Re: Bad Code Has Lost $500M of Cryptocurrency in Under a Year
⭐ Merited by pebwindkraft (3)
This needs to be in a stickied FAQ somewhere:
In the abstract, what the so-called attacker did was no different than a smart lawyer finding a gaping loophole in a contract. It was fully authorized use of a computer network in the exact manner which the network was declared to be intended. Per the legally binding terms of the DAO: The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAOs code.
Following those terms was not an attack. It most certainly was not a theft! It was only the fully foreseeable result of declaring that code is law, and then writing low-quality code-law with unknown, unverifiable properties. If you dare do that because you want a flashy media event with bucketloads of investor money suddenly pouring in, then prepare yourself for your doom by meditating on the cosmic (and comic) inevitable consequences:
This is why I am so enamoured with the Bitcoin Simplicity concept, which I linked to above. It is serious research with the goal of producing mathematically provable contracts. We need advanced smart contracts which have no code-loopholes, just as verifiably as 2+2=4 has no loopholes. For in Bitcoin, code truly is law. In Bitcoin, there shall never be the disgusting sham of a so-called irregular state change. In Bitcoin, there is no central authority with the ability to mandate such a thing!
(I do think that centrally managed pretenders with mathematically unverifiable smart contracts are fully suitable for use as toys, such as CryptoKitties.)
More of the same, probably for awhile. The people who do such things are not very creative.
Just my 2 Satoshis: I've disliked Ethereum ever since their one Unique Selling Point ("code is law" for smart contracts) got thrown out of the window after The DAO failed so hard they had to abandon their core principles and hardfork to get their money back. It proved that smart contracts are worthless if you don't understand them, which makes them worthless for almost everybody. In the case of The DAO, even the developers didn't understand the code, the only person who understood it was called "the attacker". Ironic!
In the abstract, what the so-called attacker did was no different than a smart lawyer finding a gaping loophole in a contract. It was fully authorized use of a computer network in the exact manner which the network was declared to be intended. Per the legally binding terms of the DAO: The terms of The DAO Creation are set forth in the smart contract code existing on the Ethereum blockchain at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413. Nothing in this explanation of terms or in any other document or communication may modify or add any additional obligations or guarantees beyond those set forth in The DAOs code.
Following those terms was not an attack. It most certainly was not a theft! It was only the fully foreseeable result of declaring that code is law, and then writing low-quality code-law with unknown, unverifiable properties. If you dare do that because you want a flashy media event with bucketloads of investor money suddenly pouring in, then prepare yourself for your doom by meditating on the cosmic (and comic) inevitable consequences:
This is why I am so enamoured with the Bitcoin Simplicity concept, which I linked to above. It is serious research with the goal of producing mathematically provable contracts. We need advanced smart contracts which have no code-loopholes, just as verifiably as 2+2=4 has no loopholes. For in Bitcoin, code truly is law. In Bitcoin, there shall never be the disgusting sham of a so-called irregular state change. In Bitcoin, there is no central authority with the ability to mandate such a thing!
(I do think that centrally managed pretenders with mathematically unverifiable smart contracts are fully suitable for use as toys, such as CryptoKitties.)
I'm really curious what will be the next phase in money grabbing, now that we've seen shitcoins, Token sales and hard forks.
More of the same, probably for awhile. The people who do such things are not very creative.