HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
LeastAuthority
ethereum-analyses
Python2015–2018
LeastAuthority / ethereum-analyses

ethereum-analyses

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

Finance & Commerce
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
6Distinct people
7Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
168GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month7 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2015-07-07 06:55:38 UTC to 2018-01-14 18:27:29 UTC.

0122015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 commentsJul 20152015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsOct 20162016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsJan 2018

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jul 20152015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC211
Aug 20152015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20152015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20152015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20152015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20152015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20162016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20162016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20162016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20162016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20162016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20162016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20162016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Sep 20162016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20162016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20162016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20162016-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20172017-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20172017-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20172017-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20172017-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jun 20172017-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20172017-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Aug 20172017-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20172017-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20172017-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20172017-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20172017-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-02-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

7 sources
socrates1024·Jul 4, 2017
Do you think it would be possible to improve the EVM by adding E's notion of concurrency? One constraint would be the need to have deterministic scheduling, since every execution would need to be run identically by all validating nodes. [edit] Incidentally, we pointed out several lessons from the ocap community in a commissioned report from Ethereum foundation back in 2015. Few of those suggestions were adopted at the EVM level or the higher levels though. https://github.com/LeastAuthority/ethereum-analyses/blob/mas...
In Underhanded Solidity Coding Contest
jude-·Aug 9, 2016
> Yes, but again this is not unique to the DAO. Moreover, it occurs all the time that marketing materials are put out with disclaimers that the marketing material is just that marketing material and that any inconsistencies between the marketing material and the contract, the contract prevails. It doesn't always make it so and there is good public policy reason why. I don't deny this, and I agree in the general case. However, I haven't see any case where the DAO marketing materials did not state that the code was the terms and conditions. This was, after all, its defining feature. The marketing materials and public information were practically bragging about this, and all pointed to the contract state on the Ethereum blockchain so you could see for yourself. > My analogies are always kind of shot down as it relates to the DAO, but I th
Read the rest
ink they help flush out the legal reasoning. How about valeting your car, obviously there is an implied contract that you will pay the fee and get your car back (maybe even a verbal representation, "just bring the stub back and we will pull your car around") but what if the stub includes language (as they do) that you agree the valet will not be responsible for stolen property and then they don't bring your car back. Who knows who took your car? Maybe the valet, maybe the valet gave the keys to someone else, maybe someone legit broke in and stole your car without the valet being aware... even though you agreed to the contract/terms of the valet ticket it does not become a contractual right for valet to take your car, they could still be liable (potentially criminally in addition to civilly). It sounds like you're getting at the officious bystander test. The thing is, when the whole community of developers and investors were going on and on about how the code is law, the answer to the question "Should the Ethereum developers intervene if the code does something we don't like?" could very easily have been answered by all parties with a resounding "NO!". I encourage you to search through the Ethereum subreddit during the DAO's ascension, for example. You'll find cases where people were asking about what to do in this very situation, and the answer has consistently been to the effect of "whatever the code executes will be the outcome." > Moreover, representations remain false even with disclaimers acknowledging the representation may be false. Please point out a single case where the developers solicited investment using a false representation of the DAO. They were very clear, very open, and very loud about the fact that the code itself was the contract terms and conditions. The code is open-source as well, and lives on the Ethereum blockchain. Honestly, I'm having a very hard time not seeing this as a bunch of investors losing money for their failure to do due diligence. Especially since the flaw that lead to the DAO's undoing was published years beforehand, in two places [1] [2]. Maybe there's a case for negligence to be made against Slock.it, but it sounded like they were otherwise clear, up-front, and honest about what it was they were soliciting investments for. [1] https://github.com/LeastAuthority/ethereum-analyses/blob/mas... [2] https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/comment/42100
In The DAO Hacker Is Getting Away

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.