I had a question about the argument in this article Why The Stalker Attack is a Non Issue.

In the scenario the article describes, there is a "Victim" and an "Attacker". The Victim tries to split from The DAO to convert his TDT to ETH. The Attacker wants to prevent the Victim from doing so (& potentially excise a ransom). To split, the Victim creates a Split proposal and the Attacker votes Yes. Assume in the child-DAO, the Attacker has more TDT than the Victim.

The article suggests that this is a "high-risk" endeavor for the Attacker - why? Couldn't the Attacker simply create a new Split proposal from the victim's childDAO at any point & mark himself as curator of the new childDAO?

1 Answer 1


According to this paper, the Attacker could simply create a new Split proposal and withdraw as explained. Worse still, it is not only a matter of the people who have "voted YES" committing a Stalker attack - anyone on the Public Blockchain could have purchased TDT of the Child DAO during the 28-day crowdfunding period.

Per the paper: "The attacker places no funds at risk, because she can split from the child-DAO at any time before the depth limit is reached"

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.