain the tropes to us and enlighten us why that is provenly false. I'll read it, I promise.

suikadayo 5y ago

Vitalik didn't decide to undo the DAO hack, there was a community vote (http://v1.carbonvote.com/ http://v1.carbonvote.com/), unlike Satoshi who singlehandedly rolled back the chain in 2010 after the 184 billion BTC hack. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9573#msg9573 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9573#msg9573

grubles 5y ago
Coinvotes in the context of massive insider premines is completely useless. Of course a coinvote would reflect "Yes to censoring the DAO hacker" because the DAO hacker controlled more ETH than the top 3 current ETH accounts. And the insiders stand to benefit the most from proof of stake because it's a system designed to further enrich the already rich.
fredfoobar 5y ago
Satoshi fixed a bug (that reverted it back to the initial rules everyone agreed upon). The DAO hack actually was an exploitation of the rules that everyone agreed upon in the DAO, recursively calling a function in your smart contract layer is not a bug. This brings us to an interesting topic, bugs are common in software, * Should you make the protocol layer so complex that it increases the probability of bugs being found, being harder to understand and potentially grind the whole system to a halt if a bug is found. OR * Should you break them up into layers where each layer has one responsibility (base monetary layer, a smart contract layer, a micro payments layer etc.)
- fredfoobar 5y ago
  I want to add to this, some additional material, anyone interested in the current state of DeFi can understand this https://medium.com/coinmonks/demystify-the-dark-forest-on-ethereum-sandwich-attacks-5a3aec9fa33e https://medium.com/coinmonks/demystify-the-dark-forest-on-et...
- jude- 5y ago
  > Satoshi fixed a bug (that reverted it back to the initial rules everyone agreed upon). The Bitcoin chain fork where the bug manifested wasn't reverted. Instead, a chain fork where the bug didn't manifest outgrew the one that did, and is now the canonical fork. If they wanted, miners could continue to mine the fork where the bug manifested. The point is, the Bitcoin protocol didn't change at all -- it merely presented miners and users a choice between two conflicting histories. You can start up a miner on the other fork today if you wanted. This is not true for Ethereum. Because the undecidability of the EVM precludes miners from determining whether or not a given transaction would touch the DAO contract without first executing the transaction for less than the cost of executing them, there was really no good answer to dealing with the DAO hack. The options were: * Let the DAO hacker keep the proceeds (this became Ethereum Classic) * Change the network protocol to prevent the DAO code from ever running (this is Ethereum today) * Change the EVM so it would permit miners to determine which contract(s) are reachable from a given transaction, thereby allowing them to filter out contracts that could move the DAO funds (a path not taken, because censorship)
  - fredfoobar 5y ago
    > The Bitcoin chain fork where the bug manifested wasn't reverted. Instead, a chain fork where the bug didn't manifest outgrew the one that did, and is now the canonical fork. That's right, thank you for adding the missing nuance.

hanniabu 5y ago

Every single one of your comments up and down this thread is incorrect misinformation and it's extremely tiring. 1) His address is public (which I'm sure you're well aware and are intentionally ignoring so you can FUD): https://etherscan.io/address/0xab5801a7d398351b8be11c439e05c5b3259aec9b https://etherscan.io/address/0xab5801a7d398351b8be11c439e05c... 2) The blockchain wasn't mutated after the DAO hack. This has been well reported. 3) "He" didn't decide to do anything, the Ethereum community did. Stop with the endless BTC maxi talking points and misinformation warfare.

grubles 5y ago
Why did you edit out the actual address?
fredfoobar 5y ago
> The blockchain wasn't mutated after the DAO hack. This has been well reported. https://web.archive.org/web/20201214170136if_/https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201214170136if_/https://www.re... from another post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27202347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27202347
- hanniabu 5y ago
  That's a post on Reddit spewing a lot of provenly false Bitcoin-maxi tropes. Same old tired song and game. Bitcoin relies on misinforming people in order to stay relevant. Good day to you sir.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - fredfoobar 5y ago
    I'm not a Bitcoin-maxi, calling someone a "bitcoin-maxi" and dismissing their argument isn't a valid way to counter. Kindly explain the tropes to us and enlighten us why that is provenly false. I'll read it, I promise.