Quote from: Slydrule on July 30, 2016, 04:31:45 PM

Quote from: tempus on July 30, 2016, 11:29:47 AM

Quote from: Madmach on July 30, 2016, 11:22:19 AM

Quote from: tempus on July 30, 2016, 08:58:44 AM

Quote from: Madmach on July 30, 2016, 08:18:15 AM

Quote

The situation with DAO has absolutely nothing to do with ETH, and ETH has absolutely no business getting involved. ETH was not hacked. DAO implemented poorly constructed terms along with poorly written, tested and reviewed code

https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

Is it true?

I'm not a coder, but after all what I've read about theDAO and it's hack it's not true. Example:

Ethereum itself seems to be flawed according to the latest developments on the DAO Hack. Philip Daian, a researcher at Cornell Universitys Initiative for Crytocurrencies & Contracts, just presented his latest findings on the hack, concluding:

"I would lay at least 50% of the blame for this exploit squarely at the feet of the design of the Solidity language. This may bolster the case for certain types of corrective action.

I refuse to lay the blame exclusively on a poorly coded contract when the contract, even if coded using best practices and the following language documentation exactly, would have remained vulnerable to attack."

In a highly technical publication detailing the exploits that the hacker may have used, Daian stated:

"[T]his was actually not a flaw or exploit in the DAO contract itself: technically the EVM was operating as intended, but Solidity was introducing security flaws into contracts that were not only missed by the community, but missed by the designers of the language themselves."

(...)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ethereum-solidity-flaw-dao/

Somebody else (Daniel Krawisz) states:

This problem is so serious that it cannot be treated as a bug in the DAO. The problem ~~is with Solidity itself, which is the scripting language used in Ethereum.~~ Update: The problem actually all the way down to the Ethereum virtual machine.

(...)

This means the same issue exists in Serpent, another Ethereum scripting language, and every other one they might come up with.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/ethereum-is-doomed/#selection-11.0-11.15

I have no clue if it's all correct or not.

But theDAO proved one thing: Even Ethereum-Devs are obviously not able to develop a smart contract in a secure way.
At least it seems as if there is no way to code more complex stuff without feeling uncertain.

Under the line I personally don't have much faith in Ethereums future (or ETC's), because I don't believe it will ever be used for real business. I don't mean it that critical because my view is: Ethereum has a lot of value as scientific project, as something to find out possible ways but also how it can't be done. But for Ethereum the problem could be, that others will learn out of it and will do it better while Ethereum took too much steps into a direction that won't work.

Safe to say is: There will be serious and professional competitors in future. And what is left for Ethereum? A cute twin, a bail-out, a blockchain that can't be trusted, a team that can't be trusted - neither regarding their abilities nor their priorities.

Yea. But, i do not understand why Cryptopia Delisting ETH. Roll Eyes

At least it was before the HF and it seems to be a mix of idealism and criticism because of the HF-decision.

This is the main-point for them:

"Cryptopia believe in immutable blockchain technology, we believe that ETH forking their network to save the failures of a 3rd party software developer operating independently that ETH had nothing to do with sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and will likely open the floodgates to rollbacks for any reason.

Cryptopia is delisting ETH with the intent to avoid participation in both the upcoming fork and the inevitable future forks."
https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/675

So what Cryptopia is saying is that if they are hacked and YOUR deposits are stolen from them, they believe the thieves should keep your deposits and they (Cryptopia) have no obligation to go after the thieves to get your money back or repay you for what you lost.

Why would anyone want to deal with such an exchange?

What they are saying is that they believe in immutability of blockchains and disagree with a bail-out! And you should ask why anybody would want to deal with a project that rushes out and fucks up a $150 Mio Smart Contract. That's not the fault of any exchange!

And just by the way - replay attacks:

At present, it appears that exchanges have been most affected by the vulnerability.
http://www.coindesk.com/rise-replay-attacks-ethereum-divide/

I wouldn't blame the mess to any exchange. Polo did a great job but it's also respectable just to say "no, we don't want that".