Bitcoin discussion and news

[StakerOne]

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.

But at least we know that.

With regular companies they can hide all sorts until it's too late. With crypto WYSIWYG, except when you don't in which case deffo avoid as it's probably not crypto.

 

[StakerOne]

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.

To expand on my devils advocate above.

I believe Ethereum has a future.

It was argued that crypto is hyper-capitalist and selfish.

I countered that with the redistribution of wealth that airdrops entail.

I never said Arbitrum was the bees knees, as a passing comment I said it was the latest airdrop that I had benefited from, as in I got the tokens and sold them for Ethereum for the best price I thought I could get. If I hadn't of needed the money so much, I probably would have left them be and investigated the Arbitrum project a lot more with a view to getting involved. I guess those with the Arbitrum token will be investing their time to keep the project in check.

Because Ethereum is open and permissionless, it's community cannot and will not stop Arbitrum operating on top of Ethereum, because as far as Ethereum is cocnerned, it's just another set of smart contracts.

Ethereum is a open protocol just as http is.

We cannot stop crap projects running on Ethereum no more than Tim Berner's Lee can stop crap websites.

Trying to align me with Arbitrum, is just another strawman argument.

There's a whole bunch of layer2 networks like Arbitrum that run on Ethereum. There will be a whole load more. Some will be crap, others OK and then some that are really good ... all built with different purposes and markets in mind.

Some will be permissionless, some permissioned, some decentralised, some centralised. Heck, some may wind up being government run.

Ethereum is becoming the world settlements layer.

I would say for any DAO project out there, there's at least a handful of layer 2 networks it could be run on.

With my over-arching argument being that small organisations and communities can easily run their operations using a DAO and decentralised website on IPFS. You may ask why ... I'll tell you why .... at the first sign of trouble, someone can't just run off with the football and/or the money, nor can some po-faced intolerant authoratron get the whole lot shut down simply because it doesn't sing in chorus with their narrative.

 

[StakerOne]

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 every

No. I predict that it will eat into the government's power.

Nothing stays the same.

I've told you countless times. The world as we know it now today isn't on the menu. It's going.

Either we have at least most things decentralised or centralised totalitarianism.

Anything inbetween isn't an option because this one is for keeps.

Totalitarianism is the only thing that can beat decentralisation.

Decentralisation is the only thing that can beat totalitarianism.

The systems we have today will be smashed between two different opposing forces.

Like the systems of today, you'll also be squashed like a bug if you don't invest in the winning side.

I may want the decentralised side to win, but I'm not fucking stupid, I invest in both sides.

I do my little bit to stop this from going in the wrong direction, but if the wrong side wins, I'll be campaigning for the open mine that you're crawling around in, to be moved out of the wonderful view from my penthouse.

 

[StakerOne]

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?"

Most of the actions that don't involve blockchain, would still involve the spending of money ... so if the sponsor of the vote doesn't succeed in whatever they was given the money for, they could for example be fined. At the very least they would lose credibility.

 

[Rob Ray]

I don't see why the monitor being infrastructure means that can't work or why it would need replacing the company etc.

Why do you think auto-fining linked to monitors isn't implemented now? It'd not be hard to set up without going to the trouble of linking it to a smart contract - hell many utility bills essentially work on an automated system via smart meters and direct debit, it doesn't require oracles. But it's not done.

The answer is political. Quite apart from the obvious legal nightmare of auto-fine/ legal challenge, it's not in the interests of the political class to consistently fine these companies because doing so would actively damage them to the point of being counterproductive within the neoliberal ecosystem. It's the same reason they've refused to make their legislation tougher. They enable the companies' lying because it's more expedient than collapsing them through rigorous enforcement.

Oh and if a single one of those smart monitors lasted the week before mysteriously breaking I'd be amazed.

 

[BigTom]

Why do you think auto-fining linked to monitors isn't implemented now? It'd not be hard to set up without going to the trouble of linking it to a smart contract - hell many utility bills essentially work on an automated system via smart meters and direct debit, it doesn't require oracles. Nut it's not done.

The answer is political. It's not in the interests of the political class to consistently fine these companies because doing so would actively damage them to the point of being counterproductive within the neoliberal ecosystem. It's the same reason they've refused to make their legislation tougher. They enable the companies' lying because it's more expedient than collapsing them through rigorous enforcement.

ok but that's not the same thing as a company being able to lie about polluting a river because a smart contract can't manage that. You can say that crypto doesn't solve this problem because it wouldn't be implemented, but not that it can't solve the problem because the company lies (in the example you gave, with the caveats I already gave).

 

[Rob Ray]

ok but that's not the same thing as a company being able to lie about polluting a river because a smart contract can't manage that. You can say that crypto doesn't solve this problem because it wouldn't be implemented, but not that it can't solve the problem because the company lies (in the example you gave, with the caveats I already gave).

But the monitors wouldn't be (and aren't) implemented in the first place. That's the thing they couldn't do. The system doesn't work from the outset because neither side benefits (and in the neoliberal view, neither does the public).

 

[kabbes]

Why do you think auto-fining linked to monitors isn't implemented now? It'd not be hard to set up without going to the trouble of linking it to a smart contract - hell many utility bills essentially work on an automated system via smart meters and direct debit, it doesn't require oracles. But it's not done.

The answer is political. Quite apart from the obvious legal nightmare of auto-fine/ legal challenge, it's not in the interests of the political class to consistently fine these companies because doing so would actively damage them to the point of being counterproductive within the neoliberal ecosystem. It's the same reason they've refused to make their legislation tougher. They enable the companies' lying because it's more expedient than collapsing them through rigorous enforcement.

Oh and if a single one of those smart monitors lasted the week before mysteriously breaking I'd be amazed.

Precisely! “You can’t take the human out of the equation,” to quote this thread. And that means human systems, human politics, human economic and material realities.

 

[BigTom]

But the monitors wouldn't be (and aren't) implemented in the first place. That's the thing they couldn't do. The system doesn't work from the outset because neither side benefits (and in the neoliberal view, neither does the public).

I agree with that, i just didn't think that's what you were saying in the post I replied to.

 

[Rob Ray]

I agree with that, i just didn't think that's what you were saying in the post I replied to.

Fair, it was probably a bit rushed/garbled.

 

[StakerOne]

Precisely! “You can’t take the human out of the equation,” to quote this thread. And that means human systems, human politics, human economic and material realities.

I'll try you again.

The cryptoverse, including web3, smart contracts, blockchains etc, isn't some kind of be all to end all solution to everything.

But's way better than we have now.

Just as the internet isn't some kind of be all to end all solution to anything and everything, it's just better than doing stuff offline.

 

[kabbes]

I'll try you again.

The cryptoverse, including web3, smart contracts, blockchains etc, isn't some kind of be all to end all solution to everything.

But's way better than we have now.

Just as the internet isn't some kind of be all to end all solution to anything and everything, it's just better than doing stuff offline.

You’ve not given any use case for it being better than the way we currently do anything, though. Just made angry assertions that it must be because there are things about the world as it currently is that make you angry. I’m going to need a bit more than “I don’t like X!” as justification for “Y is better”

 

[NoXion]

I'll try you again.

The cryptoverse, including web3, smart contracts, blockchains etc, isn't some kind of be all to end all solution to everything.

But's way better than we have now.

Just as the internet isn't some kind of be all to end all solution to anything and everything, it's just better than doing stuff offline.

The internet has introduced a lot of convenience and brought forth new sectors of industry, but it has not fundamentally changed the nature of life under capitalism. The world is still politically divided among states, mega-corporations are still a thing (indeed the internet has birthed new megacorps like Alphabet/Google and helped older companies like Apple to join their ranks), and the profit motive is still fucking shit up across the globe.

So your analogy is at odds with your Manichean rantings about decentralisation vs centralisation.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I think another recurring feature of this stuff is that the more the supposed use cases sound potentially realistic, the more they also sound like pretty boring admin/logistics stuff. Which is fine in it's way but doesn't really fit with the overthrow of capitalism/society/whatever stuff. You could compare it to something like computerised accounting - that genuinely has had major impacts in all sorts of ways but equally no one has ever gone on about Quicken bringing about the revolution.

 

[StakerOne]

The internet has introduced a lot of convenience and brought forth new sectors of industry, but it has not fundamentally changed the nature of life under capitalism. The world is still politically divided among states, mega-corporations are still a thing (indeed the internet has birthed new megacorps like Alphabet/Google and helped older companies like Apple to join their ranks), and the profit motive is still fucking shit up across the globe.

So your analogy is at odds with your Manichean rantings about decentralisation vs centralisation.

but it has not fundamentally changed the nature of life under capitalism

Technology is deflationary in nature. We have luxuries previous generations could only dream of.

The world is still politically divided among states

Why is that such a bad thing? For the world to be united, it would somehow involved the centralisation of power and that would be a bad thing.

The world is still politically divided among states, mega-corporations are still a thing (indeed the internet has birthed new megacorps like Alphabet/Google and helped older companies like Apple to join their ranks), and the profit motive is still fucking shit up across the globe.

The internet didn't "birth" them as such. It's more nuanced than that because the internet is just one factor.

The internet indeed at a certain level is decentralised, but the entities that own for example a domain name and the resources behind it, are often centralised, even if many people own those centralised entities (eg google).

 

[StakerOne]

I think another recurring feature of this stuff is that the more the supposed use cases sound potentially realistic, the more they also sound like pretty boring admin/logistics stuff. Which is fine in it's way but doesn't really fit with the overthrow of capitalism/society/whatever stuff. You could compare it to something like computerised accounting - that genuinely has had major impacts in all sorts of ways but equally no one has ever gone on about Quicken bringing about the revolution.

Not true. DAOs can, should and will be used in communities.

 

[NoXion]

Technology is deflationary in nature. We have luxuries previous generations could only dream of.

Not all of us, and the distribution is highly variable. Also it's the size of the difference between the most and the least which really matters, and that has gotten a lot bigger. Smartphones are great and all, but the child labour and environmental damage from mining rare earth minerals? Not so great in my book.

Why is that such a bad thing? For the world to be united, it would somehow involved the centralisation of power and that would be a bad thing.

I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but it is a sign that nothing has fundamentally changed. The world hasn't become a unified state, and neither has it fractured further into countless poleis.

The internet didn't "birth" them as such. It's more nuanced than that because the internet is just one factor.

The internet indeed at a certain level is decentralised, but the entities that own for example a domain name and the resources behind it, are often centralised, even if many people own those centralised entities (eg google)

Indeed, which only reinforces the point that decentralisation isn't sufficient. Large centralised entities are just as capable of making use of decentralised technologies for their own advantage.

 

[StakerOne]

Not all of us, and the distribution is highly variable. Also it's the size of the difference between the most and the least which really matters, and that has gotten a lot bigger. Smartphones are great and all, but the child labour and environmental damage from mining rare earth minerals? Not so great in my book.

But way better than communism and no amount of red violence is going to change that.

 

[StakerOne]

Not all of us, and the distribution is highly variable. Also it's the size of the difference between the most and the least which really matters, and that has gotten a lot bigger. Smartphones are great and all, but the child labour and environmental damage from mining rare earth minerals? Not so great in my book.



I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but it is a sign that nothing has fundamentally changed. The world hasn't become a unified state, and neither has it fractured further into countless poleis.



Indeed, which only reinforces the point that decentralisation isn't sufficient. Large centralised entities are just as capable of making use of decentralised technologies for their own advantage.

Only if there is nothing decentralised to challenge their business model. Better their business model disrupted with something better than red violence.

 

[NoXion]

But way better than communism and no amount of red violence is going to change that.

You don't even know what communism is.

 

[NoXion]

Only if there is nothing decentralised to challenge their business model. Better their business model disrupted with something better than red violence.

That assumes that markets favour decentralisation. The tendency of markets to trend towards monopoly shows otherwise.

 

[Rob Ray]

You don't even know what communism is.

And more to the point, refuses point blank to learn. Or pay any attention when it's explained. A porridge of nonsense so dense that data cannot penetrate it.

 

[StakerOne]

That assumes that markets favour decentralisation. The tendency of markets to trend towards monopoly shows otherwise.

Those markets are governed by centralised entities such as governments.

You don't even know what communism is.

Because it's proponents keep re-defining it when it fails. And fails it does every time.

Strong enough to kill millions but weak enough to have no chance against the triumphs of capitalism.

 

[NoXion]

Those markets are governed by centralised entities such as governments.

Monopolies form in the absence of government regulations intended to control or prevent them. Some industries constitute natural monopolies. Markets are competitive, are they not? So buying out rivals is always an option, if not now then sooner or later, unless there are barriers purposely put in place to prevent that.

Because it's proponents keep re-defining it when it fails. And fails it does every time.

Strong enough to kill millions but weak enough to have no chance against the triumphs of capitalism.

The definition of communism didn't change when the USSR fell, if that's what you're referring to by "communism failing".

 

[StakerOne]

Monopolies form in the absence of government regulations intended to control or prevent them. Some industries constitute natural monopolies. Markets are competitive, are they not? So buying out rivals is always an option, if not now then sooner or later, unless there are barriers purposely put in place to prevent that.



The definition of communism didn't change when the USSR fell, if that's what you're referring to by "communism failing".

If the USSR isn't communism, then Blackrock, Microsoft and google aren't capitalism.

Monopolies form in the absence of government regulations intended to control or prevent them. Some industries constitute natural monopolies. Markets are competitive, are they not? So buying out rivals is always an option, if not now then sooner or later, unless there are barriers purposely put in

Correct. Remind me again why Microsoft and Google are running healthy monopolies? It's because our regulators have become corrupted.

What are you even arguing for? Communism or fixing capitalism by way of government regulation, which in any event would all be sidestepped by decentralisation.

 

[StakerOne]

And more to the point, refuses point blank to learn. Or pay any attention when it's explained. A porridge of nonsense so dense that data cannot penetrate it.

I'll humour you.

How would you put and keep the means of production in the hands of the workers?

In a free world you have to accept that corporations can and do exist, ergo, the only solution that I can see, are decentralised workers co-ops that would forever more tightly inforce the rules.

They would need to compete with the corps. If the workers are the only ones with any voting power, they keep the means of production.

They still would have to compete in a free market, but they would be highly incentivised to build what they've got because it's hard to smash down with sabotage.

Remember that AI is looming upon us and citizens won't be able to rely on governments to look after their interests, so AI computing power that the workers have control of, would need to be pooled and the only secure and reliable way to do that would be with blockchains.

 

[NoXion]

If the USSR isn't communism, then Blackrock, Microsoft and google aren't capitalism.

What the hell does this even mean? You are trying to refute a statement I've not made.

Correct. Remind me again why Microsoft and Google are running healthy monopolies? It's because our regulators have become corrupted.

What are you even arguing for? Communism or fixing capitalism by way of government regulation, which in any event would all be sidestepped by decentralisation.

And why do regulators become corrupted, hmm? Could it possibly be because if an industry achieves regulatory capture, that means more profits? It all keeps coming back to the fundamentally amoral operations of capital. The company that lays off its AI ethics team stands to make money faster than the one that doesn't.

My point is that regardless of which path through the spectrum of reform vs revolution it takes to get society to a more equitable political economy, touting decentralisation as a solution is inadequate in and of itself. There's no central authority telling companies to compete (or cheat) in a market, and this state of competition necessarily involves its own ruthless logic.

 

[Storm Fox]

There are a lot of examples where a lack of regulation have ended up with monopolies.
Why is there so much competition law?

With total unfettered capitalism as suggested by crypto, why would the worker's get a vote? Or if they do their votes will be swamped by investors.

Power will be further consolidated and this is happening now.

Workers will be too scared to object as there will be no state safety net so if they lose their job they lose everything. Plus blacklisting will be back in fashion and there data will be shared across the blockchain.

Of course with regulation this can be prevented but then the use case for crypto is reduced to gambling and a few other niche uses.

 

[StakerOne]

What the hell does this even mean? You are trying to refute a statement I've not made.



And why do regulators become corrupted, hmm? Could it possibly be because if an industry achieves regulatory capture, that means more profits? It all keeps coming back to the fundamentally amoral operations of capital. The company that lays off its AI ethics team stands to make money faster than the one that doesn't.

My point is that regardless of which path through the spectrum of reform vs revolution it takes to get society to a more equitable political economy, touting decentralisation as a solution is inadequate in and of itself. There's no central authority telling companies to compete (or cheat) in a market, and this state of competition necessarily involves its own ruthless logic.

It keeps coming back to centralisation.

Decentralisation is the solution. Decentralisation of everything is definately ideal.

In the real world we can't decentralise everything overnight, therefore systems that can survive centralised attacks would be ideal.

You can whine and whinge all you want with the same old tired fucking cliche's about protecting children, terrorism, anti-money laundering ... in a fair financial system that has matured, there's no incentivication to commit crimes, or run around blowing people up.

No one is saying that we'd live in utopia if everyone adopted crypto tomorrow, because there are many decentralised interlinked systems to be built HOWEVER no one is going to build them if authorapricks can come along and knock it all over.

I repeat.

We can do what the fuck we want. What we build ... stays ... forever.

Don't like it? Simmer. I'm loving it!

 

[StakerOne]

Of course with regulation this can be prevented but then the use case for crypto is reduced to gambling and a few other niche uses.

Niche uses such as

Not having your fucking wealth confisicated
Being able to move money around without the permission of the White men
Being able to keep your privacy, choosing who has access to your private data
Not being descriminated against because of your natiionality, race, religion, sex, sexuality, gender, beliefs, political beliefs and associations
Being able to make money and work for others anonymously despite persecution in the real world.
Being able to prove a positive or a negative without giving up personal data.
Being able to have a voice without being censored.
Running a better more decentralised and distributed web that is much more energy efficient, with less need for power hungry datacentres.
Having transparency in fiancial transactions and not being frontrunned by cunts selling your data to the highest bidder.
Organisations being about to instantly in real time audit, not only cutting the costs of auditing but cutting fraud and theft to virutally zero.

Just one of those attributes is a game changer.

You're NOT who you say you are. You're a fraud who wants to keep the status quo.