4 ms·
They all say that they'll never roll back or retroactively make any changes. But inevitably, they always do. I thought Ethereum might have been different, but o
by lawrenceyan 9y ago
They all say that they'll never roll back or retroactively make any changes. But inevitably, they always do. I thought Ethereum might have been different, but of course I had to be disappointed.
The problem with blockchains is that they still fundamentally fail to solve the problem of mob rule, though, I suppose you could argue that's one thing you'll never fully get rid while the human element is still involved. Robot overlords or bust?
- TrainedMonkey 9y agoEthereum Classic is still a thing: https://ethereumclassic.github.io/ https://ethereumclassic.github.io/ Ethereum Classic is a fork of Ethereum that held blockchain is immutable paradigm and let DAO continue to be drained.
- lawrenceyan 9y agoEverybody knows already which fork won. Sure Classic still exists, but if nobody is going to use it, then it really doesn't matter.
- speakeron 9y ago> Ethereum Classic is a fork of Ethereum that held blockchain is immutable paradigm Ethereum Classic did a hardfork last October which removed null accounts created in the DAO attack. Now, while this didn't change account balances, these were legally created accounts and the historical ledger was changed. The hardfork was controversial at the time for this reason. You can't say that in Classic the blockchain is an immutable paradigm - it changed history just as Ethereum did.
- MarkPNeyer 9y agoHere is a proposed solution to mob rule: https://github.com/neyer/dewdrop https://github.com/neyer/dewdrop With a much simpler version of the same concept here https://github.com/neyer/respect https://github.com/neyer/respect I think it's doable.
- nosuchthing 9y agoFiltering out everything but the users you have established relationships with will just push you into a filter bubble echo chamber.
- rspeer 9y agoAfter skimming the "respect" idea, I am convinced that echo chambers are the dominant strategy. In fact, make a complete subgraph of order 9 or more of people who respect each other. That subgraph has order-N respect that goes to infinity for anyone who has any respect for any of its members, even transitively.
- MarkPNeyer 9y agoThere are mechansims (see 'soundness') which reward people on the edge between filter bubbles for combining those bubbles. Maintaining a soundness core means resolving disputes between bubbles. My goal is to gradually expand filter bubbles, rather than try to pop them.
- lawrenceyan 9y agoInteresting. So reputation would act as a mediator for decision making then? Those with greater reputation would have more influence, and theoretically this should work because reputation would be gained only when other people notice that the person has done something beneficial/helpful in their eyes. Overall that should result in high reputation values being directly correlated to those who are altruistic and good. It's definitely a cool concept. The main problem being I think is incentive to adopt. Without the weight of reputation having meaning behind it, no one will care and thus the intended effect disappears.
- Taek 9y agoHow would such a reputation system defeat the Sybil attack?
- MarkPNeyer 9y ago
- BaronSamedi 9y agoI think concentration of power is a bigger problem than "mob rule". If certain people or groups are able to acquire the majority of the power in the system, then the egalitarian ideals of decentralization are lost. You have just traded one power (e.g. banks) for another (e.g. the big miners).
- lawrenceyan 9y agoDefinitely true. Both sides of the coin are bad.