Hacker News Reader

Comment by walls | Hacker News Reader

The crucial question, to me, is: would the fork have happened if Vitalik had not been part of the DAO? I don't think there's any chance he would have entertained that.

There have been many large ETH compromises since then, and the idea of forking for any of them would be considered outrageous.

View on HN

One of the main reasons it went through is because there was 'only' one losing party - the hacker, and multiple winning parties (developers and investors in the DAO). A couple years later when the parity mutlisig was hacked such that the funds (150K eth from an ICO) were 'permanently locked', the proposal to unlock the funds via hardfork was rejected. More or less specifically because it would only benefit a very small subset of parties, while leaving the frozen funds in place meant the rest of the chain benefited from the effective reduction of eth supply. Since then no one else has seriously proposed forks to move funds out of protocol.

What's crazy is they never "fixed" The DAO "bug." Reentrancy is a feature of Solidity. They just tell people to make sure to do exception checking for it. Which of course makes contracts bloated. Which in turn makes contracts cost more in gas fees. So every now and again a Defi will be attacked by the very, same, thing, that got The DAO, because they didn't put in expensive reentrancy checks. Couple of recent examples: https://ambcrypto.com/how-these-two-defi-protocols-fell-prey...

Yup. The combo of “this is hyper critical financial code” and “every extra instruction to check invariants is very expensive” are two fundamentally opposed ideas and will cause pain forever.

Vitalik was not part of the DAO, and the Ethereum Foundation took an extremely hands-off approach to the DAO hack.

This is pretty well documented in the Cryptopians book; the DAO hard fork was driven almost exclusively by people outside the EF.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com