Quote from: cohnhead on July 13, 2016, 09:33:46 PM

Quote from: roselee on July 13, 2016, 03:44:45 PM

Quote from: cohnhead on July 13, 2016, 01:56:42 PM

Quote from: roselee on July 13, 2016, 09:45:20 AM

Quote from: Auponef on July 13, 2016, 09:39:37 AM

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..😊

The intention of the hacker is to still the money. That is the difference. It is an punishable offence.

hmm are we so sure of that ? he/she could have taken all the ether in the doa. he/she wasnt stoped! he/she just stoped after 3.6 mill .
if he/she was just after the money why not take all ?
i really think that "taker " didnt believe it would be posible to take them so easy and on the way he/she got scruple.

absolutely wrong, hacker intent was to steal...and most likely not by draining DAO as they knew they wouldn't be able to actually withdraw, but by causing panic and shorting ether on bitfinex.

good point but still we dont know for sure as long as there is no investigation and facts are shown to the public then a trail - judge or jury say guilty or not
but not some who might be involved in the cause of the problem
i say ether should not do selfjustic

we do know for sure there was 3miilion shorted on bitfinex just prior to DAO attack ...a huge interest by any measure. Coincidence, I think not. selfjustice is how the system is designed isn't it. Miners ultimately choose whats in their best interest....its the cornerstone of having a distributed pow blockchain. And if they choose to mead out justice in the form of a HF than so be it. Those who don't like it can rent or buy mining equipment and hash another fork.

and then you asume its the attacker but you dont know for sure till there was a investigation. you are right one can choose to rent hashpower. or leave the project and move on. seems like its bailing out the ones too big to fail.