Bitcoin Forum
September 18, 2021, 02:26:10 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: My thoughts on the DAO  (Read 2380 times)
BitUsher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1031


View Profile
June 23, 2016, 05:54:49 PM
 #21



Btw, I already know how to do the bolded part decentralized in the redesign of proof-of-work I am preparing to launch:


Look forward to the whitepaper.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1631975170
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631975170

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1631975170
Reply with quote  #2

1631975170
Report to moderator
1631975170
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631975170

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1631975170
Reply with quote  #2

1631975170
Report to moderator
enet
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 81
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 23, 2016, 06:06:34 PM
 #22

Crypto is Not Politics

That's like saying consensus has nothing to do with consensus. Luckily there is also the market which has its own way of voting on things.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
June 23, 2016, 06:16:07 PM
 #23

Crypto is Not Politics

That's like saying consensus has nothing to do with consensus. Luckily there is also the market which has its own way of voting on things.

Yes. It is all economics (game theory) after all. The key is that is becomes very impractical to move for such a vote, just as due to Hash equilibrium it is not practical for the nodes to gang up and 51% attack.
Cabapzarf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 23, 2016, 06:58:07 PM
 #24

Crypto is Not Politics

That's like saying consensus has nothing to do with consensus. Luckily there is also the market which has its own way of voting on things.

Yes. It is all economics (game theory) after all. The key is that is becomes very impractical to move for such a vote, just as due to Hash equilibrium it is not practical for the nodes to gang up and 51% attack.

The Ethereum miners are preparing for a 51% attack on the block chain, to for it. Maybe 75% of the miners will attend.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
June 24, 2016, 02:16:32 AM
 #25

Crypto is Not Politics

That's like saying consensus has nothing to do with consensus. Luckily there is also the market which has its own way of voting on things.

Yes. It is all economics (game theory) after all. The key is that is becomes very impractical to move for such a vote, just as due to Hash equilibrium it is not practical for the nodes to gang up and 51% attack.

The Ethereum miners are preparing for a 51% attack on the block chain, to for it. Maybe 75% of the miners will attend.

Yes because they each have too much power thus they can coordinate.

But in normal free market systems in nature, entropy disperses and people can't agree on anything.  Wink

Ethereum is basically a closed system that does nothing but mint BTC for Ethereum miners. So of course all the ETH miners have aligned on keeping the pump alive.

Natural disagreement is the key to my solution.
iamnotback
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 258



View Profile
June 25, 2016, 08:27:21 AM
Last edit: June 25, 2016, 09:00:45 AM by iamnotback
 #26

Charles our community desperately needs you (or someone) to bring back the Bitcoin University:

Specifying an ideal by specifying the absence of whatever properties does not mean much to me tbh, it is all secondary and/or irrelevant.
Your only ideal specified here is "launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer." which is very very vague to me. If that is all it is, then I would say just code something that someone wants to pay you for. Software industry is not bad to be in - in terms of pay - and still absorbing more and more devs  Grin.

Thank you for your post, as you enabled me to see where I have not communicated to those who lack background understanding of the issues.

The ideal specified in the OP is to have a consensus+distribution system that:

  • doesn't centralize
  • doesn't allow voting or consensus to drive a fork, which violates the permissionless, trustless requirement (the entire reason that block chains exist otherwise we could use corporation and a database)
  • doesn't create a manipulated money supply distribution
  • doesn't end up as just another fiat system because it is controlled
  • doesn't end up implementing MIT's CoinAnchor which will force us all to present our 666 id when we transact
  • doesn't create the moral hazard of and complete loss of trust in the block chain by bailing users of the system, e.g. Ethereum forking to bailout the Too Big To Fail DAO.

Have you been sleeping under a rock while the Ethereum/DAO fiasco has occurred?

You seem to not understand how the ideals specified in the OP pertain to avoiding a fiasco like that. I suggest you click all the links in the OP and get the full flavor of what is driving these ideals.

Sorry to speak to you this way and apologies if I am overreacting to your erroneous use of the words "secondary", "irrelevant" and "your only ideal", but it is amazingly frustrating when instead of asking a question about the relevance of the OP, you make smug (and frankly speaking, slightly condescending although you did admit it is all "vague" to you) statements which are clueless as if you don't even understand anything about why Satoshi invented a block chain.

We seriously need someone to launch a Block Chain University. There are far too many speculators who are ignorant about what they are speculating on.
2dogs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1267
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 02, 2016, 10:10:39 AM
 #27

Charles, I don't think you sufficiently emphasized Bruce Fenton's points. You provided a link that seems lost in a sea of the mix of historical storytelling with a smidgen of your self-aggrandizing verbiage, so I doubt most readers even read what Bruce wrote.

Crypto is Not Politics

I keep reading arguments about how The Will of The People should decide. And how this is the only fair and equitable way. And I am here to say this is 100% retarded bullshit and any one who repeats it (and nonchalantly dismisses this!), is retarded.

What distinguishes the intention of Satoshi's block chain invention from the world we had before it, is that it eliminates politics. The technical reason is because due to the Nash equilibrium, then no one (not even mining nodes) have any fucking control.

If we destroy the Nash equilibrium with a 51% attack (aka fork) by not honoring the decentralized protocol, then we fall into a no-man's land of ambiguous interpretation and the brutality of the majority.

It is as simple as that. Either we choose to honor the code and protocol, or we go back to the depressing clusterfucked world we have before Satoshi.

Now the other problem is that BitCON is also becoming centralized because of economies-of-scale in mining. We haven't yet perfected Satoshi's invention. But that should not deter us from our ideals.

If you support forks, you violate everything Satoshi tried to do for the world.

No forks! No Blockstream forks either! Offer proof-of-burn if you want to propose new features on a new block chain, so that people are autonomous with their money.

And any arguments about empathy and intent in contract law are up against moral hazard which leads to the aforementioned clusterfuck of brutality. Don't reward retarded speculators for not doing due diligence and their derelict incapable developer idols, because they carry the mental affliction of those who want the clusterfucked world that existed prior to Satoshi's invention.




Bookmarking for future reference.
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!