Kraken confirms July the 20th #ethereum Hardfork(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Kraken confirms July the 20th #ethereum Hardfork
https://twitter.com/stephantual/status/753874489939783680
20 comments
I don't understand the rage of some people against this decision. Cryptocurrency should be about free association of individuals and not about blindly following a flawed protocol that just happened to be the first implemented. If the consensus or vast majority vote is to upgrade the protocol, then that is what should be done. If everybody decides to stop using etherium and issue IOUs in the value of the currency they held, and use that as money, also fine. If they decide unanimously to change the protocol to give one person all the money, so they can build a huge goat idol, then that's the collective decision.
No doubt the contracts and the protocol will be refined many times until they convey the intention of the community better.
The beautiful thing about a correctly implemented cryptocurrency is that single actors cannot act against the majority will of the community. But that doesn't mean we can't shut down our computers for a minute to reconsider the rules of the game, if we find a new consensus.
No doubt the contracts and the protocol will be refined many times until they convey the intention of the community better.
The beautiful thing about a correctly implemented cryptocurrency is that single actors cannot act against the majority will of the community. But that doesn't mean we can't shut down our computers for a minute to reconsider the rules of the game, if we find a new consensus.
That's the thing though, they aren't changing the protocol, they are just reversing the transactions that fed the DAO. The DAO was flawed, not Ethereum, and now Ethereum's stability and promise of immutability are being sacrificed so that a bunch of people (including the lead devs of ethereum) who made a bad, uninformed investment don't have to lose their money.
The 'consensus' was not by a vast majority either, unless you consider 5% a vast majority.
The 'consensus' was not by a vast majority either, unless you consider 5% a vast majority.
Well, but the vast majority is carrying the decision by following the fork / rollback, right? If just 5% of there network does the fork, shouldn't the 95% be able to continue with the old version (and the fork would become effectively worthless)? At least that's how it would work with bitcoin.
If the system allows 5% of users (or computing power) to make arbitrary changes, then that is the problem.
If I'm correctly informed, the cause was not a bad investment, but a bug/loophole in the contract that allowed people to steal etherium. (Of course you could take the code-legalistic position and say whatever the original code did, was the contract, even with bugs, and if people invested, they accepted these bugs as part of the agreement. But then I raise you this: the features of etherium that allow people to make changes to contracts are also part of the agreement! So if you say they shouldn't have invested in a buggy contact, tough luck, then I can say tough luck you invested in a malleble system :-))
If there was a bug (unexpected functionality) in the specification, then a certain quorum of users should be able to change the spec to match group expectations, even retroactively. I consider that to be a feature, not a bug.
If the system allows 5% of users (or computing power) to make arbitrary changes, then that is the problem.
If I'm correctly informed, the cause was not a bad investment, but a bug/loophole in the contract that allowed people to steal etherium. (Of course you could take the code-legalistic position and say whatever the original code did, was the contract, even with bugs, and if people invested, they accepted these bugs as part of the agreement. But then I raise you this: the features of etherium that allow people to make changes to contracts are also part of the agreement! So if you say they shouldn't have invested in a buggy contact, tough luck, then I can say tough luck you invested in a malleble system :-))
If there was a bug (unexpected functionality) in the specification, then a certain quorum of users should be able to change the spec to match group expectations, even retroactively. I consider that to be a feature, not a bug.
Could you please let us know where you got that 5% figure from? I thought (according to the latest post on Ethereum's blog https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/15/to-fork-or-not-to-fork/) that the voting was done just on http://carbonvote.com/
Actually it's ~3.5%. Meaning about 3.5% of the total ETH supply has been used to vote.
Do we know much of the user base / computing power that corresponds to? And how many users abstained from voting?
And what happens once another exploit occurs? How many hard-forks will there be due to the tyranny of the sore-loser majority?
I was wondering the same thing. Turns out the answer is: probably. Elites will always bend the system to their advantage to avoid losing control.
It'll be fascinating anthropology though. We've never seen a cryptocurrency betray its fundamental principles to help a few rich people save face before.
It'll be fascinating anthropology though. We've never seen a cryptocurrency betray its fundamental principles to help a few rich people save face before.
I'm guessing there will be many forking changes. I'm surprised that people thought version 1.0 would be perfect.
If the majority of users agree a change is better, then by all means, why shouldn't they change. The protocol should convey the intentions of the users, and not result in random behavior.
If the majority of users agree a change is better, then by all means, why shouldn't they change. The protocol should convey the intentions of the users, and not result in random behavior.
This isn't a change in versions, it's a fork of the blockchain. There was no bug in Ethereum. The smart contract worked as designed, and similar design flaws could be created in future smart contracts.
It's analogous to forking the bitcoin blockchain because a group wanted to reverse specific transactions in their favor.
It's analogous to forking the bitcoin blockchain because a group wanted to reverse specific transactions in their favor.
So. the intent of the DAO was _not_ specified in the code unlike claimed by all the hype. If I was a potential investor, I would be extremely curious to find out where the intent of DAO nowadays _is_ defined.
The website says: (https://daohub.org/explainer.html)
By Creating DAO tokens through interaction with The DAO’s smart contract code, you expressly agree to all of the terms and conditions set forth in that code. If you do not understand or do not agree to those terms, you should not Create DAO tokens.
[...]
The DAO’s smart contract code governs the Creation of DAO tokens and supercede any public statements about The DAO’s Creation made by third parties or individuals associated with The DAO, past, present and future. The software code currently available at https://github.com/slockit/dao is the sole source for the terms under which DAO tokens may be created
By Creating DAO tokens through interaction with The DAO’s smart contract code, you expressly agree to all of the terms and conditions set forth in that code. If you do not understand or do not agree to those terms, you should not Create DAO tokens.
[...]
The DAO’s smart contract code governs the Creation of DAO tokens and supercede any public statements about The DAO’s Creation made by third parties or individuals associated with The DAO, past, present and future. The software code currently available at https://github.com/slockit/dao is the sole source for the terms under which DAO tokens may be created
> you expressly agree to all of the terms and conditions set forth in that code. If you do not understand or do not agree to those terms, you should not Create DAO tokens.
Now it seems to me that there are plenty of people who have neither understood nor agreed with the terms and conditions, and explicitly decided that the code was not the intent of the DAO. So, the question remains, what is the intent of the DAO? If the old code was not the intent, we have no reason to believe that any of the future versions would be either.
Now it seems to me that there are plenty of people who have neither understood nor agreed with the terms and conditions, and explicitly decided that the code was not the intent of the DAO. So, the question remains, what is the intent of the DAO? If the old code was not the intent, we have no reason to believe that any of the future versions would be either.
Or, the hard fork is a classic breach or contract, made difficult to remedy by the nature of the platform.
Seems like a good way to start a lawsuit...
I couldn't be more opposed to this decision. It's a terrible precedent to set, and I think fundamentally undermines the ideals behind the Ethereum network. The DAO should live or die by its own code. A hard fork should only be done to save the Ethereum network itself because of a critical flaw.
What about customer ETH in Kraken's possession on the other chain, assuming it persists. Will they return it to customers or keep it for themselves?
[deleted]
1. Undisclosed investments on DAO from top ETH devs
2. The 5% "consensus" on hardfork
3. The inherent fragility on the implementation design of smart contracts
The whole situation is really messy and Ethereum foundation didn't step up to think what's best for the future of Ethereum. The most important gripe for me is that there is still no proper retrospective from the Ethereum organisation and how will they prevent this from happening again.
All these made really unattractive the use of ETH, not to speak of value storage of course.
I hope Rootstock will learn from Ethereum's mistakes and do better.