Decentralized Autonomous Consensus - The End of Contracts

[danielauhlig]

Im not worried about evil or not evil. I just dont like to invest in projects and have  monitor whether or not a dac has been launched I just want there to be a the system to automatically issue the shares to an investors wallet without having to manually handle this.

[bytemaster]

Then you could incriminate any btc user in he same way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[que23]

I think the point danielauhlig is making is that if I don't check the forums for 6 months it's entirely possible that I could miss a launch announcement and end up having an investment in a DAC without being aware of it, and thus receive no benefit unless I somehow discovered it by chance or proactive searching.  I'm sure plenty of people will maintain lists of DACs that honor Protoshares, but I think it's a valid point that this issue doesn't seem to be handled internally, though I don't have a problem with it personally.

I answered half his question

But it is interesting. Let's say some evil DAC is created and honors PTS. There would be a link between you and the evil DAC that in theory could get you in trouble.

[Troglodactyl]

I think the point danielauhlig is making is that if I don't check the forums for 6 months it's entirely possible that I could miss a launch announcement and end up having an investment in a DAC without being aware of it, and thus receive no benefit unless I somehow discovered it by chance or proactive searching.  I'm sure plenty of people will maintain lists of DACs that honor Protoshares, but I think it's a valid point that this issue doesn't seem to be handled internally, though I don't have a problem with it personally.

[que23]

What do you mean. My Private Key is in my PTS wallet do I always have to add my Private key to any new DAC. This would then require me to be constantly updated and informed of new DAC being launched.

What exactly does my Priv Key have to do with recieving shares in other dacs. Sorry I am really trying to understand your system.

They scan the pts blockchain to see how many pts everyone has. You have your private keys, so only you can claim the allocation to the new chain. To do this, there will be a process. Hopefully, it won't be that difficult. Things will be clearer later.

[danielauhlig]

What do you mean. My Private Key is in my PTS wallet do I always have to add my Private key to any new DAC. This would then require me to be constantly updated and informed of new DAC being launched.

What exactly does my Priv Key have to do with recieving shares in other dacs. Sorry I am really trying to understand your system.

[bytemaster]

You can do that as long as you keep your private keys there is nothing to do. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danielauhlig]

Ok but you need to know that they are even there to be claimed where do such announcements happen? Should the system not be set up to automatically credit PTS holders without their constant involvment;

What I mean is I should be able to invest in the product walk away and have nothing further do do with it   

[bytemaster]

I am still not clear how we get the 10% stake this does not seem automatic one has to be market aware on every new dac in oder to benefit, there is not just an automatic share distribution without the involvement of the PTS holder..or is incorrect

It is automatic. Your shares will be ready for you when you decide to claim them.   Take memory coin as an example.  Your shares are there even though you did nothing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[danielauhlig]

I am still not clear how we get the 10% stake this does not seem automatic one has to be market aware on every new dac in oder to benefit, there is not just an automatic share distribution without the involvement of the PTS holder..or is incorrect

[cogitativecurve]

It is obviously desirable for the new DAC to honor ProtoShares since it hits the ground running with an already established economy. If I understand what you are writing here, we should aim to honor the Social Consensus because of the benefits derived therefrom and the harsh market consequences for deviating from it. As Invictus moves forward gaining acceptance for the Social Consensus, it looks like there would be too much start-up time and development difficulty to be worth doing something DAC-like without ProtoShares. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Social Consensus is a two-way street.  Developers will offer what the market demands.

I am currently reading the works of Rothbard, having recently discovered him, and looking forward to revisiting this theme after thoroughly investigating these works.

[bytemaster]

Thank you for the links. I'll have to follow up on that to see if Rothbard had spoken in favor of the mob rule of a pure democracy. At first read it seems like you prefer pitchfork resolution over the judgement of a court, or at least the ability avoid impartial judgement for non-performance. It is as if the main problem with your proposal to devalue ProtoShares was that laws exist to hold Inviticus accountable for promises made to investors. If such changes had been forced a year from now and without "contract" then Inviticus could have used market dominance to violate the social contract without fear of market reprisal. A system of laws attempts accountability in a way that respects your rights; you should not be so quick to abandon that.

"The reality is that Invictus does not have the ability to either honor or not honor the social contract because the initial allocation in the genesis block is beyond our control. "

Inviticus wrote the rules and was proposing a hard-fork to change them. Please explain which rules Inviticus is now unable to honor, and more details about why. A hard-fork would be accepted so long as it does not undermine PTS value. It seems you are now claiming an inherent design flaw that can't be fixed without undermining PTS value, but are also bemoaning that someone else could honor the original agreement.

I think there is too much implied attitude given to my words.  I do not bemoan this, but rather see it as a huge benefit to everyone holding PTS and we have more PTS than just about anyone.  In fact, I see Decentralized Autonomous Consensus as being superior to Contracts.

I actually prefer neither violence nor monopoly (socialized) courts which are in turn backed by violence without the consent of those they presume to judge.

I have never once made a proposal intended to devalue PTS. 

I have one piece of advice for you Liberty, when you deal with me assume the best rather than to worst because everything I do is for the benefit of mankind and the promotion of freedom.  I give away all of my ideas, earn just enough money to get by, and play by the same rules as everyone else.   

[Liberty]

Thank you for the links. I'll have to follow up on that to see if Rothbard had spoken in favor of the mob rule of a pure democracy. At first read it seems like you prefer pitchfork resolution over the judgement of a court, or at least the ability avoid impartial judgement for non-performance. It is as if the main problem with your proposal to devalue ProtoShares was that laws exist to hold Inviticus accountable for promises made to investors. If such changes had been forced a year from now and without "contract" then Inviticus could have used market dominance to violate the social contract without fear of market reprisal. A system of laws attempts accountability in a way that respects your rights; you should not be so quick to abandon that.

"The reality is that Invictus does not have the ability to either honor or not honor the social contract because the initial allocation in the genesis block is beyond our control. "

Inviticus wrote the rules and was proposing a hard-fork to change them. Please explain which rules Inviticus is now unable to honor, and more details about why. A hard-fork would be accepted so long as it does not undermine PTS value. It seems you are now claiming an inherent design flaw that can't be fixed without undermining PTS value, but are also bemoaning that someone else could honor the original agreement.

[Stan]

It is obviously desirable for the new DAC to honor ProtoShares since it hits the ground running with an already established economy. If I understand what you are writing here, we should aim to honor the Social Consensus because of the benefits derived therefrom and the harsh market consequences for deviating from it. As Invictus moves forward gaining acceptance for the Social Consensus, it looks like there would be too much start-up time and development difficulty to be worth doing something DAC-like without ProtoShares. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Social Consensus is a two-way street.  Developers will offer what the market demands.

[cogitativecurve]

It is obviously desirable for the new DAC to honor ProtoShares since it hits the ground running with an already established economy. If I understand what you are writing here, we should aim to honor the Social Consensus because of the benefits derived therefrom and the harsh market consequences for deviating from it. As Invictus moves forward gaining acceptance for the Social Consensus, it looks like there would be too much start-up time and development difficulty to be worth doing something DAC-like without ProtoShares. Someone correct me if I am wrong.