Should we kill the DACronym?

[starspirit]

Any label is just how we dress to make ourselves meaningful to the public today.
We do not need to wear the DAC hat forever, so why try to squeeze into yesterday's dress?
What will we wear today? And tomorrow? It will all keep moving so fast...
Let's stay free to evolve, and make our message meaningful to people.
Personally for today, I just like "the future of banking", with something moulded around security, transparency, control, efficiency, freedom etc.

[can]

I think losing the word autonomous is a terrible idea, for a few reasons:

1) It's an opportunity to reintroduce the concept of autonomy (freedom from external control or influence; independence), to those in whom it is absent

2) "Decentralized Autonomous" speaks to the vision you articulated in A Philosophy of Freedom published on bitshares.org:  "The point of the Invictus Movement is to show a new way, the DAC way, of governing society in a decentralized voluntary way. A way that is entirely non-violent and yet inescapable in its ability to motivate just outcomes, fair trade, and enforcement of contracts." 

In relation to the idea of governance the word automated invokes in me, and I think it would for many others, a chilling dread.  The word automated feels dead, static.  The word autonomous is dynamic, requires action...

Automated/Application leaves room in the imagination for the Borg.  Autonomous leaves room in the imagination for non-violence and just outcomes.

3) While the blockchain is an automated application, a DAC by this or any other name requires the participation of people to be brought to life, so I'd emphasize the involvement aspect/benefits in your marketing.

Completely agree.
We can see it as an autonomous organism which includes delegates.
Also, Decentralized might not be the right word for the network topology but it means a lot more than Distributed from a social/economic perspective.

Not nice for marketing but I think we are talking about a Distributed Autonomous Platform to run DA systems on it (apps, organizations, C*s...)

[davidpbrown]

I thought the principal definition of DAC was Decentralized Autonomous Consensus. On reflection, isn't that often just a fancy way of suggesting "Blockchain"? We see the Blockchain become the trusted third part authority - and it is Distributed; Autonomous; and playing host to a Consensus that agrees it is the One reference point.

So, it seems then DAC as Decentralized Autonomous Company or any other C, maybe rather redundant where it doesn't go much beyond what accounting does.

Now DAC would mean something IF that branch of activity was an algorithm with pretensions of acting like a company in its own right; so, beyond just doing administration and accounting; if it is doing management in some way, then it is not just a Blockchain.

[wasthatawolf]

I've favored Distributed Applications over DACs after reading David Johnston's white paper.  It's a much clearer explanation of the software itself.

Need to nail down what it is exactly you're trying to describe: the software or the community that forms around it.

[FreeTrade]

Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.

Okay, in that case I favour 'Cooperative'.

Not sure the objection to the word 'Autonomous' - is it because the blockchain is hiring delegates, and maybe more? A smart agent could be hiring people and still be called autonomous, so could a Distributed Co-operative.

[Thom]

For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?

Thats just speculation.

There was a thread Stan weighed in on a few weeks ago talking about a SEC muzzle. It was suggested a regular announcement be made daily denying I3 had received such an announcement.

Why wasn't that strategy ever put into practice? It was a good solution, a kind of dead mans switch to let the community know the SEC notified I3 and said not to say a word about it.

When you take on the big boys you better think it through before you piss them off.

Actually I'm not speculating whether they have or not. It was a hypothetical about the future.

Hypothetical = speculation.

Cube: Yes I'm serious. This is not a game, and the stakes are high. Freedom has always been attained through struggle and BitShares / crypto blockchain projects to gain financial freedom is no different. If you want it to be easy or you don't care what this is all about go get yourself a bank account and play by their rules.

[Gentso1]

Kill the DAC just call it a DA like other players in the space do. The risk isn't worth the reward of drawing the SEC's wraith.

[cube]

...

You know you're doing something right when your adversaries begin to attack you. If you're at war what do you do when the enemy attacks? You fight harder! You find more effective strategies or you employ camouflage or flee to fight another day in another way.

Got your passport ready?
..

Are you serious?

[cube]

I think it's a mistake to "officially" drop the company metaphor. If Satoshi described Bitcoin as "p2p money", BitShares can be described as a "p2p company". It's a decentralized company on a blockchain that's censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by governments.

I fail to see why dropping the company metaphor is at all useful.

It's only useful in that it doesn't immediately draw attention from the governments claiming to be resistant against. You can call it a "company" or a "community", use "tokens" or something instead of "shares" and "distribution" instead of "dividend", "rewards" instead of "interest" etc... but a duck is a duck. Pretty wimpy move IMO. Also a major flip flop of what has been marketed and constantly pushed since bitshares started.

Actually with the SEC what you call it matters more than what it is... I originally adopted the company metaphor based upon the "duck is a duck" mentality... but sadly that is not the case with regulators.   They care about whether or not you are attempting to use terms the public places trust in to persuade others to part with their money.  If you can convince someone to part with their money for a stake in a community then it is very different than selling a share in a company despite the economic result being the same.

I am glad we are getting clearer of the risks that we are facing.  The regulators no doubt will go after the leaders of crypto-firms which they see as breaking the laws.  Bitshare would be in trouble too if its leaders get into trouble.  If we can do something about it now, we should do it without delay.

[starspirit]

For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?

They could ask the owner of bitshares.org to shut down the site, contact the owner of the repository and ask that be shut down, chase the owner of this forum etc.

How much actual power they'd have to do these things, I've no idea, but those are the potential points of influence.

I see, I guess that is possible while these things remain centralised...

[monsterer]

For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?

They could ask the owner of bitshares.org to shut down the site, contact the owner of the repository and ask that be shut down, chase the owner of this forum etc.

How much actual power they'd have to do these things, I've no idea, but those are the potential points of influence.

[julian1]

DAO judging by the length of the wikipedia article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organization

seems to have attracted recognition.

[MrJeans]

Yep, Decentralized Application works for me.
It is easier for the masses to understand. Makes sense. And makes the whole thing more approachable, it makes me want to download it on my phone and start using.

Soon people will be calling them decentralized apps, or daps, and they will be cool 

[starspirit]

For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?

Thats just speculation.

There was a thread Stan weighed in on a few weeks ago talking about a SEC muzzle. It was suggested a regular announcement be made daily denying I3 had received such an announcement.

Why wasn't that strategy ever put into practice? It was a good solution, a kind of dead mans switch to let the community know the SEC notified I3 and said not to say a word about it.

When you take on the big boys you better think it through before you piss them off.

Actually I'm not speculating whether they have or not. It was a hypothetical about the future.

[Thom]

For right or wrong, whether there is justification or not, if the SEC or other regulator did come after one or more entities associated with bitShares, what power would they have to stop it? What are their control points?

Thats just speculation.

There was a thread Stan weighed in on a few weeks ago talking about a SEC muzzle. It was suggested a regular announcement be made daily denying I3 had received such an announcement.

Why wasn't that strategy ever put into practice? It was a good solution, a kind of dead mans switch to let the community know the SEC notified I3 and said not to say a word about it.

When you take on the big boys you better think it through before you piss them off.