Topic: The DAO FAIL - page 5. (Read 20499 times)

You think there will be another DAO adventure ?  Really ?

The point was not to come to just any consensus, but to a "valid" one that implements a given function.  In the case of transactions, that means immutability of the past because that was the monetary principle to be implemented.  The idea was to implement a specific function, and consensus was the means, not the goal.  This is why the block chain needs to remain verifiable from the genesis block onward, with a specific monetary principle implemented.  In the case of a smart contract, that means "unstoppable code".

The idea was not to have a kind of "community that comes to consensus, just ANY consensus", but rather to have that that consensus came down to an immutable past and a given monetary principle.  Otherwise, you can just vote on a spread sheet and no block chain has to be maintained containing the past, only to maintain the vote.  People's holdings are then decided every weekend by voting (independent of any transactions you might have done).

The immutability and the monetary principle could be maintained as a consensus between sufficiently disparate and greedy entities that could not collude.  That was the brilliant invention of Satoshi.  Of course, from the moment that they collude, they can do anything, but that was recognized, and is nothing else but a 51% attack.  ETH is nothing else but the result of a 51% attack on ETC.

Consensus had to be understood in the same way as "price" is in a free market.  Consensus by collusion is called a cartel and destroys the free market function.  A 51% attack is nothing else but a majority cartel forming, and coming to another market price by collusion.  That is ETH.

I wonder how you would feel if it was your money.

It's yet to be seen, personally I think ETC should win because they are sticking to the good morals of not breaking the chain because of smart contracts going against holder's money.. that is bankster mentality. Let banks fail, let smart contracts fail.

Perhaps for you.

Well, without a profit motive, and only with (so-called) generous, (so-said) altruistic, collaborative people, the block chain concept wouldn't work, and would be totally exposed to one rotten apple.

But the profit motive has to induce sufficient antagonism, or it won't work either.  What we saw with ETH was that there was a profit motive all right (that would in principle make it work) but there was too much collusion and collaboration between the entities, which made the fork possible.  Too many greedy people with important roles (say, devs) had a common goal: getting bailed out.  They all looked in the same direction, even though they were greedy.  That was the reason for the failure of the block chain immutability.

That said, the thing resolved in an amazing way: those that colluded, have now their own, bailed out, block chain, and the very small minority of non-colluders have their own, original copy running.  


Well, I think it doesn't really matter: the dream of ethereum is dead in any case.  There won't, for a very very long time, be complex monsters like the DAO running on ETH and/or ETC.   Little Ponzi games like this one:

http://themerkle.com/ponzi-scheme-meets-smart-contracts-with-ethereum-piggybank/

and

https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/6439/etheramid-multi-level-social-invitation-game-no-ponzi

and, who knows, maybe smart bicycle locks are now the realistic ambitions of ETH and or ETC.

And yes, you can use ETH, because for small game, there won't be bail out forks and the chain will be reliable too.



No, ETH failed to solve the Byzantine Generals problem because of too much collusion of interests.  ETC has succeeded in keeping this solution, even though only a minority of former ETH users think so.  It is a bet of which the outcome is uncertain, but I'd think that the ETC people are potentially in a better position than the ETH people.

After all, most of the value of ETH came from the dream of megalo smart contracts.  A significant part of ETH was locked up in the DAO, which was the "engine" of the value rise.  The DAO holders were of course the first line winners of the dream, but the whole ETH holders went up with it.   But given that the DAO is dead, and probably most dreams of DAO like projects which were the driving force behind the ETH value, are dead now, rationally, the ETH must be strongly over valued.  So the ETC price may be much, much more in line with the value of a tiny smart contract ponzi game platform than the market cap of ETH, which has no much growth space any more.

That said, ETH is of course also a simple crypto currency, and there's no reason why ETH wouldn't thrive as a crypto currency.  Maybe institutional investors in normal crypto even find a value in the bail out precedent of ETH, and consider that Vitalik and the ETH people are reasonable people one can talk to if one has difficulties, and they will find a solution for you.

So in my opinion, ETH is, after the fall of the DAO, and all DAO-like dreams, now strongly over valued, but on the other hand, a bail-out crypto currency is maybe something institutional investors may find attractive.  In other words, what was lacking in crypto land was a rewindable block chain for important people, and there might very well be a huge institutional demand for that.  ETH has all its reasons of existence there, being the first such currency having shown that block chains don't have to be immutable, and transactions don't have to be irreversible - at least for important people, not for small players.  I'm sure that that proposition has a big market: a crypto that can bail out important people, but that keeps the small people play by the rules. 

I thought we were talking about the DAO failure, ETH and ETC.
I neither trust or don't trust the profit motive. It is what it is. So far, it is ensuring that ETH will survive and ETC will be relegated to the DOGE class.

Your belief in the power of the profit motive to align incentive structures and your belief in the superiority of ETC over ETH are contradictory.

~LOL~

Well put; great answer.

I'm always surprised to hear from people who don't trust, nor understand, the profit motive and its critical role in aligning Bitcoin's incentive structure.

It's weird to find Marxists and other anti-capitalists here on BTCT of all places!   

But they are very welcome to sell me their ETC and continue playing make-believe with Chancellor Butarin's SocialJusticeCoin.

 So many hopes...so much waste... :-\never know what worth believing! Bad story 

aka consensus, very likely because of a profit motive

No, it is the other way around.  The profit motive is not a way to compromise the system, but it is the engine of the system.  The whole trick was to make a system of which a solution of the Byzantine General Problem EMERGES from mutually untrustworthy, but hopefully very greedy, entities.

The block chain solution is not perfect, but attempts at such a system, and the *condition* is that there is sufficient decentralization and animosity between players, very much like a free market, which solves the problem of allocating resources and solving problems of scarcity by putting A LOT of mutually hostile entities together.

ETH failed in that respect, because there was too much centralisation: one BIG failing contract, and miners/developers/shareholders all colluding around that contract. 

I'll have to think about that for a bit.

Miners, being concerned mostly with making a profit, are going to mine the most profitable chain, where profit is not just the calculated current value but has some expectations for future value built in. I don't think they care about the BGP.

Now, we talk about consensus but don't we really mean profitability to mine ?

You (collectively) can waffle on about  theories of social justice and the right or wrong way to run a block chain but some might assert that all crypto-token systems are already compromised by the introduction of a profit motive.

And some might assert that the right way to run a block chain is the way the majority of miners and users prefer.

Have you ever heard of the "Byzantine Generals' Problem?"

The solution (or workaround) relies on immutable reusable-proof-of-work ledgers, rather than Sybil (and Stalin) vulnerable social network consensus.

The rational for bailing out the troubled DAO asset relies on some flawed Rawlsian interpretation of redistributive social justice, and that's no way to run a blockchain.   

oh man so sad 
a lot of wasted time to get dao coin but ........... 

Good to see that we are getting some clarity now on the real issues. Generalized religious statements about immutability don't do anybody any good and confuse many of the less experienced trading on Polo, where the troll box is full of this crap.


The immutability of a block chain is a secondary property which is a function of the strength of consensus.

AEON ?

That is right. a 51% of attack can kill a chain. The ETC hash rate is 300GH/s at the moment, if it reduces further, it might be attacked.

As long as one miner like to continue mining the fork of a coin, it will split into two chains. But one chain will die eventually.

but not to bail out investors. of a third party
and the bitcoin and monero didnt split in two ? or are there now monero 1 and 2 ?
know what they had true real consensus. not the propaganda of consensus.