Hacker News Reader

" By creating a new network that picked up from just before the "fradulent" activity."

I thought they just created a new transaction that moved all the stolen funds to a new smart contract?

No the stolen funds remained on the original chain, ETC on most exchanges, and the attacker maintained ownership.

That doesn't contradict my understanding of how the hard for occurred though. Obviously the etc chain didn't change.

The Ethereum Classic chain changed later in a hardfork. While this was a 'cleanup' job to remove empty accounts belonging to the DAO hacker, it was done without using his private key and puts lie to the claim that the ETC chain is 'immutable'.

Wouldn't that be even worse?

My understanding was that if they rolled back the entire network to just before the hack, lots of transactions would be rolled back that didn't need to be.

That's why, from what I remember, when etheruem was hardforked created a transaction from the thief's wallet to a new smart contract, and everyone agreed to validate that transaction even though it wasn't signed by a private key.

Yeah, thats what I mean, isn't it worse to be able to create a forced transaction than to be able to fork the chain at any given point?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com