Topic: [ANN] Ethereum: Welcome to the Beginning - page 883. (Read 2007090 times)
It is simply unacceptable waste of DAO, which like it or not a project is taking place within the ETH, after all that happened, go to the ground, recovering herself, and worth more than several promising currencies like Decred and Vcash is ... a slap in the face of devs committed to the crypto universe.
Time to move on ...
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-smart-contracts-safeguards/
..............counterparty will introduce a series of safeguards into its Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) on the Bitcoin blockchain – including a ban on rollbacks, author responsibility for smart contracts and a deactivation switch controlled by community vote..............
..............counterparty will introduce a series of safeguards into its Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) on the Bitcoin blockchain – including a ban on rollbacks, author responsibility for smart contracts and a deactivation switch controlled by community vote..............
So the fork is to direct everyone from the actul problem the dao
that is to solve the problem of the DAO. It will lock the stolen 3.6 million coins.. The DAO will be dissolved any way.
So the fork is to direct everyone from the actul problem the dao
I left Ethereum a few weeks back. Its been an insane ride. Man people get so blinded when they are so deeply involved. I believe in the tech, but right now they is too much madness around the table. Lets let the dust settle and see what we have.
wise advice
I left Ethereum a few weeks back. Its been an insane ride. Man people get so blinded when they are so deeply involved. I believe in the tech, but right now they is too much madness around the table. Lets let the dust settle and see what we have.
saving is a good thing but the tools they will use will show what ethic they follow
i hope it is not the bailout too big to fail ethic
the quetions will be
are we different ?
i hope it is not the bailout too big to fail ethic
the quetions will be
are we different ?
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote.
you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.
This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...
the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change...
You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...
but that change was the right thing to do. u know what happen in real world if a bug by the bank give you million of free money
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydney-airport-over-alleged-fraud/7385482
I guess they were not stealing if they never receive the money or spend it...
but you were right, counter attack like these put those ppl in the same crimescene as the original attacker. only fork can help them now as the project initiator, i guess ethereum/DAO dev has right to rectify mistake and bug that plagued their program.
The intention matters. The first attack was to steal. The second attack by the white hat was to save the DAO.
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote.
you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.
This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...
the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change...
You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...
but that change was the right thing to do. u know what happen in real world if a bug by the bank give you million of free money
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydney-airport-over-alleged-fraud/7385482
I guess they were not stealing if they never receive the money or spend it...
but you were right, counter attack like these put those ppl in the same crimescene as the original attacker. only fork can help them now as the project initiator, i guess ethereum/DAO dev has right to rectify mistake and bug that plagued their program.
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote.
you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.
This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...
the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change...
You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...
but that change was the right thing to do. u know what happen in real world if a bug by the bank give you million of free money
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydney-airport-over-alleged-fraud/7385482
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote.
you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.
This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...
the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change...
You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...
but that change was the right thing to do. u know what happen in real world if a bug by the bank give you million of free money
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydney-airport-over-alleged-fraud/7385482
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote.
you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.
This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...
the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change...
You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...
but objectivly the same can be said or asumed for the contra position no vote is a no couse if the notvoter dont like what is done they leave the pool ? am i right they are free to go ?
and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ?
i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?
and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ?
i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?
yes leaving is easy, but why leaving if you can vote and change the pool outcome
That is right. I will vote for the change or the fork. No vote no say. If you do not agree with the soft fork, vote no.
but objectivly the same can be said or asumed for the contra position no vote is a no couse if the notvoter dont like what is done they leave the pool ? am i right they are free to go ?
and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ?
i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?
and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ?
i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?
yes leaving is easy, but why leaving if you can vote and change the pool outcome
but objectivly the same can be said or asumed for the contra position no vote is a no couse if the notvoter dont like what is done they leave the pool ? am i right they are free to go ?
and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ?
i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?
and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ?
i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote.
you still didn't get it?
Forking means, that they have to install a new client.
This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal.
This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...
the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing.
btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
the fork might not happen
voting or not might not make a folk happen
voting or not might not make a folk happen
Whats your reasoning?
I don't believe that to be true at all!
Just saying..
the fork might not happen
voting or not might not make a folk happen
voting or not might not make a folk happen
Whats your reasoning?
I don't believe that to be true at all!
Just saying..
the fork might not happen
voting or not might not make a folk happen
voting or not might not make a folk happen
Jump to: