The DAO: Hacking forces Ethereum to choose between two stories

In 2016, The DAO promised to collectively organize investment decisions through a program on Ethereum. On June 17, a farm diverted more than 3.6 million ethers. The question is no longer just to understand the program: do we have to change the rules to make the assets recoverable?

The default is reentrance: an interaction can be restarted before certain accounting statements have been properly updated. A series of calls thus produces effects that a naive reading of the operation would not make wait. This is not an unlimited creation of native ethers.

A time limit imposed on the movements of the funds concerned leaves time to discuss the answers. A limited modification is considered, and then its risks are discussed. The Ethereum Foundation’s public announcements make it possible to follow a decision that is still open, not an obvious repair plan from the very first hour.

On July 20, a bifurcation of the network modifies the state of funds related to The DAO to allow restitutions. A part of the community refuses this intervention and continues on the chain that will be known as Ethereum Classic.

The individual author is not judicially identified by the primary sources retained here. The attributions formulated later in journalistic investigations are not presented as a verdict. The scope of the case does not depend on the invention of a pirate face.

The story leaves a question more lasting than the amount of theft: when a program exactly enforces a flawed rule, who has the legitimacy to change the outcome? Two communities finally give two different answers.