Quote from: TheMage on July 09, 2016, 05:42:22 AM

...

I already made a statement about this, and you can read it here (which you wont, because either you are either a bought shill or someone so heavily invested that its against your best interests to do so)

http://freepdfhosting.com/6047c65a73.pdf...

Nice read Mage, I'm always amazed that people just don't get this.

Quote

Anything made by humans is by definition fallible. Machines, buildings, even a picnic table, each one of
these items has a weakness because they were designed by humans and a computer program is no
exception. This is why when I first heard about smart contracts I began to cringe.

Anyone that knows anything about coding knows that a program can only be as smart as the programmer who wrote it.

Quote

But by the nature of your system, ~~it enabled this to happen~~ this was inevitable.

FTFY

BTW, I made a funny in the LTC thread (just my way of subbing) and I don't think anyone got it. Tongue

Quote from: ProfessionalGoogler on July 09, 2016, 08:41:12 AM

...

Perfect example of useless rant.

Perfect example of no logical argument to respond with. Your about 1 post away from ignore.

Quote from: shyliar on July 09, 2016, 11:52:16 AM

Quote from: Hueristic on July 09, 2016, 03:21:34 AM

Quote from: shyliar on July 09, 2016, 03:05:12 AM

No matter which side of the debate you're on, a person needs to laugh a little at the fact that Kraken utilized thier customers ETH to influence the vote. Wonder if they asked everyone's permission.

http://etherscan.io/tx/0xc165ab5726c66bb3db50544981f20d143b46a3e990d7b424dbf81d5070dd6278

Bankers doing what bankers do. No surprise we already knew it was all centralized anyway.

LOL well have to agree with that. It does depend where the Bank is located or does business (In this case crypto-exchange). For example if Gemini tried to do the same thing with their customers ETH they would be subject to losing their bitcoin license.

"(c) Each Licensee is prohibited from selling, transferring, assigning, lending, hypothecating, pledging, or
otherwise using or encumbering assets, including Virtual Currency, stored, held, or maintained by, or under the
custody or control of, such Licensee on behalf of another Person except for the sale, transfer, or assignment of
such assets at the direction of such other Person."

Edit: No matter what you think of this type of regulation, it at least attempts to ensure ethical behaviour by the exchange. Perhaps this explains one of the reasons behind some exchanges not wanting to function in New York.

Although we are on opposite sides of the debate you have made a valid point.

Quote from: LoyceV on July 09, 2016, 12:12:47 PM

Quote from: mining1 on July 09, 2016, 10:08:48 AM

But helping them getting their money back isnt a bailout so if you didnt know this ill forgive you. Personally, i care more about not allowing a thief go away with stolen money rather than helping people getting their money back. But if they get the money back and the thief is not allowed to get away then its a double win.

Why do people keep calling it a thief? "The Attacker" simply followed the "smart" contract. In fact, he was the only person who actually understood the contract! And the contract itself states that the contract's code is binding, there is no other interpretation possible.
A hard fork on the other hand, that is actually theft. Which is why I am very curious to see a lawsuit about this.

It is no different than what bankers and lawyers and accountants do all day long, they thrive by gaming the system and most of what they do is legal (although unethical) and if it isn't legal they lobby to make it so.

I personally would like to see the "Fund holder" in the current contract to further the cause of financial liberty for all with the windfall but either way he gamed a system within the rules set forth and is thereby entitled to the rewards. I'm not arguing it's fair but neither is life. If life was fair Trump would be destitute on the street.

Quote from: LoyceV on July 09, 2016, 12:12:47 PM

Quote from: mining1 on July 09, 2016, 10:08:48 AM

But helping them getting their money back isnt a bailout so if you didnt know this ill forgive you. Personally, i care more about not allowing a thief go away with stolen money rather than helping people getting their money back. But if they get the money back and the thief is not allowed to get away then its a double win.

Why do people keep calling it a thief? "The Attacker" simply followed the "smart" contract. In fact, he was the only person who actually understood the contract! And the contract itself states that the contract's code is binding, there is no other interpretation possible.
A hard fork on the other hand, that is actually theft. Which is why I am very curious to see a lawsuit about this.

Correct, I attempted to find a better description and settled on "Fund Holder" in context but I am sure there is a better descriptive term that just has not come to mind. I guess we could just call him the DAO Winner. Cheesy

I think in the future I will be referring to ETH as The ETH Token.