DAO hard-fork voting on ethpool & ethermine

dr_pra

As a pool operator I believe that it is important to gauge the opinion of the miners before making any important decision on the future of the pool. That is why we held a voting on the DAO soft-fork proposal and we intent to carry out the same type of voting for the hard fork proposal.

Starting from now voting will be enabled again and, similar to the soft fork vote, you can select your preference in the settings section of your account page. All votes are weighted by the current effective hashrate of each miner that has voted. The vote requires no quorum meaning that the position the majority of hashrate has voted for will decide the way the pool will take. Not voting will neither be interpreted as pro or against the fork.

We still reserve the right to act against the voting result in case there are security issues identified in the hard fork code or the pool will end up on the non-winning chain.

dlehenky

Although I know the vote is the right thing to do, not taking the hard fork would be suicide, for both the pool and the network, in my opinion.

BubbaPumps

Destroying the integrity of the blockchain to bailout some gamblers is suicide.

MrYukonC

BubbaPumps said:

Destroying the integrity of the blockchain to bailout some gamblers is suicide.

You need to look up the definition of 'bailout'.

Also, it sounds like Bitcoin might be what you seek -- i.e. the inability to innovate, adapt, and overcome, in addition to rewarding actions like theft rather than punishing them.

work

@MrYukonC is correct, albeit the salt towards bitcoin isn't necessary (development around bitcoin continues to push innovation much more so then Ethereum, if you ask me). Ethereum is young and consensus-level changes are a MUST. There's NOTHING integral about the Ethereum consensus code, it might ALL change in the future with later versions. If you want a blockchain that you can rely on the consensus code being unlikely to change, use bitcoin.

MrYukonC

work said:

@MrYukonC is correct, albeit the salt towards bitcoin isn't necessary (development around bitcoin continues to push innovation much more so then Ethereum, if you ask me). Ethereum is young and consensus-level changes are a MUST. There's NOTHING integral about the Ethereum consensus code, it might ALL change in the future with later versions. If you want a blockchain that you can rely on the consensus code being unlikely to change, use bitcoin.

No 'salt' intended. I've seen a plethora of Bitcoin people out and about over the past few weeks bragging up how Bitcoin didn't fork over Mt. Gox and then trying to project that mentality onto Ethereum as though it needs to just 'deal with it' and fall in line with their ideals.

To me, when an entity has the power to 'do something' (e.g. make right a blatant wrong) and chooses not to, especially in the case of a theft against the community, then they are implicitly rewarding the actions of theft.

And yes, Ethereum has several hard forks planned throughout its development. Some of their PoS theory discussions talk about HF-ing as a self-defense mechanism against an unwanted actor (unfortunately it happened during PoW instead of PoS).

Anyway, it's all been discussed, thought about, pondered, considered, etc. and is out there and readily available for review by those who actually care and are invested in the betterment of the ecosystem.

work

@MrYukonC Comparing MtGox to TheDAO is flat out silly. By the time the loss of MtGox funds was discovered, they had been widely dispersed and a simple revert from one address to another was entirely impossible. TheDAO is rather unique here, since the funds were locked for several weeks after they were transferred. There's simply no comparison to anything in bitcoin's history.

I don't think anyone that's honestly a "bitcoin person" would ever make a comparison to TheDAO. Save for maybe pointing out how young and far-to-come Ethereum is, or to point out that bitcoin was designed with a limited set of op codes intentionally. Turing complete code would have been trivial to implement on the bitcoin blockchain, and a limited opcode set is an intentional feature to make bugs exactly like as affected the DAO impossible.

kwell42

miners are to secure the blockchain, there is a entity trying to get 51% to edit the blockchain, it is a miners job to secure against the attack

klbax381

Ethereum is centralised by 3 pools which controls the majority of power. And their voting system is not honest. Because when miner dont vote he votes NO! "Dont care" = "NO". But pools will use them power to vote YES. So ethereum is centralized, controlled by 3 pools and useless. Visa is much better

work

@klbax381 lol... okay buddy. Even if everything else you said was true (which it isn't), that hardly makes Ethereum useless.

dlehenky

@klbax381 ethpool and ethermine both explicitly state that a non-vote is NOT counted as either a "yes" vote or a "no" vote. So, why are you spreading false generalities?

And since Ethereum is "useless", why are you here? Of course Bitcoin is "centralized" too, by your definition, so I guess they're "useless" as well.

Btw, no one forces miners to mine on pools.

klbax381

Voting YES = updating software. Voting NO = no updating software = dont care. There no another option.
What is happening with ethereum is called pool collusion attack. where "dont care" votes are used to vote "YES"

work

@klbax381 again, that's not true. "Don't care" votes aren't being counted as yes or no. If you abstain from voting, it's the same as if you didn't vote in an election, the people that did vote get to decide for you.

Don't care/abstain definitely does NOT mean No. I have no idea where you're getting that idea. The reason most miners are on a pool is so that the pool will keep the node software up-to-date and on the right chain, and the miner doesn't have to care.

What's happening with Ethereum is called consensus, not collusion. Collusion by definition involves a secret agreement; which isn't the case, obviously - this is all quite public. Just because you don't agree with the general consensus doesn't mean others are colluding against you, it just means you are in the minority.

newmz

I think that taking action (hard-forking) rather than not taking action (not hard-forking) will demonstrate to people watching, who if they have any opinion usually characterise the crypto-currency communities as a "wild west" - that we can come together and agree when something is wrong and make it right. You can take some kind of philosophical view that the code is the only law and that since the DAO attack was the result of the code we should let it stand - but that ignores the fact that the code serves the interests of people, not machines - and people need to have some idea of what they want the code to do for them. If the code allows massive theft, it was wrong and should be changed. Why is anyone arguing against that?

dlehenky

@newmz I hate to say this, and I know it's a generalization, but I think many anti-fork people are very young and don't have a lot of life experience, yet, to draw on; they don't see the big picture.

work

@dlehenky I think you're probably right. It's the youth in me screaming, "don't mess with the blockchain," but the aging man says, "meh, it's probably a good idea in this one case, and it's unlikely to be seen as precident setting."

It's the difference between code and the intent of that code. Clearly, reading comments and looking at theDAO's structure, the recursive exploit was not an intended feature.

makngeerwork

I am a Miner, I vote yes to the hard fork once again. Let's get this done and roll on.

Thank you DR.

As for all the other opinions, from the massive ignorance in historical/technical facts, perhaps you should stick to mining or really get educated.

kwell42

I think you mean grow a heart and feel bad for the kid that convinced his whole family to buy dao? What do you think will happen? There going to be a massive dump, even bitcoin will lose value, the integrity of the block chain will be lost for what? Those people took a risky investment... I'm not sure how big the dump will be but you will find out when I do

dlehenky

@kwell42 I would really like to understand on what basis you, and many other NOHF voices, assert, as fact, that the integrity of the Ethereum blockchain will be lost by the HF? BTC had a massive hard fork rollback in its first years - still seems to be around. I guess what I'm asking is: is this assertion of yours based solely on how *you* think everyone will react to a hard fork that reverts the DAO fraud, or do you have some precedent(s) you can cite to support that view?

kwell42

https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/15/to-fork-or-not-to-fork/ Just take a look at this someone is trying to give code feedback to the hard fork and no one is answering him perfect proof there is a very good chance of a bug

We might see the Leroy Jenkins moment of block chain editing

And all I have to say is, at least your not chicken

I know you all want to set a precedent, the first brain surgery and most others usually the people died... when you try new things bad thing can and do happen

The dao is a perfect precedent, released to early without enough testing, and with only days to write a complex fork it could be terrible not to mention the dumping that will most likely happen

dlehenky

@kwell42 The appropriate place for code feedback is on github where the code repository is maintained, and where there is a formal mechanism for tracking issues and resolutions. If the poster on the blog is actually knowledgeable enough to post meaningful code feedback, he/she should know that. The github links to the code are in the blog post. Anyone can go there and view what issues have been reported and when/how they're being addressed.

kwell42

You better hurry up and tell him times running out

dlehenky

@kwell42 I know you think everyone involved in this is a fool, but I have reason to believe they're not. I guess we'll know Wednesday.

kwell42

Yes we will and please understand I'm just trying to help

dlehenky

@kwell42 We all walk our own path, we all have our own view of the world. No one's opinion is any less or more valid than anyone else's. Everyone, at the moment they do or say something, believes they are "right", even if they regret it later (which serves no purpose). Live, learn, grow, repeat.

work

@kwell42 FYI the guy that posted that comment doesn't seem to understand solidity code at all.

There's nothing complicated about the fork, nor is it the first or last hard-fork ethereum network will see. This is probably the simplest consensus change that the network will undergo.

I liked Gavin Andreson's take on the DAO fork - paraphrased, if there is a simple path forward that remedies the situation in a way that is most equitable, a failure to act is being complicit with the attacker.

BubbaPumps

The market is responding to the pro fork vocal minority. No one's funds are truly safe anymore, if the mob wants to take them.

work

Responding by hitting new highs since the attack, and then correcting back downwards slightly... lol.

It seems more like there is a small minority of very vocal opposers who keep posting the same shit everywhere.

I bet we see a nice price rise after a succesful fork. Some market hesitancy towards any change is to be expected.

MrYukonC

So, I'm going to go ahead and post this here just to get it out there, as I already sent a message to @dr_pra on Reddit and via the support ticket system.

I find the ethpool results somewhat suspicious. Why? Because during the SF voting, the percentages in favor were significantly higher and I anticipated the percentages for the HF to be close to the same or better, yet they are not even close. ???

I am wondering if a large miner (or even a few) are attempting to game the vote by round-robin mining -- i.e. mining on ethpool for an hour, then mining on ethermine for an hour, and then coming back to ethpool, etc., etc. I believe those 2 pools require you to have submitted valid shares in the previous hour in order for your vote to count and/or be retained.

I wonder if a quick scan of account IP addresses [ O(n*n) -- comparing all of ethpool's IP's against ethermine's IP's ] to see if some miners are trying to game the vote, would be worth it?

dlehenky

@MrYukonC Not understanding. If they switch pools, by the time their vote counts on the second pool (1 hour), it no longer counts on the first pool, so their vote is only going to be counted on one pool. Am I missing something?

MrYukonC

@dlehenky No, I think you are right. If it is share-based, then it will all even out, so I was wrong. Just trying to look at all angles / possible manipulation avenues.

@dr_pra also replied to my ticket saying the same thing. So we should be good to go on that particular front.