3 ms·

The value of money is subjective. Governments drain the value of fiat currency by printing and spending. This causes people to subjectively value the currency l

The value of money is subjective. Governments drain the value of fiat currency by printing and spending. This causes people to subjectively value the currency less, which makes its market value go down (inflation.) There are several reasons why this is not the case with Eth/DAO: 1) Every fraction of Ethereum is accounted for in the public record. 2) No additional Ethereum was created to compensate the losses of investors, only the original stolen Ethereum is being returned. 3) No politician's pockets are being padded, the only receivers of value are the rightful owners of DAO Tokens. (Only ETH was stolen, not tokens - everyone still has their tokens.) 4) If some government took this as precedent to force a bail-out in the future Ethereum Ecosystem, based on the standards of the Ethereum community, the value of Ethereum under an actual government-instituted bailout would plummet. It goes against everything we believe in, and the subjective valuation of Ethereum on a mass scale would plummet, effectively making any funds doled out worth only a fraction of their value by the time the receiver had any chance to use them. I could go on giving more reasons, but is it really necessary? No one should be attempting to make analogies between fiat currency controls and an Ethereum fork unless they've considered both the philosophical and economic implications of their arguments, and it's obvious that most anti-forkers haven't bothered to give due diligence to the question of what's really at stake here.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
The ETH wasn't really stolen though. I thought a contract was submitted and then executed?
- triadicmonad 10y ago
  Do you really find that answer a satisfying resolution?
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    I do. Unless someone can show that the DAO was hacked (a system was compromised and common code was modified), the contract appears to be entirely valid and wholly in the spirit of cryptocurrencies. I don't think Nazis are still around are they? I also don't see how lying to Nazis about Jews has any relevance here? Personally, I don't trust much that doesn't have a simulator, or at least some kind of test procedure. Edit: Parent has since removed Nazi references. My post will remain unmodified except for this edit.
  - beefield 10y ago
    I do not think there exists a satisfying resolution. In the terms of Chess, this is pretty much a definition of checkmate. Either you think that the intent of the DAO actually was specified in the code, thus it was not a theft, or you think that the intent of the DAO actually was _not_ specified in the code, but somewhere else[1], and the whole raison d'etre of DAO disappears to the air as a puff of smoke. No moves left either way. [1]Where?
  - landryraccoon 10y ago
    It is the resolution that the architects of the DAO themselves argued. They literally said there is no contract or intention outside of the code of the DAO. Now that the code doesn't work in their favor they want to backtrack on that. In that case, what was the DAO in the first place?
- UweSchmidt 10y ago
  Every single word in the cryptocurrency world is a methaphor, including "currency", "wallet" and, apparently, "to steal". Some cavepeople figured out what stealing is a long time ago. We haven't quite decided if executing a contract code is stealing just yet.
matt4077 10y ago
Except that inflation is at an all-time low (more would actually be better). And politicians aren't "lining their pockets" – none of them make what they could get in the private sector. That sort of conspiracy theory is why most people stay far away from cryptocurrency (and really enjoyed this DAO thing). Oh, and the government doesn't print money. Well it does in the strict interpretation of fixing color on some substrate. But government spending does not increase the amount of money in circulation. The analogy between the DAO fiasco and real currencies is almost brutally obvious: a fake currency, powered by the conspiracy theories of a population shocked by the financial crisis suddenly needs market intervention because an institution that's 'too big to fail' is threatened.

jsprogrammer 10y ago

The ETH wasn't really stolen though. I thought a contract was submitted and then executed?

triadicmonad 10y ago
Do you really find that answer a satisfying resolution?
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  I do. Unless someone can show that the DAO was hacked (a system was compromised and common code was modified), the contract appears to be entirely valid and wholly in the spirit of cryptocurrencies. I don't think Nazis are still around are they? I also don't see how lying to Nazis about Jews has any relevance here? Personally, I don't trust much that doesn't have a simulator, or at least some kind of test procedure. Edit: Parent has since removed Nazi references. My post will remain unmodified except for this edit.
- beefield 10y ago
  I do not think there exists a satisfying resolution. In the terms of Chess, this is pretty much a definition of checkmate. Either you think that the intent of the DAO actually was specified in the code, thus it was not a theft, or you think that the intent of the DAO actually was _not_ specified in the code, but somewhere else[1], and the whole raison d'etre of DAO disappears to the air as a puff of smoke. No moves left either way. [1]Where?
- landryraccoon 10y ago
  It is the resolution that the architects of the DAO themselves argued. They literally said there is no contract or intention outside of the code of the DAO. Now that the code doesn't work in their favor they want to backtrack on that. In that case, what was the DAO in the first place?
UweSchmidt 10y ago
Every single word in the cryptocurrency world is a methaphor, including "currency", "wallet" and, apparently, "to steal". Some cavepeople figured out what stealing is a long time ago. We haven't quite decided if executing a contract code is stealing just yet.

matt4077 10y ago

Except that inflation is at an all-time low (more would actually be better). And politicians aren't "lining their pockets" – none of them make what they could get in the private sector. That sort of conspiracy theory is why most people stay far away from cryptocurrency (and really enjoyed this DAO thing). Oh, and the government doesn't print money. Well it does in the strict interpretation of fixing color on some substrate. But government spending does not increase the amount of money in circulation. The analogy between the DAO fiasco and real currencies is almost brutally obvious: a fake currency, powered by the conspiracy theories of a population shocked by the financial crisis suddenly needs market intervention because an institution that's 'too big to fail' is threatened.