Timeline for Why isn't the DAO attack repeated, after the first proof that it works?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 13:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/ with https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 11, 2016 at 10:53 | history | edited | eth♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edit with new facts after June 18
|
| Aug 11, 2016 at 9:49 | comment | added | Aniket | If attacker joined an existing split then what about the one who made available that existing split. I mean the person who made proposal for the split will also be the member of ChildDAO. So did we see any action from him/her. | |
| Jun 18, 2016 at 8:09 | history | edited | eth♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fix the debate period
|
| Jun 18, 2016 at 8:03 | comment | added | eth♦ | @RolandKofler Thanks, fixed and found the correct variable. | |
| Jun 18, 2016 at 6:53 | comment | added | Roland Kofler | Your assertion of 10d seems disputable @eth : see vessenes.com/deconstructing-thedao-attack-a-brief-code-tour >>As Martin Köppelmann noted, the attacker actually just joined an existing split with a new wallet contract two days ago. There was no need to wait 7 days, any available split contract would do.<< | |
| Jun 18, 2016 at 5:38 | history | edited | eth♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
exploits is better word
|
| Jun 18, 2016 at 5:35 | comment | added | eth♦ | Whitelist asked in ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/6229/… | |
| Jun 18, 2016 at 5:26 | comment | added | Roland Kofler | is the whitelist now empty? | |
| Jun 18, 2016 at 5:26 | history | edited | eth♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more info
|
| Jun 18, 2016 at 5:18 | history | answered | eth♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |