It is great. But far from perfect.
Bitcoin discussion and news
- Thread starter camouflage
- Start date
You're taking away the government from the equation. Please.
You know full true well there is an unheathly relationship between governments, corporations and NGOs, bypassing all forms of democracy.
An awful lot of stuff is being decided at the WEF and we're not getting a say at all.
It's not my first cycle. I got stuck in circa 2015. I would say I've seen two boom cycles and we've been on a roller coaster ride since the pandemic.
Ethereum isn't making any mistakes.
Yes you can get burnt by tokens from projects which are just smart contracts.
The smart contracts can be read.
How do you know there are multisigs? Because someone bothered to read the smart contract code!
That's the solution, the code is law. Otherwise we are back to being permissioned, taking us back to square one.
Bitcoin and Ethereum are two completely different animals.
Bitcoin has one job and one job only - immutable, unconfiscatble, permissionless, digital gold. That's it. It's perfect for that job, because pefection is when you can't take anything away from it.
Ethereum isn't perfect for the job (but it's close) because if you take one thing away from it, it could still be used as digital gold. Remember, if you can take away, it ain't perfection, meaning that bitcoin has a smaller security footprint.
Ethereum is a programmable world computer. It's there for general purpose use.
Like bitcoin it's permissionless and immutable.
It doesn't have governance built into the blockchain, because the community generally holds the view that it would be too big a security and flexibility hit to impliment.
The community also knew that we would take a lot of flak over the fact that a scammer can mint tokens etc.
As for th decentralisation of a project, if there are multisigs on it, people should always factor that into risk and price.
There are plenty of projects out there that start out centralised then decentralise by eventually destroying the private keys, but of course scammers don't.
Ironically, this is why I tell people that the best way to get involved is to spend very very small amounts of money, using various crypto projects, rather than putting in hard earned savings into anything. There's absolutely no need for normal people to put thousands of pounds of their savings into any crypto project.
I've seen something about an "Arbitrum fiasco" into the headlines, but I don't know much about it.
There is a lot of positive stuff being built on Ethereum. A good youtube channel to keep up with all the good stuff (and sometimes bad) is this youtube channel:
Remember the OFAC sanctions and when you had concerns about centralisation on Ethereum? How do you feel about that now? Because that's been moving in the right direction for months.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
I'm not taking government out of the equation. That's like the complete opposite of what I was doing. In that post I was literally pointing out that there are hundreds of different governments on this planet. That includes the thousands of corporations and NGOs you mentioned. You think all of that splintered mess is somehow co-ordinated on a global scale?
The WEF is a talking shop for rich pieces of shit. But they're not the only one, so why are you fixated on them as if they somehow have executive power over this chaotic and complicated world we live in? I know it's tempting to want to settle for simple explanations like some shadowy cabal pulling all the strings from the background, but that's a coping mechanism in order to avoid facing up to the much more scary reality that nobody has any hands on the world's brakes, all the "adults" are too busy squabbling with each other to pay attention to steering the whole thing, and there are a number of quite frightening corners coming up on this slippery mountain road the world is travelling along.
Well, the one I'm familiar with is the Decentraland DAO, but apparently that's No True Scotsman according to you, so I guess I'll have to settle for whole "buying votes" nonsense as a reason for questioning the democratic claims of DAOs.
It depends on the DAO whether votes can be bought or not.
As I keep telling you it's down to the code.
So I ask the question.
How would you know a DAO is democratic or not?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
That's not on me to prove, is it? The burden of evidence rests on the shoulders of the one making the claim. I've seen no evidence that DAOs are democratic, indeed I've seen evidence of the opposite.
Power under neoliberalism definitely does not operate from any kind of centre. It’s the epitome of decentralisation. It operates instead through “governmentality” — the subjective absorption of the norms of the institution within which one is embedded. There is considerable power located in the dominant groups within such institutions, since they set the norms, but this power only extends to a localised level. Where one social function clashes at a foundational/assumption level with a different social function, the leaders of each function very quickly discover the limits of their ability to act on the actions of others. Business leaders are kings of their domain but were powerless to stop Brexit, for example. Politicians had limited power to direct a health epidemic. Power within a social function operates by pastors of the localised norms attending to and documenting the subjective needs of their flock, thus directing the flock to think like they do. However, when they meet those of differing governmentality, it results in a clash, not a centralised plan.
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
StakerOne - go read the arbitrum forum.
Bad things happened. Things that should not happen in web3. I love ethereum and its L2s, but its highly experimental, and it is not good for its survival to ignore serious problems and wave them away with "too hard".
Multisigs for DAOs are bad things. No true dao should have a multisig without having a clear plan for how to get rid of that source of centralisation. Compound's governor contract and some of the stuff built on Safesnap can get rid of them, but people are complacent about them.
Do you follow Chris Blec on twitter? He will tell you of the evils of multisigs at create lengths at periodic intervals throughout the day.
Bad things happened. Things that should not happen in web3. I love ethereum and its L2s, but its highly experimental, and it is not good for its survival to ignore serious problems and wave them away with "too hard".
Multisigs for DAOs are bad things. No true dao should have a multisig without having a clear plan for how to get rid of that source of centralisation. Compound's governor contract and some of the stuff built on Safesnap can get rid of them, but people are complacent about them.
Do you follow Chris Blec on twitter? He will tell you of the evils of multisigs at create lengths at periodic intervals throughout the day.
BristolEcho
Well-Known Member
Is it really shocking? I'm not sure. You were bigging it up the other week and a quick look through Reddit and forums said there were already a lot of people unhappy and calling it out.My offer to send sats on the lightning network to anyone who would like one still stands btw
Indeed. Arbitrum's behaviour has been quite shocking.
If people want to follow along with the drama, there is a whole lot of it over on the Arbitrum forums
Clarity around the ratification of AIP-1
This continues to be my largest concerns with DAOs. Votes are just recommendations rather than reality. Why give us the ability to vote if the decisions will continue to be made by the small group of people who are signing the multi sig. We are so far from decentralization that we should...forum.arbitrum.foundation
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
The Arbitrum DAO didn't follow the DAO vote. A project you said you are involved with and received an airdrop from. In the Artbitrum case, it doesn't matter whether or not the DAO votes can be bought, if the results of the vote were ignored.
What is your solution to this problem?
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
Not quite, it turns out that those who held the private keys on the DAO's behalf, transferred out a large amount (7.5%) before the vote, on the assumption that the vote would easily pass. This was noticed while the vote was going on. The fact that they could do this is a massive problem (knowns as the agent-principal issue). Solving this issue is hard, esp when going from a centralised foundation to a decentralised dao, but essentially the people entrusted to dissolve the requirement for trust, abused that trust.
My thoughts are on the arbitrum forum.
Suffice to say, I'm not happy about it, and I think its a major setback for Arbitrum. Optimism is looking much more viable as the primary L2 rollup.
(edit - oh, that was aimed at StakerOne, not me, but yeah, not happy about it)
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
Same difference really; in that the DAO Vote has no reflection on what the people in the DAO actually do and all DOAs, apart from maybe a few limited software only DAOs will need humans to do something. Those humans may not do. But there's very little you can do, as it's not regulated.
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
There are solutions to this, which is what people are calling for to be implimented. Its not that it cant be done, its that they didnt do it.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Same as the non-crypto world, then? Loads of the world's problems have solutions if only those with the power to implement them were inclined to do so.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
As soon as the actions of the DAO step outside the set of actions that can be performed on a blockchain, how exactly can they be enforced by it? "The result of the vote says you need to mix the batter for 2 minutes" "Ok, I have digitally signed the 'I mixed the batter for 2 minutes' certificate, please pay me the 0.001 cryptocents due" "Ok, your certificate checks out as legitimate, here's your 0.001 cryptocents."
"Hey this cake is rubbish! Did you mix the batter for 2 minutes?"
"I sure did. Must have been the person who put the cake in the oven. Did they sign their 'I put the cake in the oven' certificate?"
"Hey this cake is rubbish! Did you mix the batter for 2 minutes?"
"I sure did. Must have been the person who put the cake in the oven. Did they sign their 'I put the cake in the oven' certificate?"
Good job I didn't buy a load of tokens for it then.
Fucking seriously.
You know they can ignore the vote because there is no code that forces anything ergo you have that to take that into consideration.
If you don't like it, don't buy the governance token until they have code built in that respects the vote.
Easy.
You're saying in effect that a technology is shite because some projects aren't using it to it's full potential.
It's like saying "Urban 75 is a prime example of why PHP is just so fucking shit!"
Wtf??
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Crypto answer to this is oracles and in this case you actually could setup a pollution monitor on the river which would link to an oracle that would automatically fine the company if pollution breached certain levels.
Of course that leads you to a different set of problems when someone else pollutes the river or with the question of how the pollution monitor can be ensured to be properly calibrated and placed etc. But it's not an issue of the smart contract.
What oracles can't deal with is people lying when people are the only input into the system or the are multiple states and it can only see the final one without knowing where in the process something has gone wrong.
They can be good in certain circumstances but it assumes you can set up something where bad actors are excluded from inputting.
Last edited:
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
So just as soon as all the crypto people are excluded crypto will be great?
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Not just the crypto people, all the people!
Let crypto exist in it's own world, completely disconnected from everything else with AI bots creating smart contracts between themselves. It'll be paradise!
q_w_e_r_t_y
You see an investment scam and I see divinity
This is a problem that a number of web3 organisations are struggling with.
Lots of web3 protocols are scrappily built with devs living on savings while they build v1 of something, obtain network effects, and capture that value in their token, but if you want to do something big and push boundaries (optimistic rollups are very new tech) you need to work with other people who also understand this highly technical area. But these people already in well, or at least reasonably paid jobs - university lecturers, FAANG coders, or blockchain engineers already working on other web3 projects, so you need money.
Venture capitalists look for promising shiny new things and offer them seed money to build...but you dont have anything to build a DAO around, so you set up a company, but taxation law is a nightmare for crypto companies as its so unclear, token prices are so variable, so taxation becomes a gamble. So the next thing is to set up a not-for-profit foundation, usually in a tax haven so that you dont have to deal with tax. At this point you are basically a charity with employees, who may or may not have an agreement for future tokens.
to
Then you DAOify, part of the VC terms might have included a future token allocation, the founders may have a token allocation, employees may have one, there may be some reserved for partners and some for the community of users (airdrops) - the wider this distribution can go without people selling their tokens (usually to rival VCs), the better.
The daoification stage is usually the most fraught, its the time when all the actors come into view and how the protocol values its stakeholders.
VCs tend to have a 5-10 year time frame, while "retail" is most often looking for a quick buck rather than building long term value, engineers and founders want control over direction and partners want stability.
Initial distributions are often not voted on, but are seen as the establishment of the DAO. after a period of trying to balance these different groups interests. The mistake Arbitrum made was to pretend that they were handing over the initial establishment to the community, and then quietly arranging it all behind their back on the assumption that their plan would be approved.
There is now a hold on the remainder of the funds pending new proposals. Its not ideal, but at least its an attempt at recovering the situation.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
But you couldn't, that the thing. It's infrastructure. What are they going to replace the water company that owns the sewage treatment plant and the pipes with? Buckets? They can lie as much as they like, just as they do today.
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
So you don't have any solution to the problem? Oh well to be expected.
But this is meant to be the future according to you. You say it cannot be regulated because it will impinge on the freedom of the blockchain, but now DAOs cannot control the people behind it. So what is to stop dishonest people from taking what they want; Just trust? I thought this was a trustless system.
You were extolling the virtues of getting airdropped tokens from Arbitrum and how great DAOs are.
From the last few pages, you want a system that is not to be regulated. but has no control systems in place other than honesty.
A trustless system relies on trust of unknown, unvetted individuals.
A system where money laundering is easy.
And this is going to be the future.
If it was just you and your friends gambling with your own money then, who cares, But you want this to replace governments and the current financial systems that will affect everyone.
Oh, and with Arbitrum, 'there is fuck all you can do about it, other than simmer.'
Lastly, if you don't like the way this site is built, you can find one that you do like.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Eh? Sorry I don't understand your point here.
You said that because a smart contract says a company is not allowed to pollute a river the company can just lie and point to the smart contract as evidence that it hasn't polluted the river.
I'm saying that within the crypto world their answer is oracles, which could link to a monitor which would show if there was pollution or not in the river, which is outside the smart contract in a way. The contract would have terms that trigger based on the readings from the monitor not what the company says has happened.
I don't see why the monitor being infrastructure means that can't work or why it would need replacing the company etc.
It's just a way of verifying what the company says is true or not, like we do now, except run automatically through a blockchain with all the advantages and problems that involves.
Devil's Advocate : There's child porn sites on the internet.
This is the future according to you.
Do not invest in anything connected with the internet.
Last edited:
Similar threads
