Bitcoin discussion and news
- Thread starter camouflage
- Start date
I assert that some people here who are against crypto, keep trying to reframe the debate as crypto v pounds sterling, when it's not. Whether they are being thick or disengenous, I don't know, but I suspect it's being disengenous because no matter how many times I repeat my views, the same people keep trying to drag me into a pointless debate about what money is, as if somehow I'm arguing for something to replace money.
A car is superior to a bike, but no one is suggesting that we all use cars to go to the corner shop.
So pack in the strawman arguments please.
They're not. No DAOs should be regulated. There should not be a "DAO Act 2022".
Unions are regulated and as such, if unions find advantages in using DAOs then existing legislation concerning the regulations of unions would need to be updated to help unions in their asperations.
I'm no expert in trade union law, but a trade union may want to take advantage of the technology to involve their members much more and existing legislation may frustrate them.
That's why it's more important and relevant that regulations are focused on the type of organisation, who it's members / stakeholders are and what they are trying to achieve.
I'm being logicial here. Why on Earth would you want legislation around 20 lines of code, that is nothing more than a template, a near blank canvas, that isn't much more than a multi-sig wallet? Any legislation there would bring in restrictions before anyone has even started to do anything, including software developers. You would only want that if you was hellbent on frustrating the use of the technology in the first place.
Who is trying to destroy those social systems? Look if you believe people should be employed in non-jobs that carry a high risk of corruption, just come out and say it.
To be fair, in my last response to this, I misread it.
Organisations (Even if they are a DAO themselves) that audit smart contracts, can't be regulated, because who would regulate them?
I don't believe for one minute you would be happy with the Americans being in charge.
So this kind of comes back to what a government is. What if a government were still to be a government, but it becomes a collection of DAOs?
It's through social consensus that we decide the government is an authority by voting for them.
Taking it further and crypto were to have 95% adoption.
Does it matter whether the government becomes a collection of DAOs or the people decide a collection of DAOs is the government?
Last edited:
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
So are many other organisations
This seems to be advocating no regulation, but you have on multiple occasions stated that Union and Political Party DAO should be regulated above non-regulation of other DAOs why?
BIB
Here is the code for Board Yacht Ape Club and this has the function of buying and selling ugly apes.
Well I was going to post it in a Spoiler, but for some reason, the forum software won't let me post 2021 lines or 70,973 characters of code.
Being wrong by 2 orders of magnitude is pretty wrong.
Some analysis https://betterprogramming.pub/bored...ct-breakdown-6c254c774394[/SPOILER][/SPOILER]
Implying or possibly inferring that most Smart Contracts are longer.
Each sector has bodies that lobby government and they will lobby government for crypto regulations if they believe it helps their sector. I'm wondering whether we actually mean the same thing but somehow misunderstand each other.
I've no problem with regulations around DAOs but logcially it should be spread out to concern the each sector under legislation for each sector.
Because a DAO in it's simplist form is just a mutli sig wallet.
So imagine two of my friends pop around to my house and I setup a rainy day beer money club and between the three of us we chuck some money in each week, to save up for the mother of a bender.
What business is that of the government? Why does that need regulation?
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
Why is a SmartContract for something more complicated e.g. business-to-business contracts, going to have a simpler SmartContract than selling shit pictures of Apes?
Could be a number of different reasons but if I had to bet on it, probably lazy programming on the part of bored yacht club. We can all sit it, go "urghhhh" and not buy it. Is there a point you're trying to make?
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
You still have not explained why Unions need special consideration for the regulation of their Smart Contracts.
You're trying to drag us down a pointless cul-de-sac here.
We was arguing about regulation and DAOs. DAOs don't need regulating, regardless of how many lines of code it needs to program something.
You're failed to answer a simple question. If I have a basic DAO that is between just me and some friends, why does it need to be regulated?
I know it comes natural to you, but please stop lying. I can handle your lies, but I'm genuinly concerned for your mental health because of the way you knock out lies on an industrial level.
I have never alluded, implied or said that unions need special consideration of their smart contracts.
All entities that are regulated, may need their appropriate regulatory laws updated so that they are empowered to use innovative emerging technologies such as smart contracts. Because you're incredibly thick, I used two examples, trade unions and poltiical parties in the hope that you might understand. It wears me down a bit, but I bravely soldier on, like the trooper that I am.
Of course it matters how complex it is. The basis of regulation is (1) how much information asymmetry is there between parties; (2) how much power asymmetry is there between parties; and (3) how much does the product matter. If there is complexity in the code that the parties are relying on, that blows up point 1.
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
So Fuck you for accusing me of lying and questioning my Mental Health
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Don't do that. Call people cunts if you want, but don't do that.
Stop lying then. And you are lying. I told you in plain English many times that unions shouldn't be treated any differently, so if you allege once more that I think they should be treated differently, then I'll block you. I've told you about 4 or 5 times now they shouldn't be treated differently.
I've told you that many entities are already regulated and their existing legislation may need to be brought up to date. I made it perfectly clear that I used unions and political parties as examples.
You know exactly the point I'm driviing at, it is the regulators for each sector that needs to regulate, not some central regulator that simply regulates defi so there is no way that it can be practically used.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Inappropriate Language
I clarified my position 4 or 5 times over, yet that cretin cunt whatever comes back pretending that I've got some kind of issue against unions.
1+ 2 Both parties can work that out by reading the code, number 3 would be apparant by the result not the payload.
Oh my god you are CLUELESS about the things you are talking about. You think you have expertise in subjects that people literally spend their lives studying, and you know literally nothing about those subjects.
The whole basis of regulation is that people CANNOT just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and thus achieve 1 and 2 merely by the sweat of their brow. There will always be power relations embedded into any system. And there will always be knowledge disparity.
Why don’t you go and tell heart surgeons what they should be doing differently too, for your next trick.
I mean, let’s just go and tell Jack the 21 year-old builder’s mate, who left school at 16 and has the average reading age of the country, which is nine years old, that he just has to make sense of 2000 lines of code in order to trust that the union representing him isn’t ripping him off. No problems with that at all.
This is what I mean when I say that things have to be embedded in their social context. You can’t abstract it and create a context-free universal code.
This is what I mean when I say that things have to be embedded in their social context. You can’t abstract it and create a context-free universal code.
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
I wonder how they are defining "fake" .
More Than Half Of All Bitcoin Trades Are Fake
A new Forbes analysis of 157 crypto exchanges finds that 51% of the daily bitcoin trading volume being reported is likely bogus.www.forbes.com
There are certainly bots running on centralised exchanges, I had a go at setting one up myself as a side project. But they arent fake as such, they are just following an algorithmic strategy, rather than an actual human pressing a button. I smell human supremacy here tbh.
OK, I'll have a go.
StakerOne will probably take issue with me here, but IMHO all the fiat value of crypto is really bitcoin, just diffused into different projects. If you take the total crypto market, the 4 year cycle holds true. The reason it holds true is because the fiat value of bitcoin has a relationship with the summed fiat cost of providing energy to the bitcoin network since its inception, but the four year halvings are causing spikes.
The current relationship between the fiat price of energy and bitcoin is not linear for all kinds of reasons, mainly because very little energy has so far been supplied. As btc started to hit 10% of global energy production (currrently 0.55%), it the volitility will decrease significantly. By the time it attains 50%, fiat will be a distant memory.
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
This is a good question tho. As kabbes probably already knows, my answer would be that I would give up sterling in a heartbeat.
With your system StakerOne there is a fair chance that at somepoint you could have KYC troubles with coinbase and be unable to convert to sterling, maybe a bit of tornadoed cash came your way, or a fuck up at the passport office leaves you in identity limbo.
Thats when you need bitcoin.
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
You would be forking the chain if you did that.
Its certainly possible that someone could do that with Bitcoin, but what you would end up with is [Bitcoin] and [Bitcoin with transactions removed]. People would be free to use both or either. Essentially the same situation as Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, just with more steps.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Yeah i know, the context was talking about PoA blockchains not a public distributed chain like bitcoin.
And stakers claim that blockchains are the only form of database that are immutable when there are plenty of others that have a fixed audit trail, which is what a blockchain provides.
Except with something like sage accounts there exists no mechanism like forking to change that audit trail, so they are in fact less mutable (is that a word?) than a blockchain is in practice, since they can be changed if there is consensus to do so (which is easy to reach on a PoA chain obviously)
Similar threads
