5 ms·

You can ask Buterik to roll it back for you. He did it once for the DAO guys, so worth a try. (Of course, that rollback also demonstrated that Ethereum is a ce

You can ask Buterik to roll it back for you. He did it once for the DAO guys, so worth a try. (Of course, that rollback also demonstrated that Ethereum is a centralised coin with a controlling entity, and that 'code is law' is just a lie, but that's another story)

baobabKoodaa 5y ago
No it didn't demonstrate that. Vitalik et al reached consensus for rolling back the DAO hack. A major reason why they reached consensus was that so many players had a vested interest in the rollback. If Vitalik had tried to push something unpopular, he wouldn't have been able to push it through, because - in contrast to your claims - Ethereum is not a centrally controlled blockchain.
- SamBam 5y ago
  I guess you'd better hope you're never on the wrong side, politically, from a majority of ETH miners. "This guy who we all hate now owns $100MM in ETH? Now he doesn't."
  - rattlesnakedave 5y ago
    Yeah, miners and node operators. That’s how this has always worked.
  - ludamad 5y ago
    Yeah they can always coordinate, but these things are never so clean. They'd also need to be convinced it wouldn't undermine the network faith in a way against their interests, beyond being a well hated figure. And that no fork would emerge reinstating the person (as their deed is far from hidden)
  - erulabs 5y ago
    This is also how nation states work. And it takes probably far fewer people, less time, and can be done in secrecy when the US wants to enact a sanction and freeze accounts than it does to hard-fork ethereum.
  - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
    Miners can't just take money out of your account without your consent. That would require a change to how the protocol works. At best a cabal of miners could censor you by refusing to include your transactions into blocks, and refusing to mine on top of any block that includes your transaction. But only while they maintain a majority of hashing power.
    - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
      > Miners can't just take money out of your account without your consent. That would require a change to how the protocol works. But that's exactly what we were talking about: hard forks that change how the protocol works. The parent comment that you responded to is correct in that theoretically a majority of miners could fork Ethereum to steal $100M from a single person.
      - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
        The majority of nodes/users (not miners) would need to switch to the miners' new fork. Otherwise if the miners mined a block that doesn't follow the current protocol, it would be an invalid block and rejected by the network.
        baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        > The majority of nodes/users (not miners) would need to switch to the miners' new fork. Otherwise if the miners mined a block that doesn't follow the current protocol, it would be an invalid block and rejected by the network. In the event of a contested hard fork both chains would continue to live, because some miners would mine chain A, and some miners would mine chain B. Yes, miners who mine the old chain would not accept blocks from miners who mine the new chain, you are correct about that, but the same statement holds true in reverse: miners who run the new chain would not accept blocks from miners who mine the old chain. If a majority of miners decided to steal $100M by forking the chain, they absolutely could do that, even if the majority of users would support the old chain. In that event the tokens (which used to be worth $100M) would now exist on both chains, and it would be up to the market to decide how much the tokens are worth on each chain.
- Salgat 5y ago
  The only difference between this and an attack is that the purpose was altruistic. It's one thing to shift to new/updated infrastructure, it's another to manipulate blockchain transactions. We just have to hope that Vitalik or whoever holds the most sway over Ethereum doesn't ever act in bad faith (in a way that may not be immediately discernable to others).
  - suikadayo 5y ago
    It’s increasingly hard for any person to have that much influence with so many different client implementations for Eth2, and the nodes will have to accept those changes, whereas Bitcoin is pretty much Bitcoin Core.
suikadayo 5y ago
Technically wasn’t a rollback but my understanding is it was a state change, and was done with community consensus via carbon vote. Let’s not mention what Satoshi did in 2010 with the 184 billion BTC hack though ;)

baobabKoodaa 5y ago

No it didn't demonstrate that. Vitalik et al reached consensus for rolling back the DAO hack. A major reason why they reached consensus was that so many players had a vested interest in the rollback. If Vitalik had tried to push something unpopular, he wouldn't have been able to push it through, because - in contrast to your claims - Ethereum is not a centrally controlled blockchain.

SamBam 5y ago
I guess you'd better hope you're never on the wrong side, politically, from a majority of ETH miners. "This guy who we all hate now owns $100MM in ETH? Now he doesn't."
- rattlesnakedave 5y ago
  Yeah, miners and node operators. That’s how this has always worked.
- ludamad 5y ago
  Yeah they can always coordinate, but these things are never so clean. They'd also need to be convinced it wouldn't undermine the network faith in a way against their interests, beyond being a well hated figure. And that no fork would emerge reinstating the person (as their deed is far from hidden)
- erulabs 5y ago
  This is also how nation states work. And it takes probably far fewer people, less time, and can be done in secrecy when the US wants to enact a sanction and freeze accounts than it does to hard-fork ethereum.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  Miners can't just take money out of your account without your consent. That would require a change to how the protocol works. At best a cabal of miners could censor you by refusing to include your transactions into blocks, and refusing to mine on top of any block that includes your transaction. But only while they maintain a majority of hashing power.
  - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
    > Miners can't just take money out of your account without your consent. That would require a change to how the protocol works. But that's exactly what we were talking about: hard forks that change how the protocol works. The parent comment that you responded to is correct in that theoretically a majority of miners could fork Ethereum to steal $100M from a single person.
    - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
      The majority of nodes/users (not miners) would need to switch to the miners' new fork. Otherwise if the miners mined a block that doesn't follow the current protocol, it would be an invalid block and rejected by the network.
      - baobabKoodaa 5y ago
        > The majority of nodes/users (not miners) would need to switch to the miners' new fork. Otherwise if the miners mined a block that doesn't follow the current protocol, it would be an invalid block and rejected by the network. In the event of a contested hard fork both chains would continue to live, because some miners would mine chain A, and some miners would mine chain B. Yes, miners who mine the old chain would not accept blocks from miners who mine the new chain, you are correct about that, but the same statement holds true in reverse: miners who run the new chain would not accept blocks from miners who mine the old chain. If a majority of miners decided to steal $100M by forking the chain, they absolutely could do that, even if the majority of users would support the old chain. In that event the tokens (which used to be worth $100M) would now exist on both chains, and it would be up to the market to decide how much the tokens are worth on each chain.
Salgat 5y ago
The only difference between this and an attack is that the purpose was altruistic. It's one thing to shift to new/updated infrastructure, it's another to manipulate blockchain transactions. We just have to hope that Vitalik or whoever holds the most sway over Ethereum doesn't ever act in bad faith (in a way that may not be immediately discernable to others).
- suikadayo 5y ago
  It’s increasingly hard for any person to have that much influence with so many different client implementations for Eth2, and the nodes will have to accept those changes, whereas Bitcoin is pretty much Bitcoin Core.

suikadayo 5y ago

Technically wasn’t a rollback but my understanding is it was a state change, and was done with community consensus via carbon vote. Let’s not mention what Satoshi did in 2010 with the 184 billion BTC hack though ;)