The DAO, the Hack, the Soft Fork and the Hard Fork

Re:The DAO, the Hack, the Soft Fork and the Hard Fork by rsync on Friday July 21, 2017 @02:15PM (#14822643)

"That said, if I understand it, the "attacker" was just the first person to truly understand the contract and exploit that understanding, no? If what happened isn't what the creators of the contract intended, then that's the fault of the creators, not the "attacker"."

I would go even further and suggest that the user (not "attacker") of this ethereum contract proudly stand up and identify themselves - without fear of retribution.

This individual played their game by their rules.

They are not an attacker, this was not a hack, and nothing was stolen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The DAO, the Hack, the Soft Fork and the Hard Fork by UncleMeat on Friday July 21, 2017 @05:19PM (#14823811)

How is this any different than exploiting a web application via something like SQL injection? After all, their implementation legally allows you to supply inputs containing those characters and their system responds by doing whatever with the database. Is that fundamentally different than supplying "expected" input and getting expected outputs?

"Your program just computes a different function than you expected and I supplied legal inputs" can be used as a defense of literally all software exploitation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The DAO, the Hack, the Soft Fork and the Hard Fork by jacquesm on Friday July 21, 2017 @05:30PM (#14823867)

He or she shouldn't just stand up and identify themselves, they should claim their right. It would in a way be the ideal case to litigate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The DAO, the Hack, the Soft Fork and the Hard Fork by thinkmassive on Sunday July 23, 2017 @03:20PM (#14833900)

It's a glorious hack in the original sense of the term.

[ Parent | on HN ]