Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[VeritasSapere]

even if we go along with that, it significantly alters the smart contract story, does it not? the good news (as far as I am concerned) is that the testing ground -- to the tune of USD$60M -- turned out to be etherium, not bitcoin. furthermore, that we now have an important cautionary tale about scripting complexity. satoshi's foresight never ceases to amaze.

It certainly does, there are definitely some narratives out there that do break under this fact. From a different perspective however this could be a good thing. Over time this will be much more difficult to achieve with the exception of very large failures, they might indeed be setting a bad precedent, weighing everything on the scale it does still seems like the right thing to do though. If we perceive this as a robbery and consider the intend of the code and not its result in this case, referring to the principle in common law.

I would be against any type of roll back, but considering that this is not a rollback and no transactions will be invalidated, it seems like a good move. In the meantime we get to observe the first fork prediction market in the form of the DAO.

 

[jbreher]

I do think the common law principle works here, it is the intention of the law not the letter of the law that matters here.

Maybe in most courts of law. But there are at best multiple conflicting layers of intent here. Ethereium's entire Unique Value Proposition is Smart Contracts - inviolate pieces of code. Is this intent not more important than the subsidiary intent of [perhaps the majority of] the DAO investors?

If we start trying to define intent behind inscrutable code, the entire smart contracts experiment is finito.

 

[cypherdoc]

As far as I understand Segwit alone isn't really changing Bitcoins principles or inner workings.
If it's just a more logical and cleaner way of organizing block data I think it's a good thing to do eventually.

But I'm against doing it as a soft fork and this discount bullshit. I think a long term planned Hardfork to SW transactions would be good.
Best case scenario imho:
1. Hardfork asap to 2 < blocksize < 8 MB.
2. Combined Hardfork in 2017 or so with Bitpays scheme or Bip101 or no limit at all and Segwit.

Honestly I think the Eth mess gives Bitcoin some more time. So (unrealistic but who knows) if there was a middle ground for a 2 MB + SW HF late this year I think I would be ok with that as well... I don't know how much of Pieters work could be used in that case and I don't know if that's technically feasible. And I don't know if there is a chance for wallets to catch up fast enough.

So from your choices 3, 2, 1 would be my vote.

well, SW really is changing Bitcoin principles and economics thru it's centrally planned 75% discount which favors p2sh multisigs which just so happens to incentivize LN multisigs!. magically, it also seems to contract the UTXO set which is what kore dev would rather tout as a diversion. the 29 parallel SF's that can be shoved down miners throats thru the BIP 9 scripting mechanism isn't great either given all the confusion and intellectual naivete demonstrated by current miners. whether or not we want to move full nodes to a fraud proof dependence on fewer more centralized full nodes is also suspect and changes the current security assumptions away from miner based.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@jbreher It is indeed a slippery slope, maybe the miners will reject the fork possibly proofing the viability of proof of work governance before they switch to proof of stake, ironically.

I still do not understand why the miners would vote to implement proof of stake, since that would be going against their own self interest. It could lead to another grand debate and possibly a split. Who knows Ethereum might split before Bitcoin does.

 

[cypherdoc]

What's up with all those bootlickers?

/u/Chakra_Scientist is one of the worst of the bunch.
[doublepost=1466276956][/doublepost]

My preference is for 3): lifting the blocksize limit now and putting segwit on hold.

agreed.

we might then wish it had been introduced earlier to allow any development between now and then to incorporate it.

i think most of that work has already been done and stands pretty much ready to go.

However, I do sense a fair degree of confidence among the technically qualified people on the BU/Classic side that freeing bitcoin of the blocksize limit may be all she ever needs. It is on that basis (and being sceptical of Blockstream Core) that I would hold off on segwit.

i really agree with this.

 

[freetrader]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/exclusive-full-interview-transcript-alleged-dao-attacker/

Does anyone else think this DA "team" smells funny?

BTW, well done on that interview, @Aquent !

 

[Dusty]

http://trilema.com/2016/to-the-dao-and-the-ethereum-community-fuck-you/#selection-29.59-29.410

^ attacker?

Almost certainly not the attacker, but almost certainly the writer of that text, claiming to be the attacker

 

[Norway]

I still do not understand why the miners would vote to implement proof of stake, since that would be going against their own self interest.

Good point!

 

[cypherdoc]

DA: I like bitcoin, and I like breaking smart contracts
[doublepost=1466279214][/doublepost]/u/ydtm going nuts about DAO:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4op2es/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/
[doublepost=1466279439][/doublepost]plunging quickly:

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

well, SW really is changing Bitcoin principles and economics thru it's centrally planned 75% discount which favors p2sh multisigs which just so happens to incentivize LN multisigs!. magically, it also seems to contract the UTXO set which is what kore dev would rather tout as a diversion. the 29 parallel SF's that can be shoved down miners throats thru the BIP 9 scripting mechanism isn't great either given all the confusion and intellectual naivete demonstrated by current miners. whether or not we want to move full nodes to a fraud proof dependence on fewer more centralized full nodes is also suspect and changes the current security assumptions away from miner based.

I agree with those points but they aren't related to SW really afaik.
As I said, I don't see any problem with SW as a hardfork to change the structure of blocks. I might be wrong but afaik this doesn't really change any of Bitcoins properties. Afaik it's really just a structure change. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The points you mention are all right and I'm definitely against them, as well as I am very much against deploying SW as a soft fork.

 

[bluemoon]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/exclusive-full-interview-transcript-alleged-dao-attacker/

Does anyone else think this DA "team" smells funny?

BTW, well done on that interview, @Aquent !

I do wonder whether the "attacker's" reddit link, which he gives as an authority, is a clue:

 

[bluemoon]

Maybe in most courts of law. But there are at best multiple conflicting layers of intent here. Ethereium's entire Unique Value Proposition is Smart Contracts - inviolate pieces of code. Is this intent not more important than the subsidiary intent of [perhaps the majority of] the DAO investors?

If we start trying to define intent behind inscrutable code, the entire smart contracts experiment is finito.

I have not used ethereum so maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that the big thing about ethereum is that it is programmable by all users.

So I guess users both create their own programs and borrow those created by others.

1) Users can make an agreement (contract) with other users and then program that into ethereum.

2) Users can decide to do something unilaterally and program that into ethereum.

The users involved in (1) have contractual intentions which may or may not be adequately reflected in the program they create to give effect to those intentions. The program may execute automatically and bind everyone until it does, but it is a tool. If the actions of the parties do not give effect to the contractual intentions you have the potential for a legal action [between the parties (edit)], an action which may examine the efficacy of the tool used in relation to the intentions behind its use.

The users in (2) are dealing only with their own intentions: there is no other party to form a contract with. I pick up a hammer and miss the nail, hitting my thumb: tough!

 

[freetrader]

@bluemoon:
Before that pastebin letter from the attacker was released, the points it took up had been already stated on Reddit by various accounts in almost verbatim fashion.
Same goes for the "there's never been a hardfork in Bitcoin" arguments, which have been re-stated over the last week or two many times by prominent Core/BS folks.

I would really like to see this contract they want to come up with which pays miners on condition of something NOT happening. It seems kind of ... short-sighted ;-)

 

[bluemoon]

@freetrader

Thank's for that. It gets a bit frenetic!

Perhaps it's a contract which can penalise miners who renege on the 'deal'? That would be very clever.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

I have not used ethereum so maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that the big thing about ethereum is that it is programmable by all users.

Afaik the only real new thing in Ethereum was the Turing complete scripting language. That's all.
He took Bitcoin and removed a feature. And promised PoS and a bunch of other stuff which is questionable to happen and not really well researched.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

To the people who envy the Ethereum community for being so much nicer and saner and more professional, a little reality check:
https://np.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4opjov/the_bug_which_the_dao_hacker_exploited_was_not/

 

[cypherdoc]

I agree with those points but they aren't related to SW really afaik.
As I said, I don't see any problem with SW as a hardfork to change the structure of blocks. I might be wrong but afaik this doesn't really change any of Bitcoins properties. Afaik it's really just a structure change. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The points you mention are all right and I'm definitely against them, as well as I am very much against deploying SW as a soft fork.

if they did a HF to a+b<=4MB, i'd be ok with it. but if they HF to a+b/4<=1MB, i wouldn't be ok with it. that's b/c the 75% discount purposely given to complex multisigs gives unfair advantage to performing LN tx's, which we all know kore dev wants to transition the network to. that's a fundamental change in the properties of Bitcoin away from primarily a p2p cash system onchain (regular, more expensive tx's) to one that depends on a smart contracting one with time locked LN PC's offchain. miners health gets seriously questioned under the LN scenario as tx fees get shifted to LN hubs and away from the PoW function. that decreases Bitcoin security and diminishes it's sound money function. that's a change in my book.
[doublepost=1466285852][/doublepost]

I do wonder whether the "attacker's" reddit link, which he gives as an authority, is a clue:

yeah, sounds familiarly pedantic, eh? well, if he stole once, he'd do it again to prove a point.
[doublepost=1466285923][/doublepost]

DA: I like bitcoin, and I like breaking smart contracts

@bluemoon this part too. lotsa familiar sounding stuff in there.

 

[bluemoon]

Afaik the only real new thing in Ethereum was the Turing complete scripting language. That's all.
He took Bitcoin and removed a feature. And promised PoS and a bunch of other stuff which is questionable to happen and not really well researched.

I had a brief look over ethereum a few months ago and thought it was too flaky to buy, mainly because plans for its future development were vague and were predicated on endless inflation. Then I thought maybe I'd made a mistake, but still couldn't bring myself to swap btc for eth.

I'm not sure I feel vindicated now so much as lucky.
[doublepost=1466286585][/doublepost]

@bluemoon this part too. lotsa familiar sounding stuff in there.

Yes, I agree.

 

[cypherdoc]

The users involved in (1) have contractual intentions which may or may not be adequately reflected in the program they create to give effect to those intentions. The program may execute automatically and bind everyone until it does, but it is a tool. If the actions of the parties do not give effect to the contractual intentions you have the potential for a legal action [between the parties (edit)], an action which may examine the efficacy of the tool used in relation to the intentions behind its use.

to me this gets at a fundamental reason behind why Bitcoin *should* only be used as cash. Bitcoin is a *push* technology. when you buy something from somebody and *push* the coin to them, you can't very well turn around and say you didn't mean to do it, esp if you actually received the goods you paid for. which is the case in most p2p cash situations esp when dealing in small amounts.

otoh, with smart contracting, this *pushing* gets taken out of the hands of the one paying. rules attempt to be coded into a self executing contract dependent on some outside oracle or event. or they are time locked. in the meantime, some service or good needs to be delivered. even if the good or service is delivered, the quality of such will always potentially remain in dispute. one or the other party can always say, "i didn't mean for that contract to execute" or "what i got wasn't good enough". we are humans after all, each seeing the same event in our own light. it's human nature to disagree. and this gets magnified when money or value is exchanged or contracted. making it smart doesn't change that fact. geeks seem to think that if you do a good enough job outlining the rules, then execution of the contract via codified transfer of the money is final and that there is nothing you can do about it. i can assure you, every contract since the dawn of history had that intention in mind when it was drawn up. unfortunately the reality of the situation, esp when you have a huge cottage industry of lawyers dependent upon it, is that contracts get challenged all the time when you know the identity of your counterparty (which is most of the time with smart contracts). there will always be conflict and disputes. that's not going to change.

 

[cypherdoc]

sounds religious:

Our team is blessed to have Dr. Christian Reitwießner, Father of Solidity, as its Advisor.

The important takeaway from this is: as there is no ether whatsoever in the DAO’s rewards account — this is NOT an issue that is putting any DAO funds at risk today.

https://blog.slock.it/no-dao-funds-at-risk-following-the-ethereum-smart-contract-recursive-call-bug-discovery-29f482d348b#.xeihcbiu0