|
|
|
|
|
|
by allthetime
3633 days ago
|
|
|
That's the thing though, they aren't changing the protocol, they are just reversing the transactions that fed the DAO. The DAO was flawed, not Ethereum, and now Ethereum's stability and promise of immutability are being sacrificed so that a bunch of people (including the lead devs of ethereum) who made a bad, uninformed investment don't have to lose their money. The 'consensus' was not by a vast majority either, unless you consider 5% a vast majority. |
|
|
If the system allows 5% of users (or computing power) to make arbitrary changes, then that is the problem.
If I'm correctly informed, the cause was not a bad investment, but a bug/loophole in the contract that allowed people to steal etherium. (Of course you could take the code-legalistic position and say whatever the original code did, was the contract, even with bugs, and if people invested, they accepted these bugs as part of the agreement. But then I raise you this: the features of etherium that allow people to make changes to contracts are also part of the agreement! So if you say they shouldn't have invested in a buggy contact, tough luck, then I can say tough luck you invested in a malleble system :-))
If there was a bug (unexpected functionality) in the specification, then a certain quorum of users should be able to change the spec to match group expectations, even retroactively. I consider that to be a feature, not a bug.