The DAO Byzantine Debate
On May 29 1453 Emperor Constantine XI was killed by the Turks when the city of Constantinople was overrun by the invading army.
Wars at the time were brutal and lands exchanged hands many times over in the course of months and years. But what this has to do with the Dao. How the fall of Constantinople and the death of Emperor Constantine XI related in any way to the Dao.
To put this into perspective I have to take you to the day of the battle, that nice Spring day of May the Byzantine senate convened to discuss some very important issues, no the issues at hand were not the Turks invading the city and the walls getting compromised by the invading army. The issues that they convened to discuss were as follows, "Are the Angels males or females, and how big was the devil, was he a small creature or a huge one!"
This Byzantine debate taking place at a time of crises, cost Emperor Constantine XI his life, his army was crushed and the city of Constantinople crashed and burned. The Emperor tried in vain to turn the senate discussion into how to defend the city from the invaders, the Senate however, decided the "moral" issues they were discussing are far more important.
The Emperor rallied whatever was left of his troops and made a last ditch effort to save the city, that cost him his life and the lives of his troops. A noble effort given the fact he was offered amnesty by the invaders if he chooses not to fight.
Back to the DAO, today a debate is taking place, the Byzantine senate has convened, on the agenda are the following topics, " Is the hack theft or feature, is the code law, is it moral to take back the stolen ether from the thief, did the thief commit a crime, is it a crime to take back the stolen property, should we fork, should we not fork, ... the list goes on"
While this Byzantine debate is taking place the city is in a crash and burn situation, Vitalik Buterin is not in a much better situation than emperor Constantine XI, for now he is trying to convince the Senate to face up to the crisis, the Senate has a better moral obligation right now from the looming crisis, they need to know if it is moral to take back what the thief has stolen.
Vitalik Buterin rallying the troops and making a charge might come in at any time, but will it be too late then because he is too busy now rallying the Senate? The debate is costing ethereum and the DAO a lot more than the theft itself, at one point the Senate might actually stop the debate altogether because the stolen property is no longer holding any value at all.
If emperor Constantine XI, on that spring day of May, spent his final hours taking the lead taking actions and rallying the troops rather than convincing the Byzantine Senate to come into agreement, those final hours might not have been his last, he might have actually saved the city.
At a time of crisis leaders lead, they do not debate. Are we better off debating while the fire is raging and the flames are taking hold of everything that is valuable? or should the fire be put off and the debate is done afterwards, when the city is sound and safe.
I have to say I was never a fan of the DAO, and this debate taking place now has only enforced my stance. The mere discussion of letting someone walk away with $55 million heist is adding fuel to the fire, and reason enough for me to believe the people working on Ethereum lost their compass.
Looking at the market now, to fork or not to fork will not be a valid question we can ask for a much longer time. The walls have been compromised The DAO and Ethereum are in crisis, what is far more important than finding out if the "Angels are males or females", this is the best time to debate that, why not add it to the agenda of today's discussions on how to resolve the crisis with the DAO.
You made a brilliant historical comparison,hoping that wont be too late and that somebody will take advange of it.
I think you are completely underestimating the importance of this debate. There are valid arguments on both sides, as you can read here, and the decision fork or not to fork is fundamental for Ethereum's future.
Also, calling the attacker a "thief" is quite inappropriate - it makes me think you are able to view the incident from only one perceptive. I could call also call Mr. Tual a "thief" as he clearly calls for stealing property that might have been legally acquired.
All I am saying is that this is a very complex case and you are oversimplifying it badly.
How many people would have put money into the DAO had this exploit been known in advance? Few to none. The attacker is exploiting a flaw in the system to undermine the expectations of every DAO participant and even the DAO developers. In my mind that makes him a thief. But at a minimum it makes him highly immoral. The fact that property can sometimes be "legally acquired" (if that's even true in this case) doesn't mean that it's moral to acquire it.
The importance of the debate and what valid points it raises from each side is not at all important at a time of crisis. Firefighters do not take time to discuss the method of saving the victims at the time of the fire, you save the victim, you put off the fire, then you discuss if your actions for the next fire could be improved. When dealing with crisis you go into crisis mode, especially if debating the crisis can result in a much bigger harm than taking one approach or another. In these debates taking place now, the dao holders are not saved yet, but also the eth holders are being severely punished. And while we are adding more victims, why not do this, fork and save the dao victims, then take a few months to discuss if what we did was moral or not, and if your argument wins we can fork back and give the hacker his legally obtained tokens, assuming you actually own some of those tokens and are willing to give them back to the hacker because you support the legality of his actions. Why force everyone who owns tokens to take your side by doing nothing. Let them choose.
The doing nothing approach is equal to being on one side of the debate. You have the right to debate your side, but only if you too stand to lose your property.
I want to see if we fork how many will actually leave tokens in the DAO because they believe the hacker obtained them legally. Would that not be a better standard to measure the consensus by?
The so called "DAO victims" need to take responsibility for their reckless actions and let this process sort itself out in its own time. The actual victims here are those Ethereum holders who knew how risky the DAO was and stayed away from it, yet still suffered the consequences. For many of them the decision to fork erases the fundamental reason why they made their investment.