Re:Another successful DAO attack recursive split
by 21echoes on Sunday June 19, 2016 @02:31PM
(#11933990)
My understanding is that the bug was in a particular contract written using the Ethereum contract "language", not Ethereum itself. E.g., one does not stop using Python because there's a bug in Quora
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Another successful DAO attack recursive split
by Animats on Sunday June 19, 2016 @02:46PM
(#11934068)
The people who screwed up the DAO smart contract can't fix the problem from within the DAO, and they want to change the rules of Etherium to fix the DAO's problem. The fact that the same people are behind Etherium, the DAO, and the programmable door-lock startup makes this possible. It also makes it suspicious. In the Bitcoin world, all too often we've seen an "outside hack" that turned out to be insiders.
Re:Another successful DAO attack recursive split
by wcummings on Sunday June 19, 2016 @04:44PM
(#11934592)
>and the programmable door-lock startup
The door lock company is the funniest part of the whole thing. It makes this meltdown so much less surprising tbh.
Re:Another successful DAO attack recursive split
by stale2002 on Sunday June 19, 2016 @05:57PM
(#11934893)
Oh god, its some random IoT company that is using the blockchain to run its IoT platform for no reason, and then decided to pivot into a decentralized investment fund.
Re:Another successful DAO attack recursive split
by Animats on Sunday June 19, 2016 @06:21PM
(#11934994)
It's all the same guy, Vitalik Buterin. He's behind Etherium, the DAO, and the door lock company, "Slock.it UG".
Re:Another successful DAO attack recursive split
by stale2002 on Sunday June 19, 2016 @05:51PM
(#11934872)
Whats up with the door lock thing? I haven't heard about that.
Re:Another successful DAO attack recursive split
by nawitus on Sunday June 19, 2016 @05:58PM
(#11934901)
Probably refers to this:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ethereum-based-slock-reveals-first-...
Somewhat related: the lock in my apartment is actually based on cryptography too. It uses SHA-1, which is somewhat scary, because it's not considered "safe" anymore. The algorithm was probably chosen because it uses less energy compared to safer ones, as the lock gets the energy from the turning of the key.