You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Ideological security vs financial security, which comes first?
I agree that funds should be returned to owners. Hacker found a flaw and took money out of DAO (fair enough).
It's up to community/miners to decide what happens.
People are losing trust in governments and institutions, in my opinion that's why we as humans are trying to create self-governing bodies which has interest in humankind rather than Elite. If we allow hacker to get his funds, this will encourage others to do the same. People will lose interest because of insecurity. Crypto-world is still young and learning and for that you should not get hammered.
I fully agree with you but... I have the opposite conclusions. Who is the elite here? The hacker or the DAO holders?
There have been already cases on the Ethereum platform of people losing their funds due to bugs or loopholes in the contracts. Has anybody thought about rescuing these folks? No. Why? Because the total sum involved was not big enough. Here we go - an elite is formed.
You say you want to get rid of the elite and yet you actively support creating one.
So be it. You can have either freedom or security, never both. It's really beyond my understanding why you bother to enter the crypto-space if you value security more than freedom. What's the point? Do you hope that there will be more "fairness" in the crypto-world? On what basis? Just because people here are less corrupt? Do you think that miners will offer you a better justice system than your government can? This is an illusion.
We need to apply different rules if we want to see different results.
In a technocracy the hackers would definitely by the elite if the rule is code is law. That was sort of my point. And I'm probably one of the people who would benefit from such a rule of society but I don't think it would be the best society for everyone who isn't some tech wizard. I just think if crypto is supposed to be for everyone then we have to loosen up.
It is kind of like the personal computer used to once be just for the computer nerds and hackers. And not only that but only the well connected well off computer nerds and hackers. It used to be that only really smart people were on the Internet. I remember this because when I first discovered the Internet it wasn't at all what it is now.
But over time more and more people came online and the Internet began to reflect more and more of the mainstream culture. I'm not saying that all blockchains have to be mainstream blockchains but I am saying that some have to be if the idea is to promote blockchain technology to the world and not just to ourselves.
I disagree. I think enterprises like the DAO are not supposed to be for everyone. And I don't mean technical skill barriers - those will disappear in time.
Below is a screenshot showing the result of the vote over a moratorium to pause the DAO until potential bugs are properly investigated. This proposal was not passed because it did not meet the 20% quorum threshold during the two weeks (if I remember correctly) allowed for voting.
Are you still sure everyone is qualified? In my eyes, more than 80% of people (i.e. those who did not bother to participate in this vote) are simply not qualified to make investment decisions. They should stick to the old-fashioned investment funds where decisions are made on their behalf.
If you enter the crypto-space you need to change your mindset or you'll be very disappointed.
You are right that they don't care about small fish, which is unfair. Bitcoin had many cases where even more money were stolen and nobody cared. So do you mean you would rather reward hacker and forget others?
The way i see it, money raised belongs to people and the hacker/s stole it of them.
I would rather have it returned than in wrong hand.
At this point in time crypto is very speculative and could easily be manipulated, exchanges in particular.
"Do you hope that there will be more "fairness" in the crypto-world? On what basis? Just because people here are less corrupt? Do you think that miners will offer you a better justice system than your government can? This is an illusion."
Again you are right, it's just an illusion, a dream. Crypto world is unforgiving, unsafe an experiment.
I am here because i want to learn and get a better understanding.
@crypto-fan That money being raised represents the life blood of the whole ecosystem. It's the ability of the community to fund it's own projects and own itself. What if that heist takes away all of the VC money the community had, all the ability of the community to self finance? Where does it leave the community?
So now with no ability to raise money through crowd funding the developers of smart contracts will have to seek government grants, corporate sponsorship, or work for something like blockstream? Without that money if you or I have a great idea we now have almost zero chance of getting it funded because no one is going to trust smart contract developers on Ethereum with that kind of money if there is any money left to invest with after this.
On a systemic basis I do not see how Ethereum can gain at all when financial security in the community is lost. It simply means less investment from within the community and a greater difficulty to hire developers.
The DAO is mostly about the big fish:
http://aakilfernandes.github.io/ethereum-protocol-developer-holds-114877-dollars-worth-of-dao-tokens