If my prayers to Satan are answered there will be more loss.
As long as you're aware that you will also share in those losses then it's all good. Incorrect! Techno-anarchism is all about increasing degrees-of-freedom. So you promulgate that TBTF lie and manipulation. Do you work for Goldman Sachs? |
|
|
|
Smooth and I discussing the optimum way of funding/launching development, and the Nash equilibrium of block chains. Ethereum, Blockstream (Bitcoin core), BitShares, DASH all break Nash equilibrium. I agree with smooth, there should be no DAO nor governance (i.e. no voting, not even from miners) in control of forking the block chain. The DAOs should only be for decentralizing projects and organizations (including corporations). DASH and Bitshares have this incorrect PoS+governance design and Ira Miller@DASH is incorrect about automation being unrealistic or evil:so how can you shut down a decentralized autonomous organization?
Do you know any decentralized autonomous organization ? I don't .. Yes, DASH.org. The first DAO. The difference: Marketing that feature is taking a backseat to development. Doing it right I'd say. DASH does seem to be a functioning DAO where D is distributed but sure if it is decentralized control. The stakeholders apparently vote on the actions or management of the development of the open source. The stakeholders apparently approved to have % of the mining rewards paid to a foundation which then distributes the funds according to projects approved by votes of the stakeholders. However what is not clear to me is to what degree this is all enforced by smart contract protocol or done manually by the foundation. There are allegations however that the distribution of the DASH tokens were highly concentrated by an alleged instamine and subsequent masternode ROI scheme which may have further concentrated the tokens held by the core insiders. But I don't know if anyone has been able to prove conclusively that DASH is not really decentralized, although the suspicion is apparently strong amongst some especially Monero supporters. |
|
|
|
.. and I'm pretty sure it's also part in the Paradox thread as well... at least plenty hints and warnings.
Of course, because I wrote that Ethereum Paradox thread. I mean I was the one instigating the deeper technical points. Perceptions may vary, but I am aware of who knew what and when because I understood the technical discussion in real-time at that time. |
|
|
|
OP, no he's not bullish on ETH. He's just interested in the concept of experiment with smart contracts, not ETH specifically.
This is what I am thinking also, but kennyP does have a valid concern that maybe Andreas has sold out his reputation and will go down in flames as Roger Ver did with his endorsements of Mt. Gox near the end. In support of your and my thought, let me quote Andreas specifically from upthread as follows: "Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody! ...
|
|
|
|
just above the skidmark I see smooth's avatar ... what does it mean? the shit is real now  |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6495"What is the difference between a government or bank which decides to override the free market, and a block chain that does the same?" Attorney Brian Klein: "People will pick block chains so to speak based on do they want whether someone can intercede or do they want it more autonomous. Bitcoin seems to be more hands off right, and if Ethereum gets more hands on, that is going to change the perception of the people who are investing and building it. So I think maybe there will be a third block chain (that sort of a third ledger or whatever you want to call it) that rises because it offers a different variable. People will pick what they want." Attorneys should stick to what they know, which is the law. In general (and it appears in this specific case) they know next to nothing or nothing at all about blockchain technology. A blockchain that is "hands on" accomplishes literally nothing useful. The concept is vacuous. It is like attorneys arguing over the title to an empty bank account. Smooth I know you were rushed when you wrote that (because he told me in PM that he didn't have time today), so I want to say I agree with that attorney's analysis. The people who want a hands-on block chain will get the clusterfuck they deserve and go down in flames with it. Those who want Blockstream's clusterfuck centralization Rube Goldberg "improvements" (which are almost as bad as Vitalik's but atleast they know how to code), will cling to Bitcoin as it becomes ever more centralized. And those that want something truly decentralized, with scaling for microtransactions onchain, and with secure killer app smart contracts, will need a third block chain. I am working on this project. Everyone should be free to choose. Who I am to tell them what to do. Free will. Free markets. Techno-Anarchism. Reap what you sow. |
|
|
|
The ability to reverse exploits that violate the intent and good faith actions of thousands of people will promote mainstream adoption - not hinder it. Just make a federated currency with a large group of arbiters administering it. No need for all this fancy stuff. No need for code, just use English for contracts. That might sound snarky or sarcastic, but it's not meant to be. What you're proposing is just fundamentally different than what cryptocurrency was created for and how it's been used thus far. And that's not necessarily a bad thing if that's what people want. If people want what you propose then there's no need for a lot of this technological overhead that we deal with here. A system based on decentralized social governance and subjectivity could be quite interesting, but it's certainly not what Ethereum was meant to be as far as I know. Andrew Vegetabile, Director of the Litecoin Association, came out against a fork of Ethereum/The DAO, Decrying interference with The DAO by outside crypto developers in an open letter to “Vitalik Buterin, The DAO, future smart contract developers, and the throngs of individuals within the crypto ecosystem” today. To Vitalik Buterin, fellow Ethereum developers (to include the DAO developers) and the Ethereum
Foundation:
A smart contract was set up, with the indications that the “code” was the contract itself. It was not only
a ridiculous idea to state this, but shows your shortcomings as leaders within the community without
added language.
Whomever you have as your advisors have failed not only you, but the Ethereum community as a whole.
My word of advice to all of you is to do absolutely nothing at all.
Never in the history of crypto for as far as I can remember has a developer been intimately involved with
a third party application in attempting to resolve said applications issues.
The best analogy that I can think of at this point is if there was a bug in counterparty code and the Bitcoin
core devs got involved.
I am truly sorry that such a large marketcap was involved in the DAO. But by the nature of your system,
it enabled this to happen. Failure to plan accordingly has caused this, and I implore you all to take the
time to review code and consider all ramifications before releasing something in the future. I can’t help
but feel that a mix between trying to non-organically throw Ethereum on a pedestal (through promotion)
along with a desire to dominate entangled with greed has brought us to this point.
Your direct actions will ripple throughout the crypto ecosystem, much broader than Paycoin or MT GOX.
Your involvement thus far is unprecedented, and needs to stop. An analogy to recent events ca
n equate to the banking bailout, where the leaders in charge have stepped in because they have deemed this
application “to big to fail”.
Where does it end? Is there a threshold of Ethereum market cap which implores you to act on the failure of a
third party application? If so, you should state that. Or better yet, force Ethereum to only allow up to a max
of a % of total Ethereum to be utilized in a third party application.
Forking and leadership
As if the involvement of leaders in Ethereum wasn’t enough, the talk of soft and hard forks has been
brought up numerous times under the guise of developing a “fix”, with letting the community decide
how it should proceed.
Here is the problem with that.
Vitalik, you are what Charlie Lee is to Litecoin and Satoshi is to Bitcoin. You are the guidance, leadership,
and vision to Ethereum. Being in such a position of power influences the future of Ethereum, to include
forks. The mere suggestion to fork (short of a major bug in the base software) in your circumstance is
irresponsible. Because you are the lead developer and creator, involvement of any type would again set
a dangerous precedent in uncharted territories. This could have consequences worldwide in legislation,
where I fear your actions today will be debated tomorrow in every congress in democratic states.
A developer’s influence shapes a coin’s community a nd developers worldwide should stand up with me
and announce their disapproval of any action on your part. Developing the code and throwing it into the
wild in order for the community to decide whether to fork or not does not abstain you from the future
of Ethereum due to your influence. Once the word “fork” leaves your lips for others to hear, you have
already swayed the masses to a degree.
The program was set up as a contract, pointing to the code as the final word. Therefore, interpretations
of the code (including bugs) are tantamount to the legalities of the “attacker(s)”. In other words, I
personally believe that the attacker was well within his rights to exploit this contract. And now the
community suffers for a poor implementation of a contract.
|
|
|
|
Edit: For starters they also need a coin that can scale as the main chain for this to work and Bitcoin does not meet this requirement.
Thanks. That was my conclusion also. |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHcLKrkwPLQ#t=6117"Who else is doing real-life, production utilization of smart contracts right now? Nobody! ... Learned some hard lessons ... enormous funding ... will come back ... the experiment is awesome ... I'm looking forward to DAOv2.0" what a deja vu moment ... why is Andreas flushing his reputation down the toilet for The DAO?  I'm Roger Ver, long time Bitcoin advocate and investor.
Today I'm at the Mtgox world headquarters in Tokyo Japan.
...
kiklo opined a reason: Side note, you see those dark circles under that guys eyes in the video. Symptoms of Liver Stress or Damage, not good.  But I also opined a reason upthread: ...Andreas makes the point that Ethereum can allow full exploration of the range of innovation because of the Turing-complete scripts, which Bitcoin can't do. So it seems he worships Ethereum because he thinks it is necessary for achieving maximum innovation.
Well I am going to try to teach Andreas that only some contracts are killer apps and those are the highest priority.
Hey I like Andreas. He is an inspiring speaker, articulate, and reasonably precise in his analysis of the details. I don't want to pick a fight with him. Perhaps he just needs some capable project other than Ethereum to " show me the code, talk is cheap". Since we are only talking, then I can't fault Andreas. It is better to get along with everybody, except I am not going to follow the path/fantasy of the script kiddies. |
|
|
|
|
ArticMine, the merged mining for Namecoin with very minimal validation can't be compared to the extensive CPU resources required to verify smart contracts.
I have no confidence whatsoever in Rootstock being merge-mined by Bitcoin miners. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Rube Goldberg machines suck.
|
|
|
|
I don't know why this guy made a new thread instead of adding to one we already created: Swiss Contract law requires:
1) Consent of the parties: Acceptance by both parties
2) No Negative elements: Impossibility and Illegality (neither of these apply)
3) Conclusion of contract by representatives: Both parties accepted the contract on their own behalf or are valid representatives of the contractual party.
4) Elements of Interpretation: Does not include Fraud, Duress, etc...
5) Breach of Contract: Damages as a general remedy for a breach. :The general rule is that a party to a contract not performing it correctly, as it is written, must pay damages compensating the failure of performance or its imperfections.
There is no requirement of consideration. Most of the wording in Swiss contract law is written to protect the party agreeing to the contract, not the entity that writes the contract, for obvious reasons.
The irony in all this is that Vitalik is the one, by Swiss law, that could be sued for breach of contract.
You can't write an unprofitable smart contract, then turn around and claim theft when someone takes the other end of the contract and takes all your money. Think about how ridiculous that sounds. Any attempt to undo or rewrite the contract is a breach of contract by Swiss law.
The whole idea of a smart contract is that it inherently holds all of the requirements of a legal contract, provides security superior to traditional contract law, and once entered, it cannot be undone. All of these characteristics of a smart contract have been espoused by Vitalik himself and his own words will be used against him when he is sued in court.
And then we have r0ach who is too high pride to post in any of my threads: Remember r0ach wrote this: You are arguing for microtransactions when it's impossible to have microtransactions on a blockchain.
Okay guys. Enjoy it while you can. I coming whether you like it or not.
I tried to find the posts where r0ach was stalking me in other threads and gloating about Bitcoin being up to $600, but appears he (or the mods) wisely deleted those posts containing his snide/flippant remarks. Damn, I should have quoted them for posterity. Any way, I found this plagiarism and notice the dates of the two posts... It is possible that Bitcoin has U bottomed at $150 and will meander up to $1200 over the next several months.
The thing I've always hated about your insistence on trying to push this Armstrong character is that you basically imply we live in a deterministic universe... Bitcoin has now completed a giant, two year long cup and handle...  |
|
|
|
Anyone know more about the author's background? Any LinkedIn? I am curious because he said he works for DASH. I was in the midst of writing a similar post ( here is the post), but with somewhat different conclusions. So Ira Miller appears to now be a key coder for Dash? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzgUGU_RMGI#t=480https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CoinapultAppearently the Dash dev-team was thinking about this a lot more in depth then any of us could have guessed : https://dashtalk.org/threads/prioritization-of-fiat-gateways.8457/Fiat access ramps development will be prioritized by the core team over PR and advertising during the next few months
...
The core team sees a need to strengthen direct FIAT access ramps to Dash in order to move into our next growth phase. We need to nurture the development of a rich ecosystem of user oriented applications.
Different user oriented applications are being created for Dash, like crypto ATMs, point of sale solutions, payment gateways, etc. Nevertheless we are currently missing one fundamental layer - all these user applications need more liquid and better FIAT – DASH exchange services to clear on, including fixed price broker services, instant FIAT exchange, bid/ask FIAT exchanges, etc.
...
Coinapult Integration
As part of this project, Dash will be integrated to Coinapult. Coinapult is a Bitcoin wallet service provider. Coinapult offers online consumer and B2B services to a global market. It was founded in 2012 by Ira Miller and Erik Voorhees and was the first to offer bitcoin e-wallet services by email and SMS. In 2014, Coinapult was first to market with Locks, a service to help mitigate the price volatility of Bitcoin.
Ira Miller sold Coinapult in 2015 and remains an external advisor and provider of backend tools. Current CEO of Coinapult Gabriel Sukenik is leading the company to new frontiers, they recently integrated with Mycelium to offer Bitcoin locking services directly from the Mycelium app.
Coinapult will be integrating Dash to all of their existing services which include fully convertible USD accounts for DASH. Dash will be the first crypto-currency, other than Bitcoin, to be added to this service.
More partners are expected to join this consortium over time. For example, Mycelium is already integrated with Coinapult. With Dash’s being added to Coinapult too, that brings us one step closer to convertible to USD mobile accounts.
|
|
|
|
I haven't studied the specific vulnerability in this case[1], but I think it has to do with the contract code doing mutability aliasing on global state. So this is an issue of synchronizing mutability aliasing. For example, imagine if some intended to be atomic operation[1] of a check for sending of ETH out of the contract had not set a global count of sent before some recursion which enabled sending more ETH out, thus exceeding the threshold. So the Reddit post seems to be somewhat clueless...  So any state influencing the logic of any procedure non-atomically is vulnerable to attack if interrupted by a call to an arbitrary contract. This goes far beyond the “write functions that are reentrant” suggestion: instead write functions that either don’t call out to arbitrary contracts or make no assumptions about their control flow or state after doing so.
|
|
|
|
ETH could easily go under $0.25 (less than 25 cents), and I am not attempting to buy cheap crap.
Then I will buy loads of ETH if that ever happens.  |
|
|
|
Can't blame this solely on Tual and The DAO: ...
There are no safety mechanisms built into the SOLIDARITY. There was no attempt to do this incrementally. They released Turing-complete scripting into the wild knowing full well that it must blow up. Very, very unprofessional.
We can't blame this just on The DAO. The root cause starts with Vitalik and his delusions. Casper was another delusion that we knew would fail. How many months and $millions did they waste on that.
In fact, the flaw is in SOLIDARITY: A fundamental flaw in Solidity If you use the call construct in Solidity on external contracts, and if you have any externally-callable functions in your own contract that modify state, you cannot assume anything about the state of your contract after the external call is executed. Agreed, the call construct is OK if you know what code is running. If you don’t though, as I said you can make no assumptions about your program’s state or control flow when that call completes.
And this is why I’m shocked that, of the concepts borrowed from the object-capability literature, Ethereum borrowed smart contracts but did not follow up with capability-safe language and VM design.
And I remember that his was a flaw that I had realized in 2014 would be in SOLIDARITY when I read they would support contracts calling other contracts. I knew over 2 years ago that this exploit would be possible. |
|
|
|
Smooth and I discussing the optimum way of funding/launching development, and the Nash equilibrium of block chains. Ethereum, Blockstream (Bitcoin core), BitShares, DASH all break Nash equilibrium.
|
|
|
|
Did they really act without political control driving their choice?
(Answer: obviously not, although I would use the word influence rather than control.)
Influence is an apt term also, but I used control because the miners have to enforce the protocol that they think the majority will, because otherwise they waste their hashrate and suffer economic losses. This is the Nash equilibrium.Satoshi uses the phrase "cooperating to attack the network". If the miners are acting independently they are not cooperating, and if they are influenced or coordinated by a third party they are not acting independently, they are cooperating (albeit indirectly).
There is not really any such thing as a non-attack soft fork in a properly functioning (i.e. mining not centralized) PoW chain, because without some mechanism to cooperate, the game theory does not support an individual miner ever activating a soft fork. In order to reject a non-conforming block the miner would have to mine on a shorter chain which is individually irrational.
Agreed, that is the Nash equilibrium of PoW; and proof-of-stake doesn't have it, because PoS doesn't consume a resource i.e. nothing-at-stake.Responding to another comment upthread, miners can not perform a hard fork. A hard fork has to be adopted by the entire community, including both mining and non-mining nodes. This mistake is made endlessly in the Ethereum community. I don't know if Vitalik is encouraging it or what.
Agreed. If most payers and payees refuse to sign and honor transactions on the hard fork, then the fork dies because miners receive no transaction fees and can't exchange any coinbase block rewards for any value.
We might argue though that the power over forks held by the payers and payees is asymmetric to that of the miners, because 51% of the miners decide the longest chain, but closer to 100% of the payers/payees are required to reject a majority hashrate fork.The entire whole point of immutability and censorship resistance is to protect minorities, and the above-described game-theory is precisely what accomplishes this. By design (though not in practice today), miners are powerless functionaries with no meaningful discretion.
That critically important point should be emphasized more often. Miners should not have any political power, because if they did then corruption or 666 shit like MIT's proposed ChainAnchor (a way to force KYC on the block chain) could become a reality and then minorities could be fucked with by whomever can capture the power vacuum of political control and influence.If you want decisions made by a voting majority you can just create a corporation and have it run a database server. That is vastly more efficient than a blockchain with effectively the same result.
That is what Daniel Larimer's (Bitshares') DPOS and DASH's masternode schemes (both are variants of PoS) argue is the solution to scaling.
But they forsake the protection of minorities and Nash equilibrium, thus they really aren't secure. Security via majority control is not stable, as Daniel Larimer painfully discovered.All soft forks (even ones universally-recognized as benign such as those used in Bitcoin for upgrades) are a warning flag that the coin is not very decentralized and is not secure against miners cooperating to attack the network. If Ethereum soft forks to freeze or transfer coins, and this is a result of the structure of the ecosystem, it will demonstrate not only that the network is insecure, but that the ecosystem itself is incompatible with having secure network.
I agree. Proof-of-burn is a better way to do forks, giving every HODLer the option whether to join the new block chain or not. This allows competition of forks so that one development group can't have absolute influence over the development direction.
If we want to create a new block chain design and we don't have the $4 trillion black budget resources of the DEEP STATE which "Satoshi" had at his disposal, then we either need some funding for development or we need to take the slow route of volunteerism/donations.
I don't think it makes any sense to argue that funding will create centralized control structure and volunteerism won't. Monero has periodic forks built into the protocol and the same set of devs since launch have most of the political influence on the Nash equilibrium.
So I think what it really boils down to is the open source code. If that code benefits society no matter how it was achieved, then someone can fork it and make a better distribution with less centralized control. Thus I will argue there is nothing wrong with raising funding for developing open source. And if the core dev(s) are conscientious and remove their influence over time and do not create any forks that aren't proof-of-burn, then that could be even better than what we have now with Blockstream.That shouldn't really be a surprise though, with one person being given so much de facto authority that is the only real result possible.
If you doubt his authority, just imagine hypothetically how the process would be proceeding if Vitalik had never proposed forking, or if he opposed it. There would be vastly more opposition, more debate (or less because it would be seen as an absurd idea not even worth debating), and the forks would be far less likely to ever happen.
Or imagine if "His Eminence Master Lord V" had a heart attack and all those n00bs in The DAO had no leader to protect them from their lack of due diligence. |
|
|
|
Hi, despite the inflammatory title, I would honestly like to hear the answer to these questions:
1) The lead "coder" was very young and inexperienced, should not that have shaved ~$140M off the max they could raise?
2) Why did this happen (yet again) and how can similar things be avoided, without interfering with the benefits that can come from a free market environment?
No good alternative to ETH yet meeting the desires of the dreamers to disrupt corporatism. Bitcoin won't do this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
