DAO money is the minority why would all of ethereum be in real danger of an unsuccessful hard fork to bailout some failed investment scheme, and there is our and their money, there is ether, if this blows up in our face there will just be people with more nothing and less nothing but no dao greedsters, slockers, devs whoever deemed it necessary to manipulate multiple voting mechanisms the misinterpreting them, failing the soft fork almost ruining the whole network and then pushing through their potential disasterious (last nail in the coffin) attack on the network, the hard dao fork. This will not end well
all of this nonsense is just too much, id be glad if the hole thing fails, then they can enjoy their premined eth and miserable failures of dao token all while rolling in the newfound greed/poverty
@newkidONdablock what are you even talking about? ... The Ether in TheDAO represents a significant portion of all Ethereum in existence. What manipulation of voting??? I don't think three was ever a point where the soft-fork proposal almost ruined the whole network.
Honestly, all these puritan ideals for what a blockchain should be are getting to be nonsense. And your rambling is nonsense. If these are the best arguments you can come up with for why TheDAO hard-fork is bad, then I can clearly see why the majority seem to be in favor of the fork.
I don't have a problem with the hard fork it were the consensus. But matter of fact is that 80% of the people do not even vote for or against the hardfork, which is manipulating the network by default bias induced by the ethereum developers out of personal interests (by assuming that those who do not vote, vote FOR a hardfork). What really needs to be done is forcing people to vote for or against the hardfork before even being able to mine. This would result in a democratic consensus and then I would be happy if people would decide for a hardfork.
As long as there is no consensus (which is not the case when manipulating through default bias) I will do everything I can to preserve the status quo. I hope that you can now better understand that I am not against changes at all, just against mainpulation through methodology in the name of consensus.
But as I see it coming @dr_pra will not force people to vote. Why? Because of personal interests (miners could potentially be angry and leave). See, there is a chain of personal interests preventing people to do the right thing. Like always in real life, and @dr_pra now should have the balls to be different. But I have a strong feeling he might trade morals for money.
@work how much exactly ether in the dao is compromised? what is significant portion lol? how much % of all ethereum is premined? that doesnt seem to concern anyone lol the soft fork itself almost ruined the network not the proposal.
@jacob spot on mate, glad im not the only one who understand this greed ridden situation
@jacob@newkidONdablock If your worldview is so that forcing people to do things they do not want to do, is a good thing, then you really need to get your priorities straight, if working towards the world of 1984 and Big Brother is something you're looking to achieve, then that is your right, but don't try to impose it on others. Freedom of choice should be a basic human right for everybody, choosing not to vote is their right. And no one is forcing them to mine/use the blockchain, anyone is free to stop using the blockchain if they so choose, whether it cause they don't agree with the path the project is taking or not.
@dr_pra is giving people the ability to vote and also that gives people an image of which way his pool(s) are trending towards, so they can switch pools if they don't agree with that path.
If you think this is about greed, then you're just stupid. Anyone is free to leave the pool at any given time, they don't have to use these pool, they can if they want to, they don't have to vote if they don't want to, but they can.
People don't need to vote if they don't want to, many are just happy to keep mining/using the blockchain either way it goes, and it is their right to do so. Who are you to force people to do things they dont want to do, or aren't even interested in any way what happens with the chain?
For some big examples, prohibition law didn't work, war against drugs doesn't work, forcing people to act against their will not work. No 100% voting participation can be reached in any way, even if you'd stop every miner from participating, there would still be nodes, exchanges, light clients that wouldn't vote and forcing something like this upon users would propably see a huge drop in the users of the chain and intimidate a huge portion of future users and devs from ever taking place on a project that entices such actions on it's users.
It mostly looks like you're the greedy ones here, vote how you like if you so choose, if the majority doesn't agree with you, just stop using the chain, but somehow i don't think that'll happen, cause you want that $$$. So it's not about your ethics or moral, you just want to sway people your way, no matter which way it is. Let people do what ever they want, it is their right. There has been an unofficial vote for the default setting, and people have used their ability to participate in that, that's why a default-pro-fork setting has been set. People can now vote to either participate in pools that are pro-fork or against-fork. There is lots of options around so just make your decision and take your stance there, no one is forcing you to vote either, you shouldn't impose that on others. And the devs, pool operators nor users should have the power/ability to force people to participate in such things as forks, users have to decide on their own.
@newkidONdablock Please do give a concrete constructive suggestion on how to reach this consensus without forcing people to vote? Because that is not an option. I do agree that a full 100% participation would be the best possible outcome in this case, but even if 100% of people vote, there won't be a 100% consensus because there are two options on which to vote on, so a majority will rule. So how do you propose that the dev team, ethcore team, @dr_pra and other pool operators should proceed, without discriminating those who choose not to vote?
@newkidONdablock I think you mean non-vote, not no-vote. A non-vote indicates apathy, not some "active" vote for the status quo. As for the DAO funds - it's $60M. What do you think happens if the fraudster dumps it on the market? What do you think happens if he holds it and uses it to corrupt/manipulate PoS when it's implemented? Sorry, you really don't have a clue what the ramifications are of not doing the hard fork, even though you think you do. Having said that, it's your choice, always. Given that the hard fork appears to be winning by a 3-1 margin, so far, I doubt it matters what you think in the end.
You can't force people to vote lol. Apethy isn't counted at all. If 10% of people voted no to the fork and nobody voted yes, it would be consensus to No.
I'm getting tired of reading that people who didn't vote are seen as yes votes. This. Simply. Isn't. True. Period. If you don't participate, those that do will some to consensus without you.
@dlehenky how is his 60m a problem and premine and other whales eth is not a problem for the precious PoS ?! why would he devalue his own money lol. Go ahead, fork, ill see you on the sub 0.01 side. Disregard the votes, push through the soft fork without consensus and proper testing, what happened lol, same thing is with HF, who knows what attack vectors lie beneath it, but the only important thing is that the dao people get their dao, but not all of the people just the important ones, attacker is a non issue
@newkidONdablock the difference is obvious... the attacker invested nothing to obtain that stake. Anyone else who has that much Eth invested to get it.
The soft-fork "vulnerability" was massively over-blown. It's a very minor DoS vector that requires a seriously modified node broadcasting specially crafted (invalid) transactions; and you can already perform nearly the same attack just by broadcasting specifically crafted transactions with a similarly modified node. Seriously, if you put some thought into the DoS attack VB described, you realize you can already do it without the soft-fork code in place. As far as I can see, this is simply a reality for a blockchain with built-in VM.
VB and co probably clued in it made more sense to just hard-fork, because soft-forking might have resulted in those coins being left in limbo forever. Whereas without the soft-fork, everyone is pressured to hard-fork before the coins are potentially spread around the blockchain and lost forever.
As for the hard-fork, it was specifically designed to be the simplest solution that resulted in the desired outcome. If you read the code for the various clients, it's pretty clear there's nothing to attack, and your rambling about attack vectors in the hard-fork is just that - rambling.
this HF is gonna make 2 chains in reality and on exchanges, its gonna be grade A clusterMegaFu*k and all of this because of a failed investment that some hot shots made, humans are great
Anyone can help.. I cannot connect ethermine. Org..fail to connect using qtminer and genoil.. Both fail.. Try all server..but i can connect using getwork..manual way..
@dlehenky how is his 60m a problem and premine and other whales eth is not a problem for the precious PoS ?! why would he devalue his own money lol.
Intent. The attacker very likely does/would aim to destroy/hinder Eth, not just out to make money, dumping a lot of eth for a small profit to drive the price down or save for PoS to act as a bad agent would be very likely scenarios, malicious intent.
Whales might also be dumping if they opt to drop out of Eth, but during that and PoS would more likely act in a more benign way and with some decency as to not make moves that would destroy/hinder the project in the same way as a malicious actor.
why would he devalue his own money lol. Go ahead, fork, ill see you on the sub 0.01 side. Disregard the votes, push through the soft fork without consensus and proper testing, what happened lol, same thing is with HF, who knows what attack vectors lie beneath it, but the only important thing is that the dao people get their dao, but not all of the people just the important ones, attacker is a non issue
Announcement: According to the voting result (75% of the voted hashrate is in favor of the fork) ethermine.org will be supporting the upcoming Ethereum hardfork!
I see that no action is needed for miners, but i see some loud voices on reddit that we need to update clients. So, do we absolutely need to do it or NOT (for mining, not for voting)?
Also, please comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4t9mzg/quick_hf_safety_tips_for_users/ This is confusing..We are not all programmers. old wallet, new wallet, etc. For example, VB says: "Ah yes, if someone sends you ETH to your old account then that ETH is vulnerable." however, pool WOULD sent the eth to the old account (if i did not change it) around the fork, would it not?
basically: 1. do i need to do anything on my side or simply continue. 2. OR: do I need to stop mining around the hard fork or change accounts?
If you locally run an Ethereum client (geth, parity, mist, etc..) you will need to upgrade. If you are just pool mining and use an exchange or web based wallet you do not need to take any action.
Comments
Honestly, all these puritan ideals for what a blockchain should be are getting to be nonsense. And your rambling is nonsense. If these are the best arguments you can come up with for why TheDAO hard-fork is bad, then I can clearly see why the majority seem to be in favor of the fork.
I don't have a problem with the hard fork it were the consensus. But matter of fact is that 80% of the people do not even vote for or against the hardfork, which is manipulating the network by default bias induced by the ethereum developers out of personal interests (by assuming that those who do not vote, vote FOR a hardfork). What really needs to be done is forcing people to vote for or against the hardfork before even being able to mine. This would result in a democratic consensus and then I would be happy if people would decide for a hardfork.
As long as there is no consensus (which is not the case when manipulating through default bias) I will do everything I can to preserve the status quo. I hope that you can now better understand that I am not against changes at all, just against mainpulation through methodology in the name of consensus.
But as I see it coming @dr_pra will not force people to vote. Why? Because of personal interests (miners could potentially be angry and leave). See, there is a chain of personal interests preventing people to do the right thing. Like always in real life, and @dr_pra now should have the balls to be different. But I have a strong feeling he might trade morals for money.
how much exactly ether in the dao is compromised? what is significant portion lol? how much % of all ethereum is premined? that doesnt seem to concern anyone lol
the soft fork itself almost ruined the network not the proposal.
@jacob
spot on mate, glad im not the only one who understand this greed ridden situation
If your worldview is so that forcing people to do things they do not want to do, is a good thing, then you really need to get your priorities straight, if working towards the world of 1984 and Big Brother is something you're looking to achieve, then that is your right, but don't try to impose it on others.
Freedom of choice should be a basic human right for everybody, choosing not to vote is their right. And no one is forcing them to mine/use the blockchain, anyone is free to stop using the blockchain if they so choose, whether it cause they don't agree with the path the project is taking or not.
@dr_pra is giving people the ability to vote and also that gives people an image of which way his pool(s) are trending towards, so they can switch pools if they don't agree with that path.
If you think this is about greed, then you're just stupid. Anyone is free to leave the pool at any given time, they don't have to use these pool, they can if they want to, they don't have to vote if they don't want to, but they can.
People don't need to vote if they don't want to, many are just happy to keep mining/using the blockchain either way it goes, and it is their right to do so.
Who are you to force people to do things they dont want to do, or aren't even interested in any way what happens with the chain?
For some big examples, prohibition law didn't work, war against drugs doesn't work, forcing people to act against their will not work. No 100% voting participation can be reached in any way, even if you'd stop every miner from participating, there would still be nodes, exchanges, light clients that wouldn't vote and forcing something like this upon users would propably see a huge drop in the users of the chain and intimidate a huge portion of future users and devs from ever taking place on a project that entices such actions on it's users.
It mostly looks like you're the greedy ones here, vote how you like if you so choose, if the majority doesn't agree with you, just stop using the chain, but somehow i don't think that'll happen, cause you want that $$$. So it's not about your ethics or moral, you just want to sway people your way, no matter which way it is.
Let people do what ever they want, it is their right. There has been an unofficial vote for the default setting, and people have used their ability to participate in that, that's why a default-pro-fork setting has been set. People can now vote to either participate in pools that are pro-fork or against-fork. There is lots of options around so just make your decision and take your stance there, no one is forcing you to vote either, you shouldn't impose that on others. And the devs, pool operators nor users should have the power/ability to force people to participate in such things as forks, users have to decide on their own.
LOL
I do agree that a full 100% participation would be the best possible outcome in this case, but even if 100% of people vote, there won't be a 100% consensus because there are two options on which to vote on, so a majority will rule.
So how do you propose that the dev team, ethcore team, @dr_pra and other pool operators should proceed, without discriminating those who choose not to vote?
I'm getting tired of reading that people who didn't vote are seen as yes votes. This. Simply. Isn't. True. Period. If you don't participate, those that do will some to consensus without you.
https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/8382/dao-hard-fork-voting-on-ethpool-ethermine
how is his 60m a problem and premine and other whales eth is not a problem for the precious PoS ?! why would he devalue his own money lol. Go ahead, fork, ill see you on the sub 0.01 side. Disregard the votes, push through the soft fork without consensus and proper testing, what happened lol, same thing is with HF, who knows what attack vectors lie beneath it, but the only important thing is that the dao people get their dao, but not all of the people just the important ones, attacker is a non issue
The soft-fork "vulnerability" was massively over-blown. It's a very minor DoS vector that requires a seriously modified node broadcasting specially crafted (invalid) transactions; and you can already perform nearly the same attack just by broadcasting specifically crafted transactions with a similarly modified node. Seriously, if you put some thought into the DoS attack VB described, you realize you can already do it without the soft-fork code in place. As far as I can see, this is simply a reality for a blockchain with built-in VM.
VB and co probably clued in it made more sense to just hard-fork, because soft-forking might have resulted in those coins being left in limbo forever. Whereas without the soft-fork, everyone is pressured to hard-fork before the coins are potentially spread around the blockchain and lost forever.
As for the hard-fork, it was specifically designed to be the simplest solution that resulted in the desired outcome. If you read the code for the various clients, it's pretty clear there's nothing to attack, and your rambling about attack vectors in the hard-fork is just that - rambling.
The attacker very likely does/would aim to destroy/hinder Eth, not just out to make money, dumping a lot of eth for a small profit to drive the price down or save for PoS to act as a bad agent would be very likely scenarios, malicious intent.
Whales might also be dumping if they opt to drop out of Eth, but during that and PoS would more likely act in a more benign way and with some decency as to not make moves that would destroy/hinder the project in the same way as a malicious actor.
Ok, time to stop feeding the
How many % did actually vote?
I see that no action is needed for miners, but i see some loud voices on reddit that we need to update clients.
So, do we absolutely need to do it or NOT (for mining, not for voting)?
Also, please comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4t9mzg/quick_hf_safety_tips_for_users/
This is confusing..We are not all programmers. old wallet, new wallet, etc.
For example, VB says: "Ah yes, if someone sends you ETH to your old account then that ETH is vulnerable."
however, pool WOULD sent the eth to the old account (if i did not change it) around the fork, would it not?
basically:
1. do i need to do anything on my side or simply continue.
2. OR: do I need to stop mining around the hard fork or change accounts?
1. what if i pool mine, but to local wallet made in geth?
2. can you comment on that gibberish VB has posted ^^^?
Do i need to change my wallet to which pool/ethermine send funds, pronto?
Thanks for your help.
Sidenote: As always, info that is coming from ethereum.org lacks any clue as to most common use cases (in simple language).