Quote from: glerand on June 19, 2016, 03:02:59 PM

Quote from: x13 on June 19, 2016, 03:00:04 PM

No, I do not agree! The open letter of the attackers states what the truth is. I rightly created a child dao and used it to recursively get Ether. This is acutally not forbidden it is just a bug in a feature in a decentralized environment.

If you are near an ATTM, the ATM malfunctioned, it spit out cash. If you take the cash and did not give it back, it is criminal action.

The problem here is who decides what the "intent" of the contract was?

Quote from: iamnotback on June 19, 2016, 12:57:42 PM

Quote from: smooth on June 19, 2016, 09:19:56 AM

Quote from: bitboy11 on June 19, 2016, 09:16:08 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 19, 2016, 07:53:16 AM

You're mixing apples and potatoes here. Bitcoin mostly uses soft-forks in order to improve its capabilities. Bitcoin has never used any kind of coin-control or bailouts which is exactly what ETH is going to do. If they do that, ETH is not immutable. Period.

Forking to remove 184 billion Bitcoins is a form of coin control.

Do you understand that Bitcoin was forked to address an issue created by a bug in the Bitcoin code?

It was not forked because a transaction script did not do what someone expected as DoOverCoin is proposing to do.

Intent is ambiguous unless we bind ourselves to a majority vote:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15278364#msg15278364

Thus I now say the fork of Bitcoin was equivalent to a fork of Ethereum w.r.t. to the context we are debating.

I just realized this.

Btw, this is also why Satoshi did not solve the Byzantine General's Problem.