"Walking Past Same-origin Policy, NAT, and Firewall for Ethereum Wallet Control" - https://medium.com/@rhodey/walking-past-same-origin-policy-n...
> The cypherpunk, anarchist future wasn’t supposed to be about stronger banking guarantees and wealth redistribution among Reddit users.
I think your interests may fall more closely in line with what the Monero folks are doing. I'm not aware of any other cryptocurrency project with better privacy features. And they're working directly with the I2P developers to get better privacy at the network level(Kovri).
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4ta6go/walking_pa...
What's the point in saving the DAO if it kills the whole purpose behind the currency?
Money isn't very useful if you can't transact it at all for fear that new transactions won't be any good.
If you're serious: Why not make use of existing infrastructure (current courts, laws, etc) rather than reimplementing all that again on top of ethereum? Also, what prevents this new layer from becoming as corrupt and bureaucratic as the one we currently have in place?
smart "contracts" != legal contracts
Do you have any evidence of that? I know about the address that was found in both the Foundation wallet and as a DAO holder but I haven't seen any other developer shown to be DAO holders. Stephan Taul would obviously be a big DAO holder as one of the people behind it but he's not with the Ethereum Foundation anymore (having left to work on Slock.it and The DAO).
Even if they have a conflict of interest they seem to be going out of their way to let the community decide what to do.
"The creatures outside looked from smart contracts to
regular contracts, and from regular contracts to smart
contracts, and from smart contracts to regular contracts
again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."How many many man hours have been spent on introducing a single DAO-fork feature into the code? They didn't even build it as a generic "community referendum fork" feature just something specific to this situation? They can say "the community decides" but the community didn't decide to dedicate that amount of dev resources to putting a band-aid on a single community member's fuckup. What a mess.
[1] https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/commit/1b2941cd56d69...
The bet is that one side would die out, and most of the exchanges agreed that they would stop operations until a clear winning fork is determined.
What happens when the 51% desires to violate the rights of the 49% in general? (Or, more commonly in the real world, 10% desires to violate the rights of 0.5% and 85% don't care.) Direct democracy refuses to solve that issue in any way other than assuming that the minority will be successful at returning violence against the majority, or that everyone will just get along.
In practice, though, nobody's actually stealing your money here... you can still use the old chain if you want, it'll just be devalued to the point of uselessness.
Decentralized systems work by consensus and by choice, for the DAO the consensus of the community is to stop the theft. Some might disagree and move to their own fork.
In the scenario of the "51%" you described, the "49%" would simply move to their own forked chain if they so choose.
To some extend what you're saying is true though as it's very unlikely that both chains will remain active/retain it's value and therefore miners on the losing chain will likely move to the winning chain very fast to avoid losses incurred from the cost of power.
That's not what you said above. You claimed that the mere fact that it's a hardfork means that you cannot implement anything to only activate if there's a majority. But it's extremely simple to do so. Just check whether a supermajority or a plain majority of recent blocks have signalled support for the hard fork, and only produce hardfork blocks if they have.
Quoting from the blog post https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/15/to-fork-or-not-to-fork/
>The community tool carbonvote will be used to set the default fork option for Geth. At block number 1894000 the votes will be tallied, and the outcome will determine whether the default is set to fork or not to fork. Then merging the DAO fork PRs will proceed, followed shortly by a release for both Geth and Mist.
So they're only going to merge the hardfork code if they already have the votes.
My understanding of that blog post is only what the default value of supporting or not supporting is meaning the hardfork code will be merged in either case and that it's only whether it's active by default that's changed depending on the vote.
Not that it really matters anymore as block number 1894000 has already passed and the code merged with hardfork support enabled by default.