4 ms·

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 th

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

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.