41–50 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SolarNet what makes you think it's based on js
Solidity is a contract-oriented, high-level language whose syntax is similar to that of JavaScript and it is designed to target the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). http://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/
Is it even illegal to hack Ethereum? Some purists would say the smart contract was behaving as written.
The principle of Ethereum is that code is law, the "hacker" followed the law to the letter and acted in a prescribed manner. What's the crime here exactly?
Somebody exploited a flaw in the system and managed to grab millions of funny-money currency. It's like cheating at a game of monopoly except that many of the players think the rules of the game are "the law" in real life.
> Another decision he made when he had no idea of the bug shows how quirky and unforgiving code can be. “If the capital ‘T’ in line 666 had been a small ‘t,’ that would also have prevented the hack,” he says. Can someone familiar with this explain how something financially based can have a capitalization flaw? I would expect a smart contract language to have very strict type and variable linking. Humans make many mis…
That's primarily because Ethereum is pure amateur hour. When Bitcoin had built in checksums on addresses, Eth Dev's just said "watch where you send money". They ended up having to later add in a capitalization scheme to serve as a hash. I have no clue how they managed to fool so many people with poor and shoddy work. But they have so far. And they've fooled everyone that this is a 'hack' even after saying time and ag…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't, if you take the case under contractual law there is absolutely no basis to charge the person who extracted the $55m. The contract had 'flaws' but it was the contract, so tough cookies it agreed to something you didn't like, but you wrote it! (Except we know now it was too big to fail, which in turn means centralization) The DAO was pumped up by VCs and friends of the founder of Ethereum, which, before the l…
David Birch has been bashing cryptocurrency since around 2012. It seriously goes that far back for some of these ideologues. Edit, just to give people an idea of where he's coming from ideologically, these are some of his comments that show the kind of world he wants to see: https://youtu.be/c8mdr8iwX20?t=6m49s "law-abiding taxpayers like me are subsidizing criminals to use cash and not pay taxes" https://youtu.be/c8…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but here is how I would argue: The DAO was created with the intention to allocate its funds according to a certain voting scheme, with everyone's power determined by the number of tokens they held. But the program did not correctly implement this intention, and the DAO hack exploited the difference to bring the funds under control of the attacker. This most likely violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and…
As I understand it, the DAO website explicitly stated that the code of the contract superseded any written or stated intent. Basically: The code is the law.
C-3PO: He made a perfectly legal move.
Han: Let him have it. It’s not wise to upset a Wookiee (The Ethereum founders).
C-3PO: But sir. Nobody worries about upsetting a droid (a regular contract user without influence). Han: That’s cause a droid (regular contract user) don’t pull people’s arms out of their sockets (hard fork the entire crypto currency and call you a thief) when they lose. Wookiees (The Ethereum founders) are known to do that.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2. Let the Wookiee (Ethereum founders) win.
With Chewbacca's and the Ethereum founders' behavior, you would be a fool to play their game again thinking that they follow the rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
David Birch has been bashing cryptocurrency since around 2012. It seriously goes that far back for some of these ideologues. Edit, just to give people an idea of where he's coming from ideologically, these are some of his comments that show the kind of world he wants to see: https://youtu.be/c8mdr8iwX20?t=6m49s "law-abiding taxpayers like me are subsidizing criminals to use cash and not pay taxes" https://youtu.be/c8…
Many ICOs out there are effectively Ponzi schemes, which are near-universally illegal.
Bubbly sectors see irrational amounts of money thrown at things that have little underlying value, like Beanie Babies, or a token for a proposed protocol described by a two page whitepaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't, if you take the case under contractual law there is absolutely no basis to charge the person who extracted the $55m. The contract had 'flaws' but it was the contract, so tough cookies it agreed to something you didn't like, but you wrote it! (Except we know now it was too big to fail, which in turn means centralization) The DAO was pumped up by VCs and friends of the founder of Ethereum, which, before the l…
David Birch has been bashing cryptocurrency since around 2012. It seriously goes that far back for some of these ideologues. Edit, just to give people an idea of where he's coming from ideologically, these are some of his comments that show the kind of world he wants to see: https://youtu.be/c8mdr8iwX20?t=6m49s "law-abiding taxpayers like me are subsidizing criminals to use cash and not pay taxes" https://youtu.be/c8…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
David Birch has been bashing cryptocurrency since around 2012. It seriously goes that far back for some of these ideologues. Edit, just to give people an idea of where he's coming from ideologically, these are some of his comments that show the kind of world he wants to see: https://youtu.be/c8mdr8iwX20?t=6m49s "law-abiding taxpayers like me are subsidizing criminals to use cash and not pay taxes" https://youtu.be/c8…
He is totally right about ICO's though. They are essentially Ponzi schemes as investors think the coins have value and that their initial investment is generating more value, but that is not what is happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is totally right about ICO's though. They are essentially Ponzi schemes as investors think the coins have value and that their initial investment is generating more value, but that is not what is happening.
None of the token sales I've seen are ponzi schemes. "Ponzi scheme" seems to be the buzzword used to describe any irrational or bubbly investment. It's incorrect usage of the term.
Ponzi schemes are financial frauds where, under the promise of high profits, users put their money, recovering their investment and interests only if enough users after them continue to invest money.
Further to this, its qualatively provable, as you can look at the contracts and actually class the type of Ponzi scheme they are.
* https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/06/01/2189634/its-not-just-... https://stratechery.com/2017/tulips-myths-and-cryptocurrenci... * https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.03779.pdf