7 ms·

The moment a small group of people bailed out their friends' DAO, Ethereum lost all credibility. I am referring to: https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-h

The moment a small group of people bailed out their friends' DAO, Ethereum lost all credibility. I am referring to: https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao#section-the-response-to-the-dao-hack https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao#sec... Since then Eth has proved to be a successful investment, so this is not a commentary on the performance of this digital asset. But rather a comment on the false immutable, decentralized claims of this blockchain.

thebean11 5y ago
They didn't do so unilaterally. The users of Ethereum collectively chose to bail it out.
- sva_ 5y ago
  More or less: > On 15 July 2016, a short notice on-chain vote was held on the DAO hard fork.[8] Of the 82,054,716 ETH in existence, only 4,542,416 voted, for a total voter turn out of 5.5% of the total supply on 16 July 2016; 3,964,516 ETH (87%) voted in favor, 1/4 of which came from a single address, and 577,899 ETH (13%) opposed the DAO fork.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic#Carbon_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic#Carbon_vote
  - thebean11 5y ago
    Regardless of the vote participants had the choice of staying on the old chain. The fact that they didn't shows the fork was widely supported.
- mountainboy 5y ago
  not all of them. Hence the eth classic fork. A majority of eth miners and users decided to change the rules and ignore the promises of immutability previously made to all. Having a majority does not make an action ethical. Hence the term: tyranny of the majority. This serious breach of faith soured many people on the project, and the mis-trust continues to this day.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    > Having a majority does not make an action ethical. Hence the term: tyranny of the majority. Pricing is not "tyranny of the majority." If nobody wants to buy what you are selling, you are not being oppressed. Given that people decided they would much rather buy the coin with the altered ledger, it is more valuable. As a meta note: Crypto seems to bring out the most low-brow critiques on either side. Maybe because it has become popular with a mass audience?
  - thebean11 5y ago
    Right, my statement wasn't super clear but I meant the users of present-day Ethereum which is the bailed out version. I don't see how ethics plays into it; it's a judgement call and the existence of the forked Ethereum isn't an attack on ETC.
    - mountainboy 5y ago
      Where I come from promising something, accepting people's money, and then reneging on the promise is considered unethical.
      - thebean11 5y ago
        Sorry what promise are you referring to
factorialboy 5y ago
Most replies to this comment of mine are debating whether this was the right thing to do, or was it a 'blunder'. I don't care about the morality of rights and wrongs. I'm making a limited categorical claim: this event by itself is proof that Eth is not immutable nor is it decentralized. That is all I am saying.
ccamrobertson 5y ago
It's bizarre to me that one would gauge the credibility of Ethereum today based on an event that occurred less than a year into the existence of the protocol, and despite massive performance with respect to digital assets since then (algorithmic stablecoins, AMM's, etc.). It's certainly fair to debate the strength of immutability guarantees with respect to a given blockchain, but in practice no blockchain is perfectly immutable given that humans still write and deploy the clients that run them. Consider the 184 billion Bitcoin hack from 2010, a similar straw man about the _current_ immutability claims of Bitcoin.
- arisAlexis 5y ago
  That action was pivotal and a blunder and Vitalik was not mature enough to realize it. I believe he wouldn't do it again today.
  - koolba 5y ago
    He can’t do it today. The sheer size of the ecosystem and layers of real world assets that are (supposedly) tied to it would make any such rollback all but impossible. But it being possible is still a non-zero risk.
    - capsulecorp 5y ago
      >He can’t do it today. I'd argue he CAN indeed do it again today. Perhaps not in the exact way as the DAO fiasco, but lets be clear, the fundamental transgression was selling one story "the code is law" and then not abiding by that law when it affected him and his friends aversely. So can he still commit such an egregious breach of trust in this timeline, despite having done it before? Absolutely, though that and the DAO instance may indeed look different from one another.
      - X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
        Do you have any original sources of Vitalik promoting the idea that "the code is law"?
bsamuels 5y ago
Social consensus should _always_ override rule of law. Society is not formed around people's relationship with the law, it's based on people's relationship with each other. The hard fork required social consensus to trump rule of law, and they got it. "but what about eth classic?" The ETC chain exists, yes, however it is not "Ethereum". There's a timeline where the majority was against the fork, and ETC would have remained "Ethereum", with the forked chain taking on a new name like Ethereum Cash or something.

thebean11 5y ago

They didn't do so unilaterally. The users of Ethereum collectively chose to bail it out.

sva_ 5y ago
More or less: > On 15 July 2016, a short notice on-chain vote was held on the DAO hard fork.[8] Of the 82,054,716 ETH in existence, only 4,542,416 voted, for a total voter turn out of 5.5% of the total supply on 16 July 2016; 3,964,516 ETH (87%) voted in favor, 1/4 of which came from a single address, and 577,899 ETH (13%) opposed the DAO fork.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic#Carbon_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum_Classic#Carbon_vote
- thebean11 5y ago
  Regardless of the vote participants had the choice of staying on the old chain. The fact that they didn't shows the fork was widely supported.
mountainboy 5y ago
not all of them. Hence the eth classic fork. A majority of eth miners and users decided to change the rules and ignore the promises of immutability previously made to all. Having a majority does not make an action ethical. Hence the term: tyranny of the majority. This serious breach of faith soured many people on the project, and the mis-trust continues to this day.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  > Having a majority does not make an action ethical. Hence the term: tyranny of the majority. Pricing is not "tyranny of the majority." If nobody wants to buy what you are selling, you are not being oppressed. Given that people decided they would much rather buy the coin with the altered ledger, it is more valuable. As a meta note: Crypto seems to bring out the most low-brow critiques on either side. Maybe because it has become popular with a mass audience?
- thebean11 5y ago
  Right, my statement wasn't super clear but I meant the users of present-day Ethereum which is the bailed out version. I don't see how ethics plays into it; it's a judgement call and the existence of the forked Ethereum isn't an attack on ETC.
  - mountainboy 5y ago
    Where I come from promising something, accepting people's money, and then reneging on the promise is considered unethical.
    - thebean11 5y ago
      Sorry what promise are you referring to

factorialboy 5y ago

Most replies to this comment of mine are debating whether this was the right thing to do, or was it a 'blunder'. I don't care about the morality of rights and wrongs. I'm making a limited categorical claim: this event by itself is proof that Eth is not immutable nor is it decentralized. That is all I am saying.

ccamrobertson 5y ago

It's bizarre to me that one would gauge the credibility of Ethereum today based on an event that occurred less than a year into the existence of the protocol, and despite massive performance with respect to digital assets since then (algorithmic stablecoins, AMM's, etc.). It's certainly fair to debate the strength of immutability guarantees with respect to a given blockchain, but in practice no blockchain is perfectly immutable given that humans still write and deploy the clients that run them. Consider the 184 billion Bitcoin hack from 2010, a similar straw man about the _current_ immutability claims of Bitcoin.

arisAlexis 5y ago
That action was pivotal and a blunder and Vitalik was not mature enough to realize it. I believe he wouldn't do it again today.
- koolba 5y ago
  He can’t do it today. The sheer size of the ecosystem and layers of real world assets that are (supposedly) tied to it would make any such rollback all but impossible. But it being possible is still a non-zero risk.
  - capsulecorp 5y ago
    >He can’t do it today. I'd argue he CAN indeed do it again today. Perhaps not in the exact way as the DAO fiasco, but lets be clear, the fundamental transgression was selling one story "the code is law" and then not abiding by that law when it affected him and his friends aversely. So can he still commit such an egregious breach of trust in this timeline, despite having done it before? Absolutely, though that and the DAO instance may indeed look different from one another.
    - X6S1x6Okd1st 5y ago
      Do you have any original sources of Vitalik promoting the idea that "the code is law"?

bsamuels 5y ago

Social consensus should _always_ override rule of law. Society is not formed around people's relationship with the law, it's based on people's relationship with each other. The hard fork required social consensus to trump rule of law, and they got it. "but what about eth classic?" The ETC chain exists, yes, however it is not "Ethereum". There's a timeline where the majority was against the fork, and ETC would have remained "Ethereum", with the forked chain taking on a new name like Ethereum Cash or something.