4 ms·

Uh, you're welcome? I don't think I made your point, though. The laws that were passed to rescue the previously failed rules were utterly unknown at the time t

Uh, you're welcome? I don't think I made your point, though. The laws that were passed to rescue the previously failed rules were utterly unknown at the time the failure was occurring. Instead of those rules being followed through (resulting in the complete destruction of debt-currency), a political elite was able to force a rescue of the failed actors. Wealth was redistributed across the world as USD should have ceased to exist and all debt vanished, but was allowed to be propped up at the whims of technocrats (Fed buyers).

cjslep 10y ago
You did, I just think you are getting hung up way too much on the wording of this quote I said (emphasis mine): > I do not want to be subjected to the whims of an unregulated group operating under unknown rules[...] I read it as "operating under unknown rules", so I don't mean the laws as currently written but the legislative process used to change the laws so they can be fixed (this was my intended meaning). I agree with you fully: the rules can, do and will fail and the next set of rules are utterly unknown now. But rulemakers are currently operating under known rules: the legislative process. Always have been through all the US fiat changes. The lack of trust in the legislative process is what makes cryptocurrencies attractive. I infer (possibly incorrectly) you also share a healthy mistrust in the legislative process, just as I do. But Ethereum never laid out a formal process governing these sorts of changes (not a legislative, authoritative, nor democratic one) so the implication to the whole world was that none would ever be needed (because cryptocurrency) and people trusted that this fact would be respected. With this DAO reversal, Ethereum has broken that assumption many people hold, and lost that trust. This is why the OP in the article is upset: the process that resulted was an authoritative one disguised as a democratic vote in his or her eyes. And I am inclined to agree. Edit to remove typo "as as" to "as".
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  Hard fork and Soft fork were always part of the process. In fact, you can democratically vote through whatever you want in the ETH/DAO system, either through the established code for voting or by developing protocol extensions. People can freely choose what code they want to run, or not. The bailout of USD can also be described as an authoritative one disguised as a democratic vote. Congresspeople were told the world would end if they did not vote for the legislation they were handed.
  - cjslep 10y ago
    I agree with you, because that's how the legislative system works. Lobbying, pass-this-or-we-all-die-scaremongering to whip the votes, and more all fall under the rules of the legislative process. Like I said before, you and I share an unhealthy skepticism of that legislative process. But for some reason I keep having to circle around this point: the legislative process is well defined and enshrined and advertised in law (constitutional or otherwise) whereas the ethereum process is clearly not as evidenced by a 5% turnout and an immediate distrust in the process by constituents. Representatives aren't blindsided about a new kind of vote the President made up that is default "yea" that results in a 5% voter turnout. This is the last time I'll attempt to make this point.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Ethereum is fully open-source (that is my understanding anyway; I have never used it), so all the code is known. Further, anyone may participate, or not; contribute code, or not; promote and run their own protocols, or not. Congressional elections are typically decided by ~25% of citizens. Not very far from the 5% rate you are claiming. Sampled approval rates have been as low as 11%. The most recent rate I've found is 16%. Your point is about minimal discrepancies and misses (for me) the much, much larger picture.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    The potential for forking was always part of the reality, but never part of the myth, which tried hard to bury the fact and instead pushed the idea that Ethereum was proof against manipulation. My guess is that many of its supporters have either bought the myth, or are speculating that many others will do so.

cjslep 10y ago

You did, I just think you are getting hung up way too much on the wording of this quote I said (emphasis mine): > I do not want to be subjected to the whims of an unregulated group operating under unknown rules[...] I read it as "operating under unknown rules", so I don't mean the laws as currently written but the legislative process used to change the laws so they can be fixed (this was my intended meaning). I agree with you fully: the rules can, do and will fail and the next set of rules are utterly unknown now. But rulemakers are currently operating under known rules: the legislative process. Always have been through all the US fiat changes. The lack of trust in the legislative process is what makes cryptocurrencies attractive. I infer (possibly incorrectly) you also share a healthy mistrust in the legislative process, just as I do. But Ethereum never laid out a formal process governing these sorts of changes (not a legislative, authoritative, nor democratic one) so the implication to the whole world was that none would ever be needed (because cryptocurrency) and people trusted that this fact would be respected. With this DAO reversal, Ethereum has broken that assumption many people hold, and lost that trust. This is why the OP in the article is upset: the process that resulted was an authoritative one disguised as a democratic vote in his or her eyes. And I am inclined to agree. Edit to remove typo "as as" to "as".

jsprogrammer 10y ago
Hard fork and Soft fork were always part of the process. In fact, you can democratically vote through whatever you want in the ETH/DAO system, either through the established code for voting or by developing protocol extensions. People can freely choose what code they want to run, or not. The bailout of USD can also be described as an authoritative one disguised as a democratic vote. Congresspeople were told the world would end if they did not vote for the legislation they were handed.
- cjslep 10y ago
  I agree with you, because that's how the legislative system works. Lobbying, pass-this-or-we-all-die-scaremongering to whip the votes, and more all fall under the rules of the legislative process. Like I said before, you and I share an unhealthy skepticism of that legislative process. But for some reason I keep having to circle around this point: the legislative process is well defined and enshrined and advertised in law (constitutional or otherwise) whereas the ethereum process is clearly not as evidenced by a 5% turnout and an immediate distrust in the process by constituents. Representatives aren't blindsided about a new kind of vote the President made up that is default "yea" that results in a 5% voter turnout. This is the last time I'll attempt to make this point.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Ethereum is fully open-source (that is my understanding anyway; I have never used it), so all the code is known. Further, anyone may participate, or not; contribute code, or not; promote and run their own protocols, or not. Congressional elections are typically decided by ~25% of citizens. Not very far from the 5% rate you are claiming. Sampled approval rates have been as low as 11%. The most recent rate I've found is 16%. Your point is about minimal discrepancies and misses (for me) the much, much larger picture.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  The potential for forking was always part of the reality, but never part of the myth, which tried hard to bury the fact and instead pushed the idea that Ethereum was proof against manipulation. My guess is that many of its supporters have either bought the myth, or are speculating that many others will do so.