Submitted by berlinparisexpress t3_yvy33d in Futurology
paradox-snail t1_iwjljus wrote
Reply to comment by Heap_Good_Firewater in Will working for a DAO be better than a corporate job? by berlinparisexpress
That makes sense, an exchange would be more vulnerable. I could even see a DAO getting tricked with a bad smart contract. Its not really possible to be "hacked" though as you have an opportunity to read the code before accepting a contract. Transactions can't happen without consent. Most of the time somebody gets hold of the keys to dao member wallets through "social engineering".
Transfers between chains are a point of vulnerability for sure. Something I think DAOs can eventually solve.
I would maybe disagree that token price dynamics are problematic. Ultimately a currency is meant to be an ubiquitous unit of value, enabling people to trade with each other in ways direct bartering doesn't.
Its actually advantageous to be able to create new currencies when there are issues with the existing one. In a perfect system the currency rarely pools for long in one place, instead circulating to facilitate the maximum number of transactions.
When one currency becomes too expensive, or its control too centralized, then we can just create a new currency and begin doing business in it instead. Your new network can grow to become more valuable than the old one, giving you first holder advantage.
Ultimately its all about decentralization. The entire movement is a reaction to the percived corruption and unfairness in the current system. The dollar and stock market are very centralized, and even the data they report comes from "trusted" central authorities. Theres ample evidence of fraud at the highest levels. Not to mention the Fed's ability to print more currency at their own discretion.
Blockchains (except privacy chains like Monero) make financial transactions fair and transparent. The rules are written in code (essentially pure logic)for everybody to see. Most chains cannot be changed without a vote.
The music industry is a good analog for what's happening in finance. Music was dominated by record companies, who used their size to force new artists into disadvantageous contracts, and forced people to pay an increasingly exorbitant price for something that had almost no cost to produce.
Some bold coders created programs that allowed people to share music directly with each other, cutting out the middleman.
The music industry attacked every way they could, but each company they sank caused an even more decentralized system to take its place, until irritated coders created programs that don't make them any money at all, rendering music a public service for anybody with enough knowhow.
I would argue peer to peer networks have an ability to spread without the aid of the "network effect". Word of mouth is sufficient. People are motivated to foster community online and share information.
There are even free online tools now that allow you to create your own social media platforms, with custom rules, backed by your choice of blockchain for security.
We might end up with a lot of small custom platforms full of people who share some ideal or interest. Many with opportunities for members to earn currency of some sort.
Heap_Good_Firewater t1_iwld8mc wrote
>When one currency becomes too expensive, or its control too centralized, then we can just create a new currency and begin doing business in it instead.
This is a wild claim. Such a system would never scale to a global, or even national level. If a major currency was replaced without years of planning, the ensuing chaos would result in a global depression.
It's OK for crypto to be volatile, and for older tokens to be pushed aside, because it's early days, but much more stability will be required if a cryptocurrency is ever going to be used for anything but limited/illicit transactions.
>The rules are written in code (essentially pure logic)for everybody to see.
Ah yes. "Code is law". This cuts both ways. Say someone embedded a smart contract in a jpeg and gets it in your wallet somehow (social engineering often works on the average person). If you click on it, it drains your funds. Fuck you, code is law. Your tokens belong to the hacker now.
Also, if your currency is especially useful for money laundering, human trafficking, ransom and terrorism, that's not exactly benefitting society.
​
>Its not really possible to be "hacked" though as you have an opportunity to read the code before accepting a contract.
Then why have so many hacks happened using this exact vector? I'm a software engineer and I miss things on code reviews sometimes (and this code isn't trying to hide things from me).
I imagine my mom would miss even more, if she even bothered to check the code. If only software experts can use a product safely, that doesn't bode well for mass adoption.
​
>Ultimately its all about decentralization. The entire movement is a reaction to the percived corruption and unfairness in the current system.
Is Coinbase decentralized? How about Binance? Crypto is so hard for non-technical people to use that centralization will always be required.
Blockchains are orders of magnitude too slow for mainstream adoption as currencies (see article below). Therefore they require layers (Lightning, Layer2, etc.) to increase transaction throughput. These layers introduce centralization and negate many of the undeniable security benefits of the blockchain.
Replacing an unfair system with a system that is already far more unequal and can only be safely used by software engineers seems like trading one set of problems for another.
>The music industry is a good analog for what's happening in finance.
The music industry analogy breaks down pretty quickly. Music is a product, not a currency. It doesn't underpin the entire economy. The nature and use cases of music didn't change, just the distribution method and which entities had centralized control.
Centralized record companies were largely replaced by centralized streaming companies. There are still a couple dozen acts that hoover up 90% of the revenue. The one big benefit is that artists can build a following by touring and posting on YouTube and SoundCloud (and others) and avoid being enslaved by a record company early on.
SOURCES:
Blockchains and Cryptocurrencies: Burn It With Fire (Nicholas Weaver)
The best takedown of crypto by a Berkeley CS professor.
Line Goes Up – The Problem With NFTs
A less technical, but equally interesting takedown, focused mostly on NFTs
paradox-snail t1_iwo8s0o wrote
Interesting conversation, but it looks like you missed my point on that last one, given your response.
I can certainly understand your perspective, given the info and ideas you've mentioned. Only time will tell whose correct
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments