In fact, the ETH fork showed us one thing, as Munti explained: "the code is the law" only works to the extend that the mob accepts it, and the mob can always overrule it.  So maybe one should simply accept that fact, and build it in the code.  I don't know if it is possible with Ethereum, but one could consider that there can be a majority vote of stake holders to undo any transaction on the block chain while remaining on the chain.
There could be a new kind of "transaction", with a multisig representing sufficient stake *from before a specific transaction*, that undoes this transaction in some kind of way.

In bitcoin equivalent speak, there could be block chain entries that "revoke" former transaction hashes, so that their UTXO are not considered valid, and their inputs are not considered consuming former UTXO.  It would be sufficient that such a revoking block chain entry accumulates signatures representing sufficient UTXO from before said transaction for it to be recognized as valid.

As such, the new rule would be: "the code is the law, but any stake above X is above the law and can undo anything in the past".

Instead of a multi sig of accumulated stake, one could also introduce a few hard coded "god signatures" of specific people (say, Vitalik and his dog) or entities being "god" and above all law, and when they sign any such revocation entry on the block chain, then said transaction is revoked.   Or this could be a multi-god signature, where, say, 5 out of the 7 gods have to sign such a revocation order.  We could assign the keys to, say, people like the president of the USA, the governor of the FED, Putin, and the secretary of the communist party in China, the king of Saudi Arabia and Vitalik. 

What do you think ?

It would avoid hard forking, the rules would be clear, and there would be a way to overrule the code in a less messy way than with a hard fork.

I think the issue is not so much the number of participants, but rather the weight of the value of a contract with respect to the value of the whole chain.  

I think your two-party smart contract will suffer even more from that if you consider that the code has to be the judge.  Each party can fork off and do as he pleases.

In fact, your two-party smart contract is probably just a cryptographic way to sign and date actions on both sides, *with the idea of going to court if one of the parties thinks that the contract was broken and got screwed*.  But that's not a smart contract, that's a secure logbook. The only thing you're probably doing is introducing non-repudiation signatures on actions, so that you can use this as proof in court.  I think that's a useful way to use cryptography, but I wouldn't call it a smart contract.

Visibly it is difficult to talk to the logically impaired.  I wanted to come to a logical Socratic reasoning, but there are some for whom logical reasoning and just repeating "he's a thief, he's a thief, he has stolen stuff" are indistinguishable.

I do agree that from a certain, human, point of view, one could call him a thief.  But the whole point is that in order to call someone a thief, there has to be a law that tells you what transactions are lawful/right/just and what transactions are illegal/wrong/unfair.  Human law is made up of different sets of rules, the most prominent is of course the law from state and court, but also unwritten moral laws.   All these laws need a form of human judgement because they are not deterministically precise, and in some border cases, different people judge differently, but in many "obvious" cases, most people judge the same.

Now the whole point is that if the DAO had been a paper contract, then by almost all accounts, what the guy had done, would have been theft.   THIS is probably why people call him a thief.  The reason are multiple: 1) the large majority of contract subscribers, even the authors, would never have considered that what he did was part of the INTEND of the contract  2) there would have been no REASON, no thinkable advantage to anyone, to allow for such a contract.

So, there's almost no doubt that *if the DAO would have been a paper contract*, the guy was a thief.  I perfectly agree upon that.

BUT.

The whole point of a smart contract is that ALL human rules, legal ones, moral ones, .... are to be REPLACED by one single, deterministic entity: the code.  If one thinks about it, that is EXTREMELY WEIRD.  This is why I was insisting on people not understanding the concept of smart contract, and not seeing the mind boggling implications of that concept: there's no legal law, there's no moral law and there's no INTEND any more.  The code is the law, the whole law, and nothing else is the law.

Because it is the ONLY way of coming to a verdict mechanically, on a computer, without human judgement.  If you do not accept EVERY SINGLE strange bizarre immoral consequence of "the code is the law", then smart contracts have no meaning.  (as every contract has to come to a verdict, Turing complete smart contracts are an aberration BTW).

And in the frame of THOSE rules, the guy wasn't a thief.  He applied the strange, weird, immoral law perfectly and played by the rules.

Visibly, the ETH people were in fact not ready to accept the concept of smart contract, and to replace human, legal,moral law by the code, and nothing but the code.   Visibly, the pioneers of smart contracts weren't ready to accept the concept they were tauting.  Given the huge difference between human judgement, and "code judgement", one can understand that.  We see it here: the same action (by the guy) is judged theft without the slightest doubt if it had been under human law, and is perfectly legal under code law.  People don't, finally, accept "code law".

However, this makes smart contracts impossible, and hence, its platform (now ETH) useless apart from a trader's toy.

If one cannot accept "the code is the law", then there must be human judgement.  However, judgement by whom and on the basis of WHAT PAPER CONTRACT ?   And with what corrective action ?  Each time a hard fork ?   You can be sure that almost ALL somewhat involved smart contracts will, at a certain point, make decisions that might potentially be considered as not in agreement with some human judgement.    What is to be done in that case ?  Who will judge ?  A court ?  In what jurisdiction ?  What paper contract describes the INTEND on which the judge is to base his judgement ?  Or is the vote a majority vote of the ETH stake holders ?  Is that a reliable judgement ?  Are shareholders not going to vote for their advantage and not for human fairness or legality ?   Is this justice, or just "the mob voting for lynching or not" ?  If the code is not the law, and the legal system is not the law, and morality is not the law, but "the vote of the mob is the law", are you sure you're better off than with "the code is the law" ?
But EVEN if one can come to a form of human judgement against the code, is ETH going to hard fork each time that a smart contract code does something that someone judges not fair or legal ?  Is it going to hard fork every Saturday for all the funny things all the smart contracts did on it during the week ?  Or is it only going to hard fork for "important people" or Vitalik's buddies ?  Is there only a form of justice other than the code, for the rich and the powerful, but not for the normal small contract writer ?   

What's the value and sense of such a strange system, where the ultimate contract IS a paper contract describing intend ?  Why not stick to a paper contract and a normal court then ?  What's the use of this thing ?

The ONLY way of implementing smart contracts, is to accept "the code is the law" even if that law is weird, inhuman, looks unfair, and does totally unexpected things.  If you cannot accept that, you shouldn't be in smart contracts.  Because otherwise, you end up with a non functional system and even much less "legal basis" than with a paper contract, where "the majority vote of the mob" is making the unpredictable law, every day.

Yes if someone steals from you that person who stole from you is a thief whether or not you report it to the authorities.

And you can quit fudding already. The only reason he's not sought legal action is because he knows that he stole and that he's a thief. Otherwise he must be a very rich thief not to seek back his rightful, in your immature eyes, $60,000,000.

YES! IT WORK!
the repairwallet recover about 3300 BAY... now it's everything ok...
Thanks a lot Munti!!

Hi guys!

My wallet show 100068.xxxx BitPay but i'm sure that they are over 102k in the past...
Today i checked with the blockchain explorer my wallet address and it showed more that 103k...
What can i do for restore the correct value?? Reload the full block.dat? How?

Thanks
Ric

Well it's cool he's coming on board with bitbay anyway. That 70 bucks worth could be worth considerably more in the future. Then again we have to wait and see. Crypto is not the easiest thing to predict.

Thanks guys. Really good tips.

How do you keep track of active development? Just a threads here at bitcointalk?

What's some hints to look for for "real development" that you would look at?
I can only think of the github repository (if it's open source)

Not long ago I installed the latest version of a client. I did not want to do anything, send or recieve bays or anything else. I did it just to have a look. And I gave up downloading the blockchain, it was too long and on the next day I simply forgot to resume.
I think many of potential users, especially common byers and sellers will behave the same way. We need lite client!
And as I said earlier, user friendly beautiful interface that will look like Alibaba or Ebay would be great. Preferably web-based. I understand that it takes time and hard work, but maybe just announce these two things as a next big goal?

Will we ever see 300 sat again david?
 
 
 
Why cant you use some of your btc you got from the ico to put up a buy wall and help us investors who have been waiting years for you to do something. YEARS and still this project is no further today then it was on day 1.