Quote from: fuznuts on March 18, 2014, 06:57:24 am

Quote from: biophil on March 17, 2014, 02:23:40 pm

To nitpick your example, SETI isn't autonomous in the way a DAC is. A DAC is autonomous on the management end, not on the user end. SETI was (is?) managed centrally and actively.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Do explain 

Quote from: Stan on March 17, 2014, 03:36:25 pm

Quote from: xeroc on March 17, 2014, 02:10:10 pm

I personally prefer consensus as it pretty much describes what the network is doing .. But I am ok with company ..

what are these legal reasons?

We started off with "corporation" (see "Bitcoin and the Three Laws of Robotics") because we wanted to communicate the idea that crypto-currencies could be viewed as unmanned businesses and designed like all businesses intended to earn a profit.

We said, rather than think of "Bitcoin, Inc." or "Bitcoin, Ltd.", lets call it "Bitcoin, DAC" to indicate that it is a different kind of company that gets its charter from decentralized autonomy, not from a government.

Then it dawned on us, that we were just dangling bait, offering governments something else to regulate.  Not good.

So we switched back to "company" which carries the same connotation of a "business" without the "licensed by government" baggage.

There's nothing wrong with talking about forming a distributed autonomous consensus as something that a Decentralized Autonomous Company does.  But, the two are not interchangable.

Using Consensus or Organization is ok if you are trying to convey some unique meaning where such a change helps convey your point.

But our point is that DACs should be first and foremost for-profit businesses.

So what is the general "Consensus" on naming these (organizations, companies, corporations...)? Has this been ironed out by the players in the Bitcoin 2.0 space?

Seems like it is driven more by brand affiliation.   

Hm... I may be incorrect, but doesn't the lack of consensus on these conventions open some projects up to more regulation when other projects with similar (if not identical) goals may slide by due to a simple misstep in the definitions each project uses for branding?

Not sure if you guys know how you will handle this in the future, but definitely see the need for it to be ironed out for the days when called to represent the Decentralized Renaissance in front of a political body.  Kind of outside the scope of my intentions for this thread, but something to think about (a fact to which I am certain Invictus is not ignorant).   

Quote from: JoeyD on March 18, 2014, 09:54:38 pm

Quote from: fuznuts on March 18, 2014, 11:09:57 am

Holy sh*....

Did I hear an echo?

I don't quite follow, did I double post or was this topic debated ad nauseam somewhere on this forum and I missed it?

I think fuznuts is referring to the post he made on page 3 that covers similar ground maybe? Don't know, anyway I liked both your posts.

I posted my 'conspiracy theory' about Ethereum on their Bitcointalk page early Feb, but I'll repost here, same sort of idea as you guys just a bit more 'out there'

Quote

Is this the Ethereum gameplan?

Hypothetical scenario

Right now in the US they are busy struggling with how best to regulate crypto-currencies.

These are the potential conclusions I think they will draw...

1. It is too hard to try to regulate the hundreds of crypto-currencies that are out there.
2. Banking compliance is a serious business and issuing bit-licenses and trying to monitor hundreds of new untrusted exchanges is not feasible.
3. Crypto-currencies have deflationary tendencies which run counter to most existing currencies.

The potential solution...

1. It might be possible to regulate 1 base crypto-currency on which other things can be built.
2. Only large existing retail/investment banks with sufficient experience in banking compliance can be trusted as exchanges.
3. A reasonably inflationary crypto-currency would be ideal.

How does Ethereum stack up?

1. Yes Ethereum could be the base crypto, lots of things can be built on top of it, but link back to it when you need to transfer out to fiat.
2. Large existing banks might already have an interest in Ethereum, there is a very large pre-mine, where is it going?
3. Ethereum is very inflationary.

Result...

'They' will decide Ethereum gives consumers the benefits of crypto-currencies while giving the regulators the ability to regulate it and  ensure there are as few bad actors as possible.

They will make it legal for on-line retailers to accept Ethereum as payment and they will make legal Ethereum to fiat exchanges, administered by large existing banks.
However moving to fiat or making online purchases with any other crypto-currency will be illegal.   

Some investment banks are incredibly powerful and influential with large global footprints, they will be able to help ensure this model is also adopted in many other countries. This could make Ethereum insurmountable

______________________________

This is only a hypothetical, but I came up with it because I thought the pre-mine and inflationary model was unattractive.
There's also not a lot of reason why people wouldn't fork Ethereum and create their own competing models with more attractive parameters. (less inflationary and no pre-mine.)

However Ethereum's inflationary model & large pre-mine (Which goes to?) would be appealing to TPTB.
By influencing regulations and laws in favour of Ethereum they could also ensure no competing models could threaten it.

Using this hypothesis, the way Ethereum is being approached starts to make a lot of sense.

Thoughts? 

Pretty on-point, except I openly say that could be an attempt to co-opt a decentralized renaissance and leash it to a central point of control (sounds absolutely scary to me).  So mine sounds less "rational" and more downright frustrated to those who have a tendency to think the world is a little nicer a place than I do.. 

We can all be idealistic about this technology, but there is no reason that I can think of why this kind of technology couldn't be built to become Centralization 2.0, where the "Empire" now has all the decentralized resilience that humanity once boasted as its primary means of combating corrupt regimes.

Really like the way you said it...

And another thing to think about....just who are you going to prosecute when the DAC is released?

1) They may reside in territories that could give a hoot about software licenses.
2) They could just open an account, release the DAC, make sure it works and disappear.
3) Lol, it could be me and i'd tell you all the legal potholes, and lead you right into them.

Well in a Martial Law kind of scenario, in response to a World War (hot or cold) and subsequent collapse in the value of numerous (if not all) fiat currencies, the BitCoin-Loving demographic would be just small enough to easily be demonized.  Along with NSA data that has already been collected on nearly everyone, governments could (potentially) turn the public against users of the currencies.  Politicians and the Prison Industrial Complex Lobbyists alike would blame us "digital anarchists" for the devaluation of their nation's destroyed currencies.  This would be done to divert from the true problem: that of corrupt incentive structures created by their own central banking structures and political class.  Instead on anyone "carrying bitcoins" could be the enemy and it would be a good way to help legitimize internet surveillance.  Let's not forget the Red Scare, Japanese Internment Camps, the Holocaust...just to name a few...a society's sheeple will believe anything during a currency crisis as long as it maintains the status quo for them.

It is quite obvious the general public is still very much in the dark about the current debt and death paradigm much less Bitcoin and the consensus revolution that follows.  If governments and cartels can find a way to justify the imprisoning of 100's of thousands of Marijuana Users each year, how can the BitCoin Community think it is not possible for them too?  And before anyone says "Bitcoin users are far too technical to be caught" remember not everyone has been here from the beginning like most of us, watching this entire manifestation develop.  And most users do not follow even close to best practices with regard to guarding their own privacy.

That is why it is so important that initially these things are created as a public service that lifts all boats rather than pump and dump schemes (like 94.56% of all altcoins--pulling that percentage out of my ass)?  The herd is not rational and is driven by greed and fear...and right now the herd knows nothing about Bitcoin but "MtGox".

 

To nitpick your example, SETI isn't autonomous in the way a DAC is. A DAC is autonomous on the management end, not on the user end. SETI was (is?) managed centrally and actively.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Do explain 

Quote from: xeroc on March 17, 2014, 02:10:10 pm

I personally prefer consensus as it pretty much describes what the network is doing .. But I am ok with company ..

what are these legal reasons?

We started off with "corporation" (see "Bitcoin and the Three Laws of Robotics") because we wanted to communicate the idea that crypto-currencies could be viewed as unmanned businesses and designed like all businesses intended to earn a profit.

We said, rather than think of "Bitcoin, Inc." or "Bitcoin, Ltd.", lets call it "Bitcoin, DAC" to indicate that it is a different kind of company that gets its charter from decentralized autonomy, not from a government.

Then it dawned on us, that we were just dangling bait, offering governments something else to regulate.  Not good.

So we switched back to "company" which carries the same connotation of a "business" without the "licensed by government" baggage.

There's nothing wrong with talking about forming a distributed autonomous consensus as something that a Decentralized Autonomous Company does.  But, the two are not interchangable.

Using Consensus or Organization is ok if you are trying to convey some unique meaning where such a change helps convey your point.

But our point is that DACs should be first and foremost for-profit businesses.

So what is the general "Consensus" on naming these (organizations, companies, corporations...)? Has this been ironed out by the players in the Bitcoin 2.0 space?

I just meant to give a direct answer to.

Quote

Is there any good reason to no limit the money supply with ethereum? Because that just (unnecessarily?) dilutes everyones shares.

If you assume a change as big as removing mining (they're even considering specialized hardware...) then there are a whole bunch of changes you could assume until ethereum is no longer ethereum. Basically, I have no confidence they'll switch away from mining "gracefully" given they are trying it at all.

Specialized hardware is nothing but a new platform for new ASICs to be built on.  In fact, the production thereof will likely be the place where they can gain control of a "decentralized" consensus technology as they would be one of the primary choke-points for distribution.  And if they actually get the 60,000BTC (Hoskinson, I believe has said that will be the cap in multiple interviews) it will be VERY difficult to overcome their advantage in the space of researching that specialized hardware (plus they would already have the developers on the pay roll).  Btw...they will almost certainly get the 60,000BTC.  Human Greed is a powerful thing.

Mining is centralizing--and centralization on a technocratic elite is arguably worse than the elite with which we now fight (you know, the few who own nearly half the world's assets http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-02/its-1-world-who-owns-what-223-trillion-global-wealth).  I cannot see a single way where it doesn't become so.  TaPoS is the closest thing that I can consider as being viable as it offers the needed reward incentives for being part of the ecosystem while also securing the network from potential threats. 

Ethereum is not centralizing based in the blockchain portion of their tech (necessarily)...it is centralizing due to the incentive structure it will create for the insiders.  The Silicon Valley model they are attempting to utilize is centralizing.  If you do not agree...look at Facebook as just one example.

He who controls the intellectual capital to work consistently on this project will become, over time, the new elite if we are not careful.  Sorry if this talk is not popular, but it is a very real outcome that deserves careful inspection at every step.  The human element is the centralizing factor...and it is unpredictable.   

*definitely interested in alternative viewpoints...