HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
TheDAO
DAO-1.0
TeX2016–2016
TheDAO / DAO-1.0

DAO-1.0

The Standard DAO Framework at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413

2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
57GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The Standard DAO Framework at 0xbb9bc244d798123fde783fcc1c72d3bb8c189413

GitHub

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

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

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 hour2 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-06-18 15:10:26 UTC to 2016-06-19 17:59:47 UTC.

012016-06-18 15:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-18 16:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJun 18, 15:002016-06-18 16:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-18 17:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-18 17:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-18 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-18 18:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-18 19:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-18 19:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-18 20:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-18 20:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-18 21:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-18 21:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-18 22:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-18 22:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-18 23:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-18 23:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 01:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 01:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 02:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 02:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 03:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 03:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 04:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 04:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 05:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJun 19, 04:002016-06-19 05:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 06:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 06:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 07:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 07:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 08:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 08:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 09:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 09:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 10:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 10:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 11:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 11:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 12:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 13:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 13:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 14:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 14:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 15:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 15:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 16:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 16:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 17:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-19 17:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-19 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJun 19, 17:00

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
Jun 18, 15:002016-06-18 15:00:00 UTC2016-06-18 16:00:00 UTC101
Jun 18, 16:002016-06-18 16:00:00 UTC2016-06-18 17:00:00 UTC000
Jun 18, 17:002016-06-18 17:00:00 UTC2016-06-18 18:00:00 UTC000
Jun 18, 18:002016-06-18 18:00:00 UTC2016-06-18 19:00:00 UTC000
Jun 18, 19:002016-06-18 19:00:00 UTC2016-06-18 20:00:00 UTC000
Jun 18, 20:002016-06-18 20:00:00 UTC2016-06-18 21:00:00 UTC000
Jun 18, 21:002016-06-18 21:00:00 UTC2016-06-18 22:00:00 UTC000
Jun 18, 22:002016-06-18 22:00:00 UTC2016-06-18 23:00:00 UTC000
Jun 18, 23:002016-06-18 23:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 00:002016-06-19 00:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 01:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 01:002016-06-19 01:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 02:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 02:002016-06-19 02:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 03:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 03:002016-06-19 03:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 04:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 04:002016-06-19 04:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 05:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 05:002016-06-19 05:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 06:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 06:002016-06-19 06:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 07:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 07:002016-06-19 07:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 08:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 08:002016-06-19 08:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 09:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 09:002016-06-19 09:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 10:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 10:002016-06-19 10:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 11:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 11:002016-06-19 11:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 12:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 12:002016-06-19 12:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 13:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 13:002016-06-19 13:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 14:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 14:002016-06-19 14:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 15:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 15:002016-06-19 15:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 16:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 16:002016-06-19 16:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 17:00:00 UTC000
Jun 19, 17:002016-06-19 17:00:00 UTC2016-06-19 18:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
Not sure if this is exploiting the same bug as the first split. But commenters on yesterday's thread have noted [1] that the DAO code currently executing seems to be several days older, and out of sync with the newer github repo [2][3]. This is one way to get a free code review /s There was an issue raised on their repo to make exploitable bugs private [4]. So far it doesn't appear to have gained traction but I wonder, what will it say about decentralized communities, and the focus on the sanctity of their code as a contract, if it's accepted. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11928936 [2] https://github.com/slockit/DAO [3] https://github.com/TheDAO/DAO-1.0 [4] https://github.com/slockit/DAO/issues/264
In Another successful DAO attack recursive split
If I understood the explanation on that article correctly, what's even more interesting is that this typo apparently hasn't yet been fixed in the repos (assuming I'm looking at the right ones). There are 2 repos which I looked at: https://github.com/slockit/DAO https://github.com/TheDAO/DAO-1.0 I don't know which one is the authoritative one. But the interesting bit is both these repos still have that same typo in the master branch: https://github.com/TheDAO/DAO-1.0/blob/master/DAO.sol#L666 (the other repo) https://github.com/slockit/DAO/blob/develop/DAO.sol#L685 The slockit account repo has a commit which was made 6 days back, with the commit message "Protect against recursive withdrawRewardFor attack" https://github.com/slockit/DAO/commit/f01f3bd8df5e1e222dde62... but it doesn't fix the typo and there aren't any more commit in there aft
Read the rest
er that one. Does this mean, the upstream repos containing the typo haven't yet been fixed? Or am I just looking at the wrong repos/branches? Or did this typo get known only a few hours back?
In Deconstructing the DAO Attack: A Brief Code Tour

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.