Quote from: cjmoles on July 20, 2017, 06:41:03 PM

Quote from: roselee on July 20, 2017, 02:22:34 PM

Quote from: Fargusson on July 20, 2017, 11:24:00 AM

Quote from: roselee on July 20, 2017, 10:24:57 AM

Quote from: cjmoles on July 20, 2017, 06:00:29 AM

Quote from: estenity on July 20, 2017, 03:23:43 AM

Quote from: roselee on July 20, 2017, 02:35:19 AM

Quote from: darkwanderer on July 20, 2017, 01:58:39 AM

https://blog.zeppelin.solutions/on-the-parity-wallet-multisig-hack-405a8c12e8f7

now there needs to come a hard fork to give that coins back

it has been said that the three addresses affected were addresses related to an incoming ICO !

Does anybody know what project token or ICO was effected by this attack? A hardfork isn't the solution though....sloppy code will result in a messy outcome, so the solution is to not take risks with unproven code. This isn't the type of stuff for which a chain should be purposefully forked, right?

the dao was sloppy code and ethereum forked !?

Good one roselee Grin

Please remember that the DAO hard fork was decided after (almost) consensus in the ETH community as wasn't the result of a so called God mode.

Moreover, the DAO owned 15% of all ETH when the bug in Parity's multisig we are facing here is only regarding 0.6% of all ETH (of which 3/4 has been rescued by the White hats group). Not that much at stake to even consider an hard fork here.

no i see it different the dao fork was no consensus of "almost all users" the voting was done in a rush not all useres could join or wanted to join becouse you had to send eth to vote and simple ethereum holders not invested in the dao didnt find out that fast. and there were lots of no´s about it. but as i recall lots of the VIP´s were invested in the dao and thats why the hardfork was important.ETC suporters were called suporter of thiefs becouse they said comunity cant rollback the chain to bail out bad investment. and now you say the damage is not done to a lot of people so no hardfork? a year ago the eth suporters said a thief is a thief and cant get away with it . but never mind i just wanted to know how eth suporters see it a year later.

Well, look at the differences in value....How much has the value of eth increased since the DAO fork? And, yes, the DAO contract code was exploited if you remember right....that was a major part of the argument. I was invested in the DAO, but I was against a fork because of the very questions we're facing today....It worked out for Ethereum ---> That observation can be deduced from the levels of support for the two separate chains, right? However, the original fork decision is still throwing shade on the governance of the network and that was predicted during the first fork debate.

hmm breaking down what you say is, since the shady goverance dealing with the dao the interest of big players was turned to ethereum? and now ethereum gets used to tokenice fiat.
dont get me wrong i thought and think vitalik had a amazing idea, thats why i invested in the crwodsale. but
is this ethereum still what vitalik visioned back then ?