47
48

An argument against burning the hacked coins (self.ethereum)

Nooku が 投稿

I hear quite a lot of non-DAO participants saying that the DAO investors should be "punished" so they can "learn" from their bad investment. They are in favor of burning the hacked coins.

Ok, fair enough, I understand you see this as some kind of competition, I get it that this can be a normal initial reaction.

But. Let's pause here for a second and think about this.

The DAO was meant as a giant crowd-sourcing fund that would launch hundreds of startups where each one of them would work on a project that could be beneficial for Ethereum, projects that could boost the Ethereum eco-system.

We are talking about funds for the creation of actual useable applications running on Ethereum, which would lead to an increase of demand for the tokens required to run these applications: your ethers, currently sitting in your cold wallet.

We are talking about the burning of highly liquid coins, not being hold somewhere in a cold wallet, but coins that would've been moving around to actually grow the Ethereum eco-system.

So what you are asking for is taking these coins and burning them, just to "teach" all the previous holders of these coins "a lesson".

Ok, so what lesson are you trying to teach these investors exactly?

"DO NOT INVEST YOUR COINS IN STARTUPS THAT BOOST THE ECOSYSTEM THAT WOULD INCREASE THE VALUE OF ETHER" ?

If that is the lesson you want to teach, by all means, keep preaching the burning of those coins.

Some more respect for this "other" type of investors might be suitable.

Disclaimer: I do not hold any DAO tokens at this moment.

全 97 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]AmericansLOL 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, it's to learn that if you've got expectations of ridiculous returns then along with that comes risk.

People were talking about it going tens or hundreds of times it's value but couldn't fathom a downside, and act like vanguard investors when shit hits the fan.

[–]aakilfernandes 27ポイント28ポイント  (15子コメント)

Ok, so what lesson are you trying to teach these unvestors exactly? "DO NOT INVEST YOUR COINS IN STARTUPS THAT BOOST THE ECOSYSTEM THAT WOULD INCREASE THE VALUE OF ETHER" ?

Yes! This is exactly a lesson people should learn. Stop investing so damn much until contracts have been audited/vetted and even then only invest what you can afford to lose.

Regardless of whether this hard fork happens or not I really hope DTH learn that lesson.

Vitalik was a curator of the DAO. How much did he invest? 0.3% of his eth. If everyone else followed his lead we wouldn't be in this mess.

[–]textrapper 10ポイント11ポイント  (14子コメント)

Had Vitalik stated that he invested .3% of his ETH I guarantee people would have thrown in a hell of a lot less.

Slockit said contract was audited.

Every major ETH DEV was a curator.

No one who thought it was unsafe spoke out before the crowdsale concluded, only with hindsight goggles.

The damn thing had the illusion of safety. It was not thought of by the masses, the 20k who put money in, as some reckless venture. (Yeah maybe the investments would fail which is par for the course, but people were not giving serious thought to the DAO contract being attacked and drained.)

Stop blaming those who had their money stolen. This whole thing was a mess due to a lack of best practices, the fact that DEVs did not realize how hard it was to write air tight contracts, and the pinnacle of a presale boom. It was a tragedy and one that if it is not handled with care WILL take down Ethereum in the long run.

[–]shouldbdan 13ポイント14ポイント  (2子コメント)

I remember some guy, before the attack, saying he put 100% of his ETH into the DAO after it reached 11% because he figured if there was a bug in it that allowed the funds to be stolen, the participants would be rescued since they wouldn't allow 11% of all ether to get away.

Even after reading this, I did not invest much in the DAO because I considered it very risky from a security standpoint.

Point is, there were people who were thinking about security implications during the crowdsale. I knew bugs could really exist in the DAO.

However, you do raise a good point that it wasn't approached carefully enough and there wasn't enough labeling that it was very risky to put money into the DAO. When Frontier came out, there were labels everywhere saying that Ethereum was super risky during that initial time period. DAO should have been handled just as carefully, and I'm surprised it wasn't.

[–]newretro 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It should have been. They had been warned and continued to be throughout the entire process.

[–]ForkiusMaximus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wow, so what you're saying is that TheDAO was already a product of moral hazard, since there was an expectation of a bailout on the part of at least some people already if it turned out not to be safe.

[–]shouldbdan 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

How do we know now that Vitalik invested 0.3% of his ETH?

[–]sorryimconfused 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

He claimed it, but that could have been what he had left after selling large portions before making the announcement on how much he had. There was no transparency until after the fact.

[–]textrapper 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Twitter

[–]VoDoka 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is like watching a parody of the financial crisis of 2008. Aside from that, anyone concerened about his money can currently sell his DAO tokens at a price that is just about equivalent to the price of the ETH at the time of the DAO funding...

[–]textrapper 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Is true if you went from fiat to ether.

If you went from long held Ether to DAO it would be a 30% to 40% loss of ETH.

[–]VoDoka -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

If you went from long held Ether to DAO it would be a loss on tremendous profits you already made since first purchasing ETH. I understand how it is annoying to have lost ETH on the DAO, and I myself took a moderate loss, but people victimizing themselves over a moderate loss after seeing their ETH gaining what? 500%-1500% in value? This is just ridiculous.

[–]textrapper 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also one whale sells and DAO price would crash, not a solution. Also for every seller is a buyer. Also gains are irrelevant and a ridiculous argument, that would b like saying, "Oh hi, get out of your house. I just stole it cause it went up in value."

[–]vrta 19ポイント20ポイント  (5子コメント)

The DAO was meant as a giant crowd-sourcing fund that would launch hundreds of startups where each one of them would....

That is all nice and fine. But people spamming this subreddit with posts like this and all the fork requests are users that dumped all or most of their ETH stack into DAO to make a profit.

Anyone should/could put a few ETH in DAO, but people were dumping their full stack into it. For money. They lost on the gamble. They should lose the stack.

I'm all out from ETH anyway. The DAO gamblers took over this sub and ETH weeks ago. Enjoy.

[–]sorryimconfused 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

And they will continue to to pretend they didn't take over and that the debate was civil despite using very underhanded tactics.

[–]ButtcoinButterButts 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

I got to say, i left this group due to the blind bailout pumping but you guys are keeping it real up in here. Thought I was going crazy for a bit.

[–]FaceDeer -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

There was a rough patch where it was hard to get an anti-fork word in edgewise, but that seems to be passing. Most of the posts still seem to be pro-fork but there's plenty of actual debate happening in the comments now.

[–]NickLeesonFan 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I half-agree. Why "burn the stack" when "only" 3.6m got stolen? Shouldn't DAO holders lose "only" about 30% of what they invested and not 100%? That would already be quite a lot.

The only reason I could accept the soft fork (which apparently is now taken for granted, unless some mad GPU mining power shows up in the coming 3 days with a "no" vote to try to revert from 3.14m gas to 4m+) is because I didn't want to see one thief with 3.6m, potentially able to kill the entire Ethereum project.

But "They should lose the stack" when only 30% of the coins were stolen, not too sure.

Also blocking these DAOs in endless attacks / counter-attacks in child and grand-child DAOs etc. forever was definitely not what people expected.

[–]vrta 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not for killing the whole DAO of course.

I'm just sick of people trying to persuade this subreddit that hard fork is good for ETH. It's good for people who invested way too much into DAO.

[–]ForkiusMaximus 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

We are talking about the burning of highly liquid coins, not being hold somewhere in a cold wallet, but coins that would've been moving around to actually grow the Ethereum eco-system.

This is a common economic fallacy. By the very nature of money, burning the ether is instead exactly equivalent to donating the ether to every other holder. Burning would effectively take the money away from imprudent TheDAO investors and give it to those who were more prudent and refrained. It is the opposite argument from the one you want to make.

[–]sceneredacted 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, what the ecosystem clearly needs is for people who throw their money into things they don't understand continuing to "invest" in the sort of over-hyped, poorly-implemented projects they've shown they prefer.

[–]rabbyte 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would prefer investors feel the pain. Otherwise you're just allowing other people, developers and white hats, consume the costs of your risky behavior. If you're going to fork, do it for ethical reasons. Letting others absorb the cost is not ethical.

[–]NewToETH 16ポイント17ポイント  (59子コメント)

This x100. We need those funds to go back into the ecosystem.

We also can't afford to lose users because they're disenfranchised after losing a good chunk of their investment. Not to mention the negative press that would come of not making DTH's whole.

[–]ForkiusMaximus 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

We need those funds to go back into the ecosystem.

Burning them does put them back into the ecosystem. That's how money works. Burning it makes everyone else's more valuable.

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hm3f5/paypal_now_lets_shops_accept_bitcoin/ckujq65

[–]eragmus 14ポイント15ポイント  (54子コメント)

Why is it so difficult to understand the concept of moral hazard ("lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences")? You are advocating a bail-out. This is wrong. It sets a bad precedent. It is also completely contradictory to Ethereum's founding principles of "unstoppable" smart contracts, and the idea that "code is law". TheDAO is a smart contract, which executed as it was written. The end. Orchestrating a "do over" is completely inappropriate.

[–]french_commander 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Also Dapp writers that do want their code to be unstoppable and authoritative now have to figure out a way to have their code trump the Ethereum miner consensus that they can censor addresses. Probably this can be done by a governance trigger and termination clause, opening the possibility to redeploy the dapp to another chain.

It also makes creating insurance/hedging contracts much more ambigious, and difficult to implement, and inefficient. For example if there was an insurance contract to payout on the failure of a DAO like entity within one year. will miners censor the insurance contract as well? should those that hedged against failure be denied? It makes it very hard to try and price risk and allocate funds efficiently with the complication.

[–]BGoodej -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Also Dapp writers that do want their code to be unstoppable and authoritative now have to figure out a way to have their code trump the Ethereum miner consensus that they can censor addresses.

Do you think Slock.it or any developer involved in such event would want that particular code to be unstoppable?

The argument that other Dapps are put in danger by this particular hard fork sounds completely disconnected from reality.

[–]FaceDeer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If a developer doesn't want their code to be unstoppable, why are they using Ethereum to run it?

[–]jansegre 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, if it was correct, it sounds perfectly reasonable to want it to be unstoppable.

[–]red18hawk 5ポイント6ポイント  (8子コメント)

"TheDAO is a smart contract, which executed as it was written. The end." I hate this argument, I really do. Because it's dumb. That's all I can say about it. It's really a stupid argument.
Sorry, that guy who broke into your house and stole your shit was just utilizing flaws in your doors and windows, sure it wasn't their intended use but they were vulnerable to being picked or broken, so it's fine for him to do it. Oh he shot you too? God you should have thought of that before having your organs be vulnerable to high velocity metal. You really shouldn't have put all your stuff in a house that a guy can rob. It's your own fault. He clearly isn't a criminal, he just executed his actions based on the weaknesses that were apparent apparent to him and that means your stuff is clearly legally his now. The cops will be here in 20 minutes to be condescending and call you stupid.
It wasn't executed as it was written, it was exploited, plain and simple. If you find a way to make an ATM give you hundreds of times over what is in your account, you are going to jail.

[–]sceneredacted 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

The fact that it was executed as written is absolutely beyond doubt.

Perhaps not executed as intended, but absolutely executed as written.

[–]red18hawk 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, because language, let alone computer language, is perfect. Nobody is disputing that the code was bad. Intent is the important part, for both.

[–]sceneredacted 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

You explicitly said it wasn't executed as written.

That just isn't true.

It's not.

[–]ray-jones 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

The analogy is an interesting one. When somebody steals from you, you will have to get the stolen goods back within the existing legal framework. It's very unlikely that the government will change the entire system of laws just so you can get your stolen goods back.

In other words, no hard fork.

Only the NSA and the FBI get to do that. Some years, ago, for example, the US Congress passed the Telecom Immunity Act, so phone companies that violated the law by giving customer information to the NSA and the FBI retroactively got immunity for doing that. But that was mostly because the phone companies make large donations, not because it made any logical sense.

[–]red18hawk 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's my problem. In any real world situation, if you have things stolen from you, and it is easy and non disruptive to return them... People don't just let the thief get away on ideology. They also don't light it on fire just to let it burn. I'm really starting to wonder if people in the crypto world are so disconnected that they can't see basic human compassion. Returning stolen property when able is the right thing to do. Fucking period. Why is this complicated? Why does it make me sick in my stomach every time I read arguments against it? Why are people so absolutely dispassionate that they cannot recognize that when their ideology doesn't match up with basic humanity that it is not basic humanity that needs to be changed. Blame the fact that I am actually autistic but this whole situation makes me not want to be a human. Because they are quite frankly awful.

[–]red18hawk 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I didn't actually answer your question. Yes, we should change the whole system. If the system doesn't match up with the most basic of truths, then it's a bad fucking system. I don't give a shit whether it's the letter of the law or not. If "stealing is wrong" doesn't make it into your system, it's a shitty system. I am happy to break that system.

[–]ray-jones 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In our analogy, the system (of getting goods back that were stolen from your home) does match up with your basic truth that stealing is wrong. But in any real-life system, you don't just get to personally break into the thief's own home and get your stuff back. You must follow the procedures laid down by law. And in the rare case that the procedures prove indequate, you just have to live with it.

Suppose somebody in Florida defrauds you to the extent of $10 million and uses that money to build a huge house for himself. If you win the right in civil court to get that money back from the thief, you're still stuck. If the thief declares bankruptcy, he gets to keep the house no matter how much of your money he used to build it. The state of Florida will not do a hard fork (change its homestead exemption in bankuptcy) just because somebody owes you $10 million that you are not allowed to touch.

And there's a good argument that while it might be a good idea to change the law, it's a bad idea to change the law just because of you.

[–]ForkiusMaximus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just because these transactional machines were dubbed "smart contracts" by someone a long time ago doesn't mean they actual contracts. And if they were meant to be representative of actual contracts, TheDAO investors should have understood that part of what they were betting on was the very question of whether the code really did represent the written contract. They bet on the representation being accurate, they were wrong about that, and so they lost fair and square.

[–]ItsAConspiracy[🍰] 4ポイント5ポイント  (23子コメント)

It's not a bailout. It's returning stolen funds.

[–]saibog38 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's still a form of moral hazard there. Returning stolen funds via a hard fork is only a realistic possibility if the theft is sufficiently huge, right? I think most here can agree that a hard fork to fix every theft is not reasonable. That makes massive, "too big to fail" projects theoretically safer than smaller ones, since a small project has very little hope that a catastrophic error might be rescued by a hard fork, but a sufficiently large project has that possibility.

I know Vitalik has said "contracts" should be limited to ~$10 mil, but that doesn't really solve the issue (plenty of loopholes in that condition).

[–]sorryimconfused 8ポイント9ポイント  (21子コメント)

Except according to the terms of the contract you deposited to, it wasn't stolen.

[–]BGoodej 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

I can't believe people are still using this stupid argument at this point.

[–]DeviateFish_ 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

And how is the reward of 30+% returns on DAO tokens bought over the past week or so any better of an argument?

You realize that's the incentive for many of the people voting yes on the fork, correct?

[–]sfultong 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

You can see the logic of the argument though, right? It's an entirely logical argument. I don't think you can call it stupid.

You may be able to criticize this point of view, saying that all the systems in our society should be based on a robust ethics system that put a common sense that humans have developed over our long history first before any mechanical, ethics-free judgement.

But I don't think you can really act surprised that a large proportion of the people who are interested in ethereum are interested specifically in its ability to avoid ethical questions as much as possible in its operation.

[–]BGoodej 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

You can see the logic of the argument though, right?

Yes, it is perfectly logic.
Just as stealing something in the real world is logic when there is absolutely no chance of getting caught.

If this is the kind of community Ethereum is aiming at putting together, it won't go far.
I don't think it is.

[–]ForkiusMaximus 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's certainly the way it was marketed. That's even the way TheDAO was marketed. I'm not disagreeing that it won't go far that way, but that doesn't mean that wasn't the aim.

[–]shadowsha256man 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

Not very valid argument. Even every legal system I know do not mechanically read contracts; intent is a big part of it. Fair to say the thief had no claim on those money.

[–]yolo-or-twice 4ポイント5ポイント  (13子コメント)

You realize that you are comparing smart contract with human contracts which are open to interpretation and therefore rely on a court, do you? People who lost their money because they didn´t read carefully enough and took part in a mindless hyping of the DAO are now complaining about their own mindlessness. This is like bailing out banks: it would have never been a thing if people hadn´t thrown a shitload of money onto the DAO. It was high-risk but instead of looking at the code, people looked at the money.

[–]BullBearBabyWhale 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

So smart contract developers are the new lawmakers now? Don't be naive. A bug is still a bug and a thief is still a thief, even in the world of smart contracts.

[–]yolo-or-twice 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

The only one being naive is the person who didn´t read the code carefully. There is no thief because no theft has been committed. The people who want a bail out use terms like "thief" "stolen" or "attack". The truth is: a hacker saw what thousands of mindless speculators didn´t and took advantage.

Actually it´s fair if miners decide to fork - they maintain the blockchain, they can try to fork if they feel like it. My issue isn´t that people try to fork (let´s see if it works out), but the fact that they blame a person who didn´t do anything wrong (=followed the binding rules as defined by the contract) and don´t mention with ONE word that what brought us here was a mindless hype and careless investors.

Would we be here discussing this issue if the DAO only received 1 Mio. of $worth? Certainly not. So stop talking about thiefs when the real crooks were the people who hyped an experimental project.

[–]BullBearBabyWhale 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

So just because something is happening on a blockchain you abandon your complete value system? By that logic there is no "wrong" anymore because everything that allowed by code is legit. There are no bugs anymore, a thief is suddenly allowed to steal if he manages to do so and someone placing bets on a assassination market can do so freely.... because that's just the way the smart contracts works?! What a weird logic that is. The blockchain hype has turned your head, i suggest you get back to reality.

[–]ForkiusMaximus 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, that was Ethereum. That is where the logic was always leading. People saw that and raised objections. They said, like Wei Dai just did, that the scope of such smart contracts would be extremely limited, for exactly the kinds of the reasons you mention.

I can only shrug and wonder if perhaps the vision was so unclear that people ended up thinking mutually contradictory things about the platform.

[–]yolo-or-twice 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So funny, how people call to "get back to reality" just because they don´t want to accept the reality they are in. In legal systems sustained by the interference of third parties (btw. something that we wanted to get rid off) contracts are binding as well. The loophole the hacker used wasn´t some minor law that would have been relativized by the constitution, it was IN THE CONSTITUTION. What the hacker did was his full right. It seems illegal to you (and basically everyone who is threatened to lose his money), but that´s only because you didn´t study the code carefully as the hacker did.

The whole debacle wasn´t caused by the hacker, but by the fact that you and thousand others were ignorant and naive. Having in mind that this all is experimental the DAO should have never amassed this ammount of money. So reality check, BullBearBabyWhale: do you seriously believe we would have the debate of forking Ethereum if the DAO has raised 5 Million $? Seriously? There is NO freakin chance. This is not happening to real issues with the code. This is happening because YOU made it too big to fail.

[–]BGoodej 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

You walk through a ruined city in a post apocalyptic world. Traditional legal system does not apply anymore.
You see an attractive woman feeding chicken to her young boy.

There is no law, so I guess you just rape the woman, kill the kid and eat the chicken? And it's all fine because now law prevented you from doing so.

That's how stupid you argument sounds.

[–]logical 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

So Ethereum is a ruined city in a post apocalyptic world and exploiting a smart contract is rape, murder and the eating of a chicken? Great analogy.

[–]yolo-or-twice 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep, it sounds stupid, and it is. You conflate ethics and laws, either because you don´t understand it or because you don´t want to accept that you aren´t the victim in this case. The whole selling point of Ethereum and the DAO was that third parties don´t interfere and that the ledger is immutable. The DAO crowd sale EXPLICITELY stated that explanations were null and the code was everything. The fact that so many people now change the narrative is purely based on their personal loss in a project they should have never jumped into because they didn´t understand what they were buying and at what price. And with regard to your silly example: yes, in a world without cause your rapist didn´t commit a crime, because "crime" in legal terms because there is no legal system. However, it is obvious that you are looking it from a moral perspective, where greedy poor users were betrayed by a mean thief who happened to understand what he was signing up to. So, no surprises you come up with such a absurd comparison.

[–]shadowsha256man 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Real world legal systems still apply, even in the crypto world; try arguing the "smart-contract-is-the-law-and-i-can-steal-what-i-want" in a real court, and you will see reality hitting you in the face. You should watch some court cases beyond Suits...

[–]sorryimconfused 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then why didn't you make a post about the terms being invalid before this?

[–]lawnchairwiz 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is not at all like bailing out banks. By that metaphor, then the taxpayers are the thieves and the banks are the innocent DAO holders. This is not a bailout. This is returning stolen funds.

[–]yolo-or-twice 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Apparently you didn´t take time to think the metaphor through. The naive (not innocent) DAO holder are bailed out, the ones who have to pay for it are Ethereum holders who decided not to follow a hype of a product that wasn´t good as announced. Ethereum loses credibility because one smart contract project became too big to fail. And no, no funds were stolen. You just didn´t anticipate that someone could outsmart the DAO.

[–]sorryimconfused 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you don't think those terms would have been used to protect slockit if things turned out different, you are kidding yourself.

[–]sorryimconfused 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also I mean the terms spelled all that out, they could have read them before investing. Its like signing a contract for a job and never reading it.

[–]BGoodej -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

What a fitting name you have.

[–]lawnchairwiz 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

It's not a bailout. If someone steals your cellphone from the table in front of you and the authorities give it back, is it a bailout? Does that set a bad precendent? Code is not law. that's an extremist point of view.

[–]sorryimconfused 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

No one stole your cellphone, you deposited into a contract that explicitly said the code in this contract regardless if it fails is the to remain as is and you are responsible for your own loss. And now you are unhappy with a loss.

[–]BGoodej 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Miners disagree with you.

[–]ButtcoinButterButts 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

And the eth stakeholders will disagree with the miners by dumping when those miners officially destroy the integrity of the system.

[–]BGoodej 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Conjecture.

[–]ButtcoinButterButts 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Until the fork actually happens, so is your conjecture.

[–]BGoodej 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Check the news....

[–]ButtcoinButterButts 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't have to. The fork hasn't happened yet, so, yeah. But when it does, ethereum will have killed itself.

[–]timengler 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's more like you were playing a game of Three Card Monty on the sidewalk, the cops come and bust it up, and you want them to repay you all the money that you lost.

[–]marcelhattingh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did you forget that "code is law" also applies to the Ethereum Protocol? Yes, "TheDAO is a smart contract, which executed as it was written", but because of the platform it was written on, hard or soft forking has always been written into the possibility spectrum of outcomes.

[–]fullmatches -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just because a concept exists doesn't mean everyone agrees with it. Even if we did all agree with it, moral hazard is far more complicated than many people citing it are pretending.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

" Dembe and Boden point out, however, that prominent mathematicians studying decision making in the 18th century used "moral" to mean "subjective", which may cloud the true ethical significance in the term."

Additionally. One side claiming, "it's about ethics!" while simultaneously claiming "You can't put morals into ether!" is disingenuous. If moral hazard exists in this instance it is not the narrow moral hazard the anti-fork side are arguing it is.

[–]ForkiusMaximus 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's pretty simple: save the reckless betters and you'll get more reckless bets, and more reckless bets means more TheDAO-type conundrums.

[–]doyourduty 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

where do I know you from? You used to be a fixture on some sub but I can't remember which

[–]blakemiles84 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Since DAO tokens were not burnt as intended during the recursive call, how can you argue that it was executed 'as written' if a glaring requirement of the code was not executed prior to moving to the next step?

There is no "bail out" because no funds are being created. The market already took its hit.

Furthermore, the fact that the attacker is apparently not willing to negotiate indicates their malice, which makes a hard fork that much more simple for the community to reach consensus on.

[–]FaceDeer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Turns out it wasn't a requirement of the code to burn those DAO tokens. Ethereum didn't misread the contract, it executed it exactly as it was designed to execute it. If you thought it was a requirement it's because you misread the contract. And apparently so did everyone else except for that one guy.

[–]utisverige -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

We will still loose a lot of them I think, but at least they get their money back, and after a while, when the new "Dao 2.0" initiative with better coding tools etc. are in place, maybe some will come back.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]NewToETH 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Because this case is on a completely different magnitude.

    [–]Noosterdam 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Once again, whether one understands the implications of "burning" coins is a reliable litmus test for whether one understands money. (Hint: Most people don't.)

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2v6reh/a_quotation_from_frederic_bastiat/cofpta0

    [–]Brazzoz 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You are trying to simplify the issue down into a narrow point of view.

    [–]uboyzlikemexico 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Skepticism can't be learned. It must be paid for.

    [–]youthinkyouknowbutno 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    We should all know that the value of all the ether is NOT EQUAL to the market cap because the price obviously drops as ether is sold. By the same merit we could say that unlocking the DAO tokens is not going to magically add an more value to ethereum and the people that hold it. What it will do is change who has access/control over the value of ether.

    [–]gattacibus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    calm people, after the soft fork it may even possible to perform a counterattack and return the funds. Let's wait and see what the foundation recommends first

    [–]TreeOfLibrty -4ポイント-3ポイント  (4子コメント)

    This submission is already starting to get downvoted. :|

    Telling...

    [–]sorryimconfused 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Oh come on, anything that is non pro fork is instantly downvoted to 0, and the same pro fork posts with no content are held at the top. Don't cry about being persecuted now after accusing anyone of not wanting a fork being pro bitcoin.

    Not one person who was anti fork ever called pro fork people bitcoiners, wonder why.

    [–]french_commander 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Basically, /r/ethereum was brigaded by /r/thedao who claimed the sub was being brigaded by /r/bitcoin

    [–]BGoodej -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Oh come on, anything that is non pro fork is instantly downvoted to 0

    Because an awful lot of people within this community disagree with you.

    [–]sunkawakan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Downvotes should be used here for content that do not contribute to the discussion.

    [–]vigsun -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The argument would have made sense if the money was invested in a few DApps that failed. The failure of the system, even before any one could successfully split (When split was advertised as an exit) is really wrong and the DAO investors should not be punished for that. The ethereum community has no obligation to bail them out, but this is unfair for the DAO investors.

    [–]cptmcclain -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    i am for a gradual dividend to restore those funds