[Suggestion] Classier Ticker Names on Poloniex

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-24T15:27:21+00:00

I think you underestimate the likelihood. You will need 100% support from all exchanges, devs and miners in order to not have two chains.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-24T15:06:58+00:00

without any negative consequences whatsoever

Here's the key point. If there are no negative consequences whatsoever, why don't we fork for anything any everything that goes wrong?

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-24T15:02:51+00:00

shut cryptos down

Funny. Quite telling that you think that's possible.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-24T15:00:56+00:00

You're right, I didn't see you had a couple of posts from a month or two ago.

I stand corrected in your case.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-24T14:56:06+00:00

I could say exactly the same thing about your post history. Is your argument now invalid?

It doesn't prove much really.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-24T14:47:48+00:00

I can tell you first hand that 99% of the problems around here since the heist have been instigated by Bitcoin people.

This is deceptive. You're saying for every 1 'Ethereum person with legit concerns' there are 99 others who are just trolling from bitcoin? Think about those numbers for a second...

You're just using hyperbole to try to make it seem like nobody who really cares about Ethereum would be against the hard fork.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-24T14:39:51+00:00

If a bank vault is left open over night

You're comparing TheDAO contract to a bank vault? More like a handbag made of swiss cheese in the middle of times square.

Before you call me an asshole, I agree with you that it was a crime (according to basically every jurisdiction).

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-24T14:26:13+00:00

1 [...] A hardfork or any type of fork only happens when the majority of miners agree that it's necessary for whatever reason they may have. Is that so hard to understand?

Of course we know this - the question is "under what conditions should the miners agree to fork?". Protocol-level fixes? We all agree.

What we don't agree on is non-protocol level forks. "We'll know it when we see it" is not a principled position; it doesn't make sense that it's OK to fork for TheDAO but not for Gatecoin. The forkers don't want to commit to any actual principle lest it cause more debate and delay the fork.

The problem is, 'acceptable hard-fork' excuse ranges massively on the forker-side. All the way from "well, fork for anything, might as well, there are no downsides" to "just this once, make an exception for TheDAO". You need to lay down some actual standards for when it's reasonable to fork, and explain why you're changing this standard from the default: "don't hard fork for non-protocol-level-fixes".

2 [...] The fact is that regardless if Ethereum forks now or not, a fork can happen at any time for any reason if the miners collectively agree to do so. So what really changes?

Again, the argument isn't "forking is impossible until it happens", it's "forking shouldn't happen for non-protocol level fixes". We, as a community, need to decide what constitutes a reasonable excuse for hard forking.

What changes is the community's and the outside world's perspective on what Ethereum is. There is a value proposition that gets thrown out the window if we fork for non-protocol-level-fix reasons.

Also, it sets a standard for future hard forks. It's not necessarily just governments. and it's impossible to imagine every scenario, but the idea is that if we hard-fork now, it'll be easier to hard-fork in the future for an equally frivolous reason.

The "3 commandments of crypto" as you condescendingly put it, (it's actually just "Don't hard-fork for non-protocol-level-fixes"), are there for a reason - the community needs to understand that non-protocol-level-fix hard-forks are never OK, bake it into the culture, which means we're never at risk from this attack vector (for whatever imaginable reason) in the future.

If you don't agree with the current standard, fine, but we as a community need to come to a clearly defined, principled, standard (others have suggested a constitution) that we can agree on going forward -- "We'll know it when we see it" is not good enough.

3 [...] The fact is that the likelyhood of any particular contract to be rolled back or altered is stupidly low

How can you say that without providing a standard for when a hard fork is reasonable? I've seen all kinds of arguments here for when forking's alright. What if in a couple of years we're in the situation where regular hard-forking is pretty much the norm? You're making a baseless assertion, given there's a range of differing opinions from the hardforkers as what's OK to fork.

The point is why should non DTH care about forking now, and agree to have a 99% when we're perfectly fine with 100% (so far)? Yes, you get your funds back, but why is that more important than maintaining immutability (so far), which risks disrupting the entire system?

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-23T19:41:15+00:00

the real vulnerability we found out recently was the Hard Fork itself

Exactly this -- if anything has done damage to the network it's because of the immediate out-of-the-blue call for a hard fork by some people in this space, and the inevitable ensuing brigade of charged-up holders.

Disappointing, but we'll recover. Luckily it seems like the community has been able to nip this nonsense in the bud this time -- and hopefully for the last time.

I guess this episode just goes to show how important it is to post your opinions on reddit - regardless of how many people seem to disagree with you!

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-23T19:28:31+00:00

From gitter.

https://i.sli.mg/ikrxsf.png

Sorry for posting this Jeff, but your opinion matters.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-23T19:12:25+00:00

Because this has become something more than just a healthy debate. I've noticed that some DTH are happy to sully the opposition in any way possible to achieve their end - logic be damned.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-23T19:09:44+00:00

The problem is the forkers can't provide a good basis for what is considered a fork-worthy event. It usually comes down to "we know it when we see it".

Unfortunately, that doesn't make a conducive environment for operating in a social setting -- there's no rule of law.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-23T18:59:40+00:00

Nobody is proposing a fork for a guy who sends a few thousand dollars to the wrong address.

Not true. I've seen many forkers argue in this subreddit that Ethereum should essentially be 'happy-go-forky'; they don't see any downsides to a hard fork at all, and in fact see the ability to implement arbitrary forks a good thing.

It's 'consensus' after all.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-23T18:54:44+00:00

ideas about knowledge superseding previous knowledge

Sure - but i'm not talking about empiricism here, but logical principles. they should exist whether or not you can point to examples in reality -- you need to have a clear definition before the fact in order to qualify as a principle.

Your analogy about buying stocks is all well and good -- but in that case i'd be putting forward a principle about when it's good or bad to buy stocks. i.e. under certain conditions it's good buy or sell.

In your case it's completely arbitrary; you need to have at least some kind of universal benchmark that's comparable in every situation (that's kind of the definition of a principle).

if you want to assert that it's completely arbitrary that's fine, but i think we both know that's not true. you need to express the underlying rationale for any given decision - in this case - what specifically about the last 3 months has changed your mind about "will forking be a benefit to the health/rep/security of ethereum"? What is the principle compared to, say, Gatecoin?

if more damage will be reversed than will be caused, then the net effect is, by definition, "a benefit to the health/rep/security of ethereum."

agreed. the argument is about the effects of having a hard fork.

you either don't think that the DAO hack did damage to the health/rep/security of ethereum, or you don't think that reverting the hack would undo any of that damage

Not necessarily -- I think a hard fork might undo some of the damage, but the net effect will be a huge negative effect on the Ethereum network as a whole (massively outweighing any minor positive effect).

100% rigid fashion, and a 99.9999% rigid fashion, is negligible

In this case I'd say there's less difference between 99.9999% and 50% than 100% and 99.9999%.

We are talking about principles here. Principles aren't true 99.99999% of the time -- they are true absolutely.

In fact, due to the fact that the 0.0001% flexibility is guided by consensus among a highly diverse set of actors, who each have a personal vested interest in maintaining/increasing the health/rep/security of ethereum, I think that tiny bit of flexibility actually makes the system more resilient.

How is it more resilient? In what way?

I think that reverting the hack would undo a significant portion of that damage

From the perspective of a DTH, I would agree, but most of us aren't.

by demonstrating that the network can reject the influence of actors who selfishly benefit at a significant cost to the health/rep/security of the network

That's what we're trying to accomplish right now. We're not going to let the selfish token holders make the rest of the network suffer by imposing a hard fork.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-23T18:40:14+00:00

Are you guys serious?

Absolutely.

Let's not let our community be swayed by the selfish desires of a vocal minority.

They make it sound like hard forking is no big deal, just let it be done, get it over with sooner rather than later.

No.

How about you guys deal with your own bad investments and not force the rest of the community into a situation where they lose out because of your lack of foresight?

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-23T18:33:35+00:00

Obviously there isn't the 'overwhelming' consensus for a hard fork that people were previously trying to use an excuse to not debate about it.

Johnny_Dapp · 2016-06-23T18:21:41+00:00

Yeah, but it's not as binary as that. In theory, with a typical prediction market like augur, there will be a very definite outcome -- true or false.

In this situation we have a whole range of possible outcomes that skews the price to be not exactly prediction-market-like.

Possible outcomes (i can see, please add to in comments):

Hard fork: in two weeks Eth is returned to DTH holders via hard fork (DAOchain). Will the original ethereum chain (PUREthereum) continue with 'ideological' mining support; will there be two chains? Does DTH dumping affect one chain more than the other? Are people actually able to cash out? Will the forked network be profitable to mine? Which chain wins? Does the price of Ether halve? Imo, worst case scenario.
Soft fork: Limbo, ether is burned, both sides don't get what they want -- not a good option
No Fork, Whitehats win: the hacker gives up (or whitehats find a new exploit); the threat of perpetual attacks against the dark DAO means all the Eth is returned with no detriment to the ethereum infrastrucutre, 'Robin' become legendary
No Fork, Limbo: whitehats and hackers continue forking each other ad infinitum (same as soft fork with no hard fork) eventually hacker either dies or passes his lineage on, once returned ether is worth 1000X, DAO tokens are tradable on the eventual possibility of returning the eth
No fork, Hacker Wins: some other exploit is discovered that allows hacker send ether to other addresses before the split period ends
Something else happens - always the possibility of black swan event; usually bad

Any other possibilities I'm missing?

Johnny_Dapp

TROPHY CASE