Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 1092. (Read 9723733 times)

I agree, the hard fork option has a few drawbacks. The biggest is the fact that you are bailing out one DAO, so how do you justify failure to bail out other DAOs in the future? You are setting a precedent, which leads to moral hazard (same as the banks in the U.S.), or you are acting unfairly to future DAOs that have problems.

You also have a very, very serious conflict of interest problem. Many of the original (and current) Ethereum devs are clesely tied to (or heavily invested in) theDAO. Tual was one of the founding members of the project, and even though he left last year, it still looks like favoritism to bail out his project. Even worse, in an attempt to show confidence and solidarity, Vitalik announced that he's purchased some theDAO tokens himself! No he is no longer impartial and unbiased--he has skin in the game and it's in his best interest for a hard fork to occur.

Moral hazard is a very powerful thing, as is the appearance of impropriety. Both can have very long tails.

Why Use Dash?
 
http://dashpaymagazine.com/index.php/2016/06/19/why-use-dash/

Warren Buffet never invests a dime in a business he doesn't understand. Among others, he never invested in the dot com boom (and bust), which means he missed Amazon and eBay, but also missed Pets.com and Excite@Home.

The problem with investing in these DAOs is that I don't understand them, nor do most people. The hype just became so great that folks starting throwing their money at these things, and as tok said, it was totally predictable that something like this was going to happen sooner or later. It's better that it happened now.

Here's the thing: if people put money in Dash, they have to trust the Bitcoin codebase, which as been thoroughly pentested over the last seven years. The code that we've added along the way handles such things as masternodes, governance, privacy and the like, but the basic "is my money safe?" is handled by the underlying Bitcoin code, which as far as anybody knows, is rock solid.

If I invest in an Ethereum-based DAO, I have to do two things. First, I have to trust the underlying code that powers the Ethereum network...code that is less than a year old and has not yet stood the test of time. Secondly, I then have to trust the programming of the DAO itself (which was the problem with "theDAO"). Third, I have to trust that economic incentives are not misaligned. That's three things that I have to trust. Ethereum can do everything right, and as far as I know they did, and people can still screw up the Solidity coding.

Too many layers to that onion.

P.S. What I don't see anybody saying is this: the proposed hard fork is mostly just going to help speculators. At least half of the "original" theDAO token owners have already sold their tokens (look at the volume over the last few days). All this controversy, and it's mostly speculators who will benefit from the hardfork!

DASH WORLD three months in -- a "mid-month" update

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/dash-world-three-months-in-a-mid-month-update.9215/

MNATH

I have really liked the latest budget proposals. Great job.

DASH public awareness (please downvote this proposal!)

This proposal has served it's purpose and has been retired in favor of other new projects. Please vote "NO" on this proposal to actively remove it from the payment queue. Thanks!
https://www.dashwhale.org/p/public-awareness
------------------------------------------------------------

So we are good on the fiat gateway funding? That's completed now?

When Dash will be included in Lamassu project?

Essential reading about the Lightning network.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4omp3e/thunder_and_lightning_in_the_bitcoin_world/d4e03an

https://twitter.com/gabrieldvine/status/744037658620493824

The more I indulge in Ethereum and Bitcoin superstructure tech, the better Dash keeps looking. Can't escape it. It has the right balance of monetary and technical innovation without going to the off-the-chart extremes that the other two are which makes them overshoot the objective and capsize.

It also means that he earns much more than $2000/mo by conducting such manipulation, time and effort included. Probably holding a large short position. What can be a disaster for investors can be a "to the moon" for shorters at the same time.

Proposal: Infrastructure - Basic Needs

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/proposal-infrastructure-basic-needs.9207/

Crossposted from the Dash Forum:

I would like to express my thanks to the Dash community for the support you've shown me so far in the voting. I am already extremely motivated to build the Dash community, and making me a blockchain employee would make it official (and on a more humorous note, it would keep my wife off my back for spending the majority of my free time promoting Dash ).

Please continue to support me as I am still a few votes away from being funded. I love you all.

https://www.dashwhale.org/p/tao-community-lead

Thanks again,

Tao.

Exactly, that wall is just to push the price down and fish cheaper DASH at the bottom...

Today's sitting and thought why put on sell- side 25k if you could create 25 mn ? if I think right then people are currently losing money because in a month with 25 mn can earn $ 2,000 per month ..
Lets count- 1 mn gives 10 Dash . So ... 25 mn x10 is 250 Dash/per month  multiplying to 8$ is outcome of $ 2,000..
and secondly the current sell price is not actually at moment...

Time to think smart

Gee, for some reason, this sounds SO familiar!  Hummmm, is there a project today that has such implementations planned?  Maybe one that has a multi tiered network that could do this type of work?  Gosh, I feel like it's just on the tip of my tongue..........

The beauty of having different opinions on this is that there is clearly not a right answer, but if there was an opt-in pre-established mechanism on the contract that said:

"In case of a software issue on the contract, theft or a black swan event a quorum of nodes from the network would be randomly selected to arbitrate and decide on a course of action. If the decision of said quorum is not satisfactory then a full quorum could be requested and all nodes of the network could vote on the situation."

Requesting a decision from the arbitration system would have a cost of X to avoid spamming, requesting a full quorum arbitration would have a cost of X + Y.

If something like that was established then you could have a full quorum vote in this case, as established in the contract ahead of time and you would not be breaking protocol. People would have different opinions but the network could make a decision faster and move on.

Right now all we have is an ethical dilemma with no conflict resolution mechanism and the pretense that the code should solve this:

"In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?"


If we compare this to a decentralized network, everyone all the passengers should be the captain, this way a decision can be made and there is no one to judge afterwards or at least all the stakeholders are responsible for their faith. In the case of Ethereum no one established an arbitration mechanism and that just complicates things. IMHO.

Edit: Just to clarify one thing, I don't think they should be forking every time a contract breaks. Maybe they should not even fork this time as nothing was established ahead of time, but they should certainly embed some conflict resolution method into the protocol for the future and it can't be if a contract breaks to no fault of the stakeholders then everyone on the contract gets inevitably  fucked. Who would want to use a contracting system like that? Things don't always go perfect you need to plan for when they go wrong.

Very well put - and great summary overall. Exactly what I was thinking about "biting them in the ass". (Well, "me" in the ass as well cos I have a few Ether floating around LoL, though I didn't invest in the DAO cos something like this was about as predictable as a storm in winter).

I saw it the other way from you though - I thought the only right thing to do was to not fork since the principles of isolating the rest of the network from the logic of any particular DAP were paramount and by forking you would be breaking something that has actually worked, since the failure resides wholly within the logic of the DAO code (which I think is written in Solidity). Thats where the risk should stay as well (and will stay unless they fork the entire Ethereum blockchain).

However, you're taking more humanitarian view which may be a more grown up approach right enough. i.e. "just give the people their money since the whole thing's f*cked anyway and it'll minimise the misery".

The problem with that is that if you break those underlying principles of a scripting platform blockchain (isolation of logic and risk) their "money" might not be worth anything anyway.

Massive catch 22.

Just wanted to share a few thoughts that came to mind after reading Ira's article. The notion that the attacker did nothing wrong is disingenuous he obviously moved money away from the control of the rightful owners by using a weakness of the smart contract and these people are now affected. Having said that, the reason why it is controversial is a weakness of Ethereum, this idea of autonomy that they sold is biting them in the ass.

The concept of contracting smart or not is by definition broader than just a payment network like in the case of Bitcoin where the integrity of the ledger is paramount.  Contracts in general need governance, is rare to find a contract that does not have an arbitration clause, but the Ethereum platform did not include any sort of arbitration method in their protocol and did not establish this method in the contract when it was created. Now that the contract breaks there is a void as to how to proceed and they are waking up to the reality that their idea of autonomy in contracting is flawed, so from that perspective the people that favor the attacker as the rightful owner of the coins under the Ethereum protocol have a point because you can't change the rules ex post facto.

The point is the Ethereum protocol as it exists with its pretense of code autonomy and without a pre-established method of arbitration for breaking contracts is not adequate for many real life contracting situations. I don't think the censorship resistance of a network comes from being automated, in my opinion it comes from being decentralized.  When you have people that operate nodes of the network all over the globe and that are located in many different jurisdictions it makes it harder to attack or coerce, so a large enough network of people distributed across the globe, using a pre-established decision making process should be able to come to an objective consensus over an issue.

But there was no arbitration mechanism pre-established on The Dao contract when it was created, so trying to introduce one ex-post facto makes the system look inadequate and weak and gives the attacker a point.   I still think the humanitarian thing to do is to get these people their money even if it damages the Ethereum project forever.

They should not have taken that kind of money to begin with that was really irresponsible and now that they lost the money they can't just tell the people fuck you. They should get the people their ether and then let the chips fall where they may even if it kills the project forever.  The only other alternative I see is they could catch the attackers and get them to return the money, that could also be a solution.

There's a lot of controversy over whether he is actually the hacker. Apparently his signature was incorrect. Fascinating ideas though--along with the promise to bribe miners if they don't update!

 
SO MN count coming back to the ATH.