Hacker News Reader

Comment by inter_netuser | Hacker News Reader

Only some, it seems, are more equal than others.

https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/760232885483806720

I'm not sure what you are linking to. This looks like a tweet from 2016.

I think what the parent referring to is the DAO hack (from 2016) and how Ethereum’s response was to renege on “Code is Law” (and the integrity of the blockchain) in order to void those transactions (smartcontract exploits), which is a case of centralization resurfacing because VB could subvert the proof of work system when his own money was at risk.

Ethereum Classic is the fork that refused to rewrite the blockchain to void the hack, and the linked tweet is VB affirming that he’s only working on the main (reneging) Ethereum fork (which goes by ETH), not Classic (goes by ETC).

Not sure why the parent linked that tweet, maybe Twitter just makes it too hard it identify what tweet you actually want.

"Code is Law" was never part of Ethereum's ethos. It was some meme created by the company behind The DAO, and perhaps many people in the community supported it, but it wasn't part of Ethereum.

I've recently read that the blockchain was not rewritten or unrolled. It was actually executed forward through an "irregular state change". In other words, it made a new transaction instead of erasing or modifying old transactions, and that was done with consensus of all those who ran the ETH client. Those who didn't agree went to ETC, but the market chose ETH in the end.

Regardless of how you word it, it amounts to the same thing: the protocol and signed, validated history say this happened, now we act like they did not, which is a violation of blockchain integrity.

No, that's not what happened. No history was changed, and nothing was re-validated as you suggest. There was no "violation of blockchain integrity". The only thing that happened was that the upgraded version executed what's known as an "irregular state-change" which moved the ETH from TheDAO's smart contract to a new secure contract. So, it wasn't a roll-back, but a roll-forward, and the change was mined using PoW in accordance with all the blockchain block selection rules.

The hackers ("hackers") made valid transactions.

The hard fork reversed those transactions.

No matter what fancy spin you put on it, that was absolutely a violation of the blockchain's integrity, as it violated the principle that accepted transactions can't be reversed after the fact, even if you call it an "irregular state-change" that just keeps things secure.

You can absolutely defend the position that this was best for the ETH ecosystem. But it was absolutely a reneging on the blockchain rules.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com