4 ms·
Not “anyway“ but because of the hack. TheDAO was done for after it was hacked. The code was too bad and trust was gone as well. That was clear pretty soon. The
by bhaak 5y ago
Not “anyway“ but because of the hack. TheDAO was done for after it was hacked. The code was too bad and trust was gone as well. That was clear pretty soon.
The only thing to decide was if they would let the hacker get away with at the time 15% of the whole supply. If they did that it would have endangered the decentralization of the eventual proof-of-stake switch.
- wyager 5y ago> it would have endangered the decentralization So they decided to kill it outright?
- bhaak 5y agoYou have to specify what kind of decentralization you're getting at. The distribution of ETH was less decentralized before the hard fork than afterwards. 15% of the whole supply in one hand is quite a concentration in the distribution.
- canjobear 5y ago> it would have endangered the decentralization So the solution to save "decentralization" was for a centralized cabal to literally rewrite history?
- bhaak 5y agoTechnically, there was no rewriting of history. Just a single (but very large) transaction was added to the consensus rules that (IIRC) replaced the TheDAO smart contract code. Given that this incident resulted in the Ethereum/Ethereum Classic split, the "centralized cabal" was not very effective. The community voted with their feet and many went to Ethereum Classic.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]