3 ms·

As i predicted then in my statements, a fork would be the start of the downfall of the crypto currency. They smashed the foundation of crypto currency down, the

As i predicted then in my statements, a fork would be the start of the downfall of the crypto currency. They smashed the foundation of crypto currency down, the unbreakable block chain. Solution, just fork it :(

Grangar 9y ago
With wide support of the community.
- hammock 9y ago
  Irrelevant. And the transition of Rome from republic to dictatorship (setting in motion its decline) similarly had wide support of the community, and even began with Pax Romana or 200 years of relative tranquility...
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  You can't have majority ignore the rules just because they are the majority. The software was law. It was disregarded. Now whatever the law is, it's meaningless. Note how in real life, people cannot be prosecuted retroactively. If what they did was a crime at that time, only then will there be punishment.
  - jvdizzle 9y ago
    Actually you can-- look up jury nullification. When the slaves from the southern US started escaping north and towards Canada, many northerners who aided them were put on trial because technically they broke a law because slaves were considered property. The jury would acquit them because they did not believe in the spirit of the law. Some people believe jury nullification is required for a truly democratic justice system. Also in this scenario, the fork is essentially the majority's way of saying "we don't believe in the spirit of this contract, it wasn't meant to behave that way." Obviously, that brings up many complications. But the majority believed that a fork is essential to save the platform and worth the potential split in the community.
- empath75 9y ago
  The community was penny wise and pound foolish. They saved their asses on that one stupid investment and set a terrible precedent that is going to come back to haunt them every time someone releases a smart contract with a bug in it. Either the code is the contract or it isn't. Btw -- what has the DAO even accomplished after they 'saved' it?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > what has the DAO even accomplished after they 'saved' it? It has warned a lot of people to stay the hell away from this kind of construct because it can't be trusted. That's a pretty good accomplishment.
Ajedi32 9y ago
Except it wasn't? Ethereum's doing great right now despite the fork. Seems a little strange to stand by your prediction now when we have the benefit of hindsight and can see pretty clearly that you were wrong.
simias 9y ago
I never understood this argument about how the blockchain would be magically "completely set in stone". It's a bit insane that such a new technology carries so much mythology and cargo culting, to the point where some things are considered sacred. No Other Coins Before Me Thou Shalt Not Attempt To Mutate The Blockchain The blockchain has always been about consensus first and foremost. If a clear majority of the economic power decides to change something then that thing will change. There's nothing magical in the blockchain to prevent that. You can always decide that it's wrong and remain on the "classic" version, but if you don't convince anybody else to follow you there won't be any value. More generally, I don't see how any coder would take the "code is law" thing seriously. All code has its share of bugs. Even if you formally verify it you may still have a bug in your verification code or your assumptions. The tiniest mistake can lead to catastrophe, as we've seen lately. Code isn't law, law itself isn't law, it's how humans apply the law that's law. Removing the human factor from it isn't a feature, it's a terrifying totalitarian dystopia. "Hello sir, the algorithm detected that $10 was missing from your utility bill 12 years ago, with the late fine, processing fees and interests you now owe us $1298.51. Please pay within a week." "I can't pay this and I need to take care of my family. I'll have to mortgage the house!" "I'm sorry sir, code is law. Beep boop." Judge Dredd: blockchain edition.
- fatbird 9y ago
  It's taken seriously because "code is law" is (was) the premise of Ethereum's value. The blockchain isn't about consensus, it's about the use of mathematical (rather than political) consensus to maintain immutability. By removing all the messy human factors and defining it all in terms of cryptographically secure mathematical consensus, it was supposed to be this superior platform, and that's a big part of what drew the techno-libertarian digital nomads to it: the promise of a clean, unambiguous financial system outside human control. Except then they hard forked, proving that political consensus still rules. The benefits of crypto-secured mathematical consensus are still subject to politics and messy human institutions. "Code is law" is a lie. The funny thing is, this is a corner they painted themselves into. If they'd planted their flag only on decentralization, automation and trustlessness, and ignored "code is law", they wouldn't be having this problem today. Ethereum would be a technological advance on what we already accept: human economics.

Grangar 9y ago

With wide support of the community.

hammock 9y ago
Irrelevant. And the transition of Rome from republic to dictatorship (setting in motion its decline) similarly had wide support of the community, and even began with Pax Romana or 200 years of relative tranquility...
dingo_bat 9y ago
You can't have majority ignore the rules just because they are the majority. The software was law. It was disregarded. Now whatever the law is, it's meaningless. Note how in real life, people cannot be prosecuted retroactively. If what they did was a crime at that time, only then will there be punishment.
- jvdizzle 9y ago
  Actually you can-- look up jury nullification. When the slaves from the southern US started escaping north and towards Canada, many northerners who aided them were put on trial because technically they broke a law because slaves were considered property. The jury would acquit them because they did not believe in the spirit of the law. Some people believe jury nullification is required for a truly democratic justice system. Also in this scenario, the fork is essentially the majority's way of saying "we don't believe in the spirit of this contract, it wasn't meant to behave that way." Obviously, that brings up many complications. But the majority believed that a fork is essential to save the platform and worth the potential split in the community.
empath75 9y ago
The community was penny wise and pound foolish. They saved their asses on that one stupid investment and set a terrible precedent that is going to come back to haunt them every time someone releases a smart contract with a bug in it. Either the code is the contract or it isn't. Btw -- what has the DAO even accomplished after they 'saved' it?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > what has the DAO even accomplished after they 'saved' it? It has warned a lot of people to stay the hell away from this kind of construct because it can't be trusted. That's a pretty good accomplishment.

Ajedi32 9y ago

Except it wasn't? Ethereum's doing great right now despite the fork. Seems a little strange to stand by your prediction now when we have the benefit of hindsight and can see pretty clearly that you were wrong.

simias 9y ago

I never understood this argument about how the blockchain would be magically "completely set in stone". It's a bit insane that such a new technology carries so much mythology and cargo culting, to the point where some things are considered sacred. No Other Coins Before Me Thou Shalt Not Attempt To Mutate The Blockchain The blockchain has always been about consensus first and foremost. If a clear majority of the economic power decides to change something then that thing will change. There's nothing magical in the blockchain to prevent that. You can always decide that it's wrong and remain on the "classic" version, but if you don't convince anybody else to follow you there won't be any value. More generally, I don't see how any coder would take the "code is law" thing seriously. All code has its share of bugs. Even if you formally verify it you may still have a bug in your verification code or your assumptions. The tiniest mistake can lead to catastrophe, as we've seen lately. Code isn't law, law itself isn't law, it's how humans apply the law that's law. Removing the human factor from it isn't a feature, it's a terrifying totalitarian dystopia. "Hello sir, the algorithm detected that $10 was missing from your utility bill 12 years ago, with the late fine, processing fees and interests you now owe us $1298.51. Please pay within a week." "I can't pay this and I need to take care of my family. I'll have to mortgage the house!" "I'm sorry sir, code is law. Beep boop." Judge Dredd: blockchain edition.

fatbird 9y ago
It's taken seriously because "code is law" is (was) the premise of Ethereum's value. The blockchain isn't about consensus, it's about the use of mathematical (rather than political) consensus to maintain immutability. By removing all the messy human factors and defining it all in terms of cryptographically secure mathematical consensus, it was supposed to be this superior platform, and that's a big part of what drew the techno-libertarian digital nomads to it: the promise of a clean, unambiguous financial system outside human control. Except then they hard forked, proving that political consensus still rules. The benefits of crypto-secured mathematical consensus are still subject to politics and messy human institutions. "Code is law" is a lie. The funny thing is, this is a corner they painted themselves into. If they'd planted their flag only on decentralization, automation and trustlessness, and ignored "code is law", they wouldn't be having this problem today. Ethereum would be a technological advance on what we already accept: human economics.