Quote from: cohnhead on July 12, 2016, 08:28:25 PM

Quote from: tipto on July 12, 2016, 08:19:07 PM

Quote from: cohnhead on July 12, 2016, 04:46:03 PM

Quote from: Zaducis on July 12, 2016, 04:38:48 PM

Quote from: tipto on July 12, 2016, 04:32:02 PM

Agree maybe we have to acceptt that the concept of DAO is still not feasible. I also understand the point of the DAO hacker. Using a programmed back door cannot be punished. We have also to consider that the flaw was known at least for some weeks.

I am not sure about that. If the hacker identifies himself, there could be some kind of law suit against him.

using a programed back door is absolutely punishable in most jurisdictions. in addition his actions were contrary to the benefit of the DAO as whole and should not be allowed to stand.
as far as the shorting of eth on exchanges (where the real money was made) not sure if that's regulated in so far as things like that go...so probably not punishable.

is hf happening on 15th?

Hacking back doors to get in systems is punishable but in this case it was a backdoor in a contract. So if you consider that the contract was created liked that then how one get punished to just use the contract as initially programmed. Interesting case. But if the hack is punishable than what about the punishment of a rollback which is against the system as a hole. My head is smoking..😊

just because it was a contract doesn't mean it cant be undone....either by hf or courts of law. bad contracts are nullified all the time. as far as hf....while not perfect its a failsafe ...its exactly how the system is designed. If a majority of miners support than its consensus. anyone is free to mine either by renting or purchasing hardware.

If HF will be introduced then (in the future) the devs can be easily forced (by gov guys for instance) to do it again for other "important" reason. The precedent will be a
constant threat to ETH.