101–110 of 754 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure a hard fork can undo anything on the block chain. You can start over from the block before the hack. There's probably a cleaner solution than that though.
The problem is, how do you reassign the funds after the hardfork? The funds are attached to addresses and not persons.
how much money is that?
ETH USD Value: $31,070,106.18 (@ $203.05/ETH)Looks like about +300,000 ether was able to be drained before it could be stolen thanks to a white hat group.
I've posted this before [0], but it's still apropos regarding the foolishness that is Ethereum. [Ethereum] only makes sense if all of the following obtain: (a) the code is 100% bug-free (b/c accidents cannot be rewound) (b) all code-writers are 100% honest (their code does what they say) (c) all contract participants are 100% perfect code readers (so as to not enter into fraudulent contracts) (Strictly speaking, only…
I would add one more point: even if both participants in a contract fully understand and agree to the contract, the contract could still be thrown out under contract law for many reasons -- unconscionability, agreement to commit a crime, etc. If Ethereum becomes popular enough, one day the participants in an Ethereum contract are going to sue each other, and the judge is not going to be impressed by arguments that th…
I've posted this before [0], but it's still apropos regarding the foolishness that is Ethereum. [Ethereum] only makes sense if all of the following obtain: (a) the code is 100% bug-free (b/c accidents cannot be rewound) (b) all code-writers are 100% honest (their code does what they say) (c) all contract participants are 100% perfect code readers (so as to not enter into fraudulent contracts) (Strictly speaking, only…
Can't you say the same thing about software that uses encryption in general? For example your browser, yet you still trust it. Also, what you said applies to critical software in airplanes, and cars like Tesla, yet you still somehow trust it without reading the code. Maybe you should replace the word "Ethereum" with "sotware". "Software in general makes sense is all the following are true"
Software in general doesn't exist in a vacuum - it's backed by all the centuries-old meatspace institutions like common law, courts, and lawyers that provide a recourse when something goes wrong. As I understand Ethereum's whole purpose is to replace a lot of these institutions with "smart contracts" (correct me if I'm wrong). If Ethereum has to rely on the same institutions as every other piece of software to deal with contract disputes isn't it just adding more complexity to transactions?
I'm sure they'll just hard fork again. And nobody cares because ethereum isn't actually being used for anything real, just a bunch of enthusiasts trying to get rich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damn, you're right. And if people use smart contracts to do things that are technically allowed, but have unexpected downsides, we should have a review system in place where impartial third parties review the contract language. Two people should be assigned to speak for and against the unexpected behavior, and then maybe a panel of 12 regular citizens could render the actual verdict.
This is the central, glaring flaw in cryptocurrencies to me. Transferring "value" for goods and services is really more of a social problem than a scientific/engineering one. Money is a social technology that solves a social problem. Cryptocurrency is a engineering technology in search of a problem to solve.
Do you mean on the margin where there is debate about the contract or whether the goods/services were rendered adequately?
Cryptocurrencies don't attempt to solve this problem at all, they simply allow for efficient moving of currency between parties without the need for meatspace regulation/trust to do it.
Smart contracts make sense with a blockchain because now humans can agree on specific contract behavior that is fixed due to the highly prescribed way a VM will process it. This doesn't mean that humans will or should blindly trust a smart contract to do what some third party claims it will do.
But unlike meatspace, there is one VM that matters, contracts and oracles can earn a reputation as being trustworthy, and established patterns can be executed with incredible efficiency and fairness.
The issue that presents a challenge for all systems (cryptocurrencies and meatspace institutions) is bootstrapping. Some people will get burned in the beginning because fraud will be temporarily easier to commit. This is why I wish the DAO had just been allowed to die without the hard fork. What is needed is not innovative crowd funding schemes, but additional trust and vetting infrastructure.
Let's play hypotheticals. If you were the attacker and you now have the ETH in your wallet, how do you cash out without anyone identifying you and maximising your profits? Also has the attacker broken a law by exploiting a bug in the contract?
IANAL but if someone leaves their front door open, it's still illegal to walk in and take their possessions. I would imagine this falls under a similar ruling.
Here's the root error I believe: https://github.com/paritytech/parity/blob/master/js/src/cont... The initWallet function should have been marked internal, but was instead not marked. Unmarked functions default to public in Solidity, so anyone can call that function and reinitialize the wallet to be under their control
Why doesn't the only_uninitialized modifier cause a throw since m_numOwners should have already been > 0, no?
Let's play hypotheticals. If you were the attacker and you now have the ETH in your wallet, how do you cash out without anyone identifying you and maximising your profits? Also has the attacker broken a law by exploiting a bug in the contract?
IANAL but if someone leaves their front door open, it's still illegal to walk in and take their possessions. I would imagine this falls under a similar ruling.