Quote from: arhag on January 08, 2015, 07:30:27 pm

Irreversible transactions are a consequence of the decentralized and autonomous parts of the DAC. How is a DAC supposed to know whether it is "fair" to reverse a transaction when it doesn't know "truths" about the outside world and any "truths" fed into it are the opinions of some party.

Escrow and multisig really is good enough. You let the two parties involved in the transaction decide on the arbiter who gets to tell the blockchain whether it is fair to reverse a transaction.

The DAC cannot 'know' of course. You need outside input and there are trust issues.

I don't think escrow covers all the bases - especially in the case of theft.

Imagine if you could give a trusted exchange the ability to reverse transactions in case of theft?

Indeed, imagine that. Having compromised the exchange, the thief would now be able to reverse transactions at will, rather than only making off with the poorly secured funds.

What is this "trusted exchange" of which you speak, and if it existed how would theft from it occur in the first place?

Allowing each user a free daily vote transaction would encourage the creation of additional accounts for spam amplification.  This would be a fixed cost investment enabling free spamming at will each day forever.

Normally, votes should be cast automatically as you transact and move funds.  Initially though we need higher delegate turnover to hire developers and we have low transaction volume because the system isn't yet used much for everyday purposes, so we need deliberate full stake voting.

Given that, I think the 0.1 BTS cost of voting is reasonable for investors to pay to strengthen their investment by voting responsibly.

How many people can actually vote right now? I can't. Clicking "update vote" does nothing. And I am on the latest version (linux; re installed today).

I can vote fine, v0.4.27.2 (built from source) on linux.

It would also be nice if there was a way for delegates to retire and reject all current votes, instead of just dropping block production and waiting to be voted out.  There are still init delegates that have more support than some developers.

Quote from: bytemaster on January 02, 2015, 07:03:09 pm

Quote from: arubi on January 02, 2015, 05:51:53 pm

I'll edit my reply, though I still don't get how only 51% of delegates can censor transactions.

They can ignore blocks produced by the other 49 delegates.

So who is creating the rest of the blocks in the round?

No one. They're reported as missed blocks.

2nd Paragraph:

"For all practical purposes a the dollar is ..."


3rd Paragraph, last sentence:

"and can be sold and the market price within 30 days."

Also sited -> cited.

Pull requested.

EDIT: Liked the post, btw.

Doesn't coordinated shunning also violate the golden principle? I do not want to be shunned if I stole something just like I do not want to go to jail if I stole something.

The only reason I would put myself into a situation where I might get shunned in the future is because I want people to know that I respect contractual agreements so I can credibly threaten to shun the other party in my future contracts.

It seems like the foundation you are working from is NAP, not the golden principle.

As he's phrased the golden principle: “Do not do unto others what you do not want others doing unto you.“

That depends on whether shunning is considered active or passive.  I guess you mean you wouldn't want someone to inform others that there was any reason to shun you?

Keep reinventing until you have a wheel that the target market accepts and uses.  It sounds to me like the Follow My Vote project is making good progress.

I thought the article was great, also.