3 ms·

"Do you think that a bank or a government would've handled fixing such a flaw as well has optimism did?" It's irrelevant. We don't use 'algorithms as ownership

"Do you think that a bank or a government would've handled fixing such a flaw as well has optimism did?" It's irrelevant. We don't use 'algorithms as ownership' in the real world. We use social agreements like contract law to undo problems. "All tokenization schemes are ponzi scams including USD, it's just that some use violence to stay relevant, and other use bug bounties." We use the law to maintain civil infrastructure. Yes, if someone wants to murder you or someone else, or launder billions, we'll use violence to stop them. An algorithm that is effectively used as a Pyramid Scheme is not going to save your from anything.

__MatrixMan__ 5y ago
It can take years for contract law to get in front of a judge and be enforced, often the damage that can be done in that interval is significant. So I think they timeliness is indeed relevant. As for your murder comment, I'm not saying that violence is strictly unnecessary, just that the coincidence of "we have the guns" with "we issue the ponzi tokens" is probably not the only way to enforce the law.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > the coincidence of "we have the guns" with "we issue the ponzi tokens" is probably not the only way to enforce the law. Not "the only way", perhaps, but AFAICS the only way that makes sense. Sure, "the law is an ass" and "the querns of law grind exceedingly slow" and all that... But still, it's the worst alternative except for having no law, right? So if you want the rule of law, the law needs to have the biggest guns. And why would anyone want anyone but the law to issue the tokens of lawful commerce?