Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by DennisP on Friday June 17, 2016 @11:16AM (#11923118)

Contracts can be upgraded if they're designed that way. You can have a wrapper contract that just calls out to other contracts, where the addresses of the other contracts are updateable. You can even make the callee run in the context of the caller, so all the data is held at the caller, which calls an external function that manipulates it.

Doing this is a tradeoff. On the one hand it lets you fix bugs and vulnerabilities, on the other your users have to trust you not to abuse your power.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by JulianMorrison on Friday June 17, 2016 @11:23AM (#11923162)

It completely obviates the point, because a contract no longer means what it says, it means what Bob says. So just wire your money to Bob, it's simpler.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by carver on Friday June 17, 2016 @11:53AM (#11923359)

While I prefer non-upgradable contracts for the same reason, there are mechanisms to reach some middle ground, like:

1) a significant delay between the announcement of an upgrade and the actual upgrade (enforced by the blockchain)

2) a mechanism to opt-out or cash out before the upgrade happens

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by wslh on Friday June 17, 2016 @04:31PM (#11925356)

Are you referring to this kind of upgrades https://gist.github.com/Arachnid/4ca9da48d51e23e5cfe0f0e14dd... ? Because you have an important limitation if you use that approach.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critical Update on DAO Vulnerability by cwillu on Friday June 17, 2016 @06:57PM (#11926044)

Until such time as a College of Hortators gets invented and people start including standard provisions to defer some decisions to them. Yay, the courts have been reintroduced.

[ Parent | on HN ]