I'd argue he CAN indeed do it again today. Perhaps not in the exact way as the DAO fiasco, but lets be clear, the fundamental transgression was selling one story "the code is law" and then not abiding by that law when it affected him and his friends aversely.
So can he still commit such an egregious breach of trust in this timeline, despite having done it before? Absolutely, though that and the DAO instance may indeed look different from one another.
Huh given the context (especially given that this was post DAO hard fork) I read that as vitalik saying that "Code is law" is a principal, not necessarily saying that "code is law" is a principal held by himself/Ethereum.
I don't think you read that very well. His response is to Samson Mow (CSO of Blockstream) claiming that Vitalik was "Pivoting to 'Principles are law' from 'Code is law?'". This is because anyone who is even remotely familiar with Ethereum/Vitalik knows how many times Vitalik has said he believes "Code is Law".
Vitalik goes on to defend against Mow's claim that he is "pivoting" by saying that it is indeed a principle. It's extremely clear with basic reading comprehension that Vitalik is claiming that as a principle of his.
Not sure how you extracted the meaning you did. If I'm being honest, you seem to not really be researching the subject in good faith, as a simple google search will turn up many times he's either stated he believes that in text or even video.
You are welcome to believe what you'd like to though, I unfortunately don't have the time to do your research for you, nor do I care to change your mind. So cheers and good luck!
> The people who continued with Ethereum Classic advocate for blockchain immutability, and the concept that "code is law" against the pro-fork side (Ethereum) which largely argued for extra-protocol intentionality, decentralized decision-making, and conflict resolution.
Nope Vitalik believes code is law, just like any simple google search will show you. You just seem to be avoiding that all all costs. Strange really, wonder what your true motives are, good luck buddy!
It's bizarre to me that one would NOT gauge the credibility of Ethereum today based on what the developers actually did vs what they said they would do. What exactly have they done to redeem themselves from their previous scandal?
The idea that a blockchain with thousands of nodes requires redemption from some historical act seems to ignore the very nature of how it functions at a protocol level. Ethereum exists as a collection of nodes who choose to participate using certain clients, not a computer in Vitalik's closet.
Credibility is the fact that Ethereum has succeeded with sufficient immutability since The DAO hack to convince billions of dollars of transactions for various use cases. Proof is in the pudding.
What assurance do we have that they won't do it again when it suits them?
That "credibility" metric is meaningless when the core devs can rug-pull at any time. "Jude-, go run Ethereum Classic if you're that bent out of shape about it" isn't a compelling argument either, because if the vast majority of the Ethereum economy goes along with the core devs' whims, then there's no point of having a blockchain at all. Might as well just replace Ethereum with a replicated PostgreSQL database, and give only the core devs permission to change the schema and UPDATE rows. If we're trusting core devs to not rug-pull in the future, after they have done so in the past, then there's really no need for the current low-trust environment -- after all, the things that make it low-trust also make it slow and expensive.
Weird, I didn't make an argument to use Ethereum Classic. I am arguing that given humans are still the ones who develop clients perfect immutability is impossible.
I do belive that Bitcoin is more immutable than Ethereum. I also don't buy that Ethereum is unusably mutable. But hey, looks like the market thus far agrees with my position on this.
Wake me up when it happens. The Bitcoin project's developers still get the benefit of the doubt because unlike Ethereum, they haven't betrayed the trust its users placed in them. Also, network upgrades happen through a miner voting process, which checks the power of the project's developers. Ethereum provides no such check.
> But hey, looks like the market thus far agrees with my position on this.
Bitcoin is worth considerably more than Ethereum, and that will likely be the case for the foreseeable future in part because in each Ethereum hard fork, the monetary policy changes. Why would anyone park capital in Ethereum for the long term if they can't even be sure what their dilution will be next year?
> The Bitcoin project's developers still get the benefit of the doubt
Doesn't seem like a sound argument for perfect immutability. Sounds reasonable as an argument for better immutability.
> Bitcoin is worth considerably more than Ethereum
Ethereum is the second largest cryptocurrency. To imply that it hasn't been successful is disingenuous. Of course Ethereum doesn't need to "flippen" Bitcoin to still have demonstrable value.
> Why would anyone park capital in Ethereum for the long term if they can't even be sure what their dilution will be next year?
I guess its $400bn of irrational market participants then. Funny, because most of the institutional world would say the same of Bitcoin. One can ignore both at their own financial peril.
> Doesn't seem like a sound argument for perfect immutability. Sounds reasonable as an argument for better immutability.
It is a fact that Ethereum's developers altered the consensus rules to revert the DAO (after touting "code is law" for some time prior to it), and it is a fact that Bitcoin's developers have done no such thing. It is also a fact that subsequent Ethereum hard forks have altered the token emission policy, whereas no such alterations have occurred on Bitcoin. Furthermore, it is a fact that the whole selling point of using a blockchain -- a very slow, inefficient, expensive, power-hungry, unforgiving time-series replicated database -- to implement world-class financial instruments is that in principle, the code decides what happens, and alterations to this arrangement only happen with the support of a majority of network voting power (e.g. hashrate, stake). The Ethereum project's behavior is in violation of this core principle, whereas the Bitcoin project is not.
I'm sorry, but your attempt to convince me that Ethereum's behavior here has been in any way comparable to Bitcoin because "nothing is immutable" comes across as weak nihilism. It's like saying that Ethereum's decision doesn't matter because eventually we'll all be dead and the heat death of the universe will render mining inoperable. Like, yes, this is true, but it's also not germane.
> Ethereum is the second largest cryptocurrency. To imply that it hasn't been successful is disingenuous.
Where did I say that Ethereum wasn't successful in an absolute sense? All I said was that it isn't as successful as Bitcoin, and that I don't think it will never be until these unresolved governance questions get addressed.
> I guess its $400bn of irrational market participants then.
Okay, two things.
First, if everyone sold their Eth right now, would they collectively receive $400bn? Is the buy side of the market actually that deep?
Second, you're actually correct here -- markets are irrational. The crypto markets are especially so, since they lack many of the hard-won investor safeguards that traditional markets have gained over the years to defend against the bad consequences of irrational behavior. Also, markets can afford to remain irrational far longer than either of us can remain solvent, so caveat emptor, DYOR, and so on.
This is painting a rosy picture of history Bitcoin client consensus that whitewashes over events like the block size debate. Social consensus is required between core devs, miners and exchanges -- Bitcoin came out stronger from these events (far less catastrophic than The DAO), although it wasn't perfectly apparent at the time that it would.
I've never argued that Ethereum is more successful than Bitcoin, but you've continued to deflect any point where I've indicated that it has any merit as a network at all. Seems pretty irrational -- or purely agenda driven.
The block size debate wasn't about retroactively changing the outcome of a valid network transaction, was it? That's a pretty substantial difference between this and the DAO disaster. Retroactively changing things without the majority consent of the system's voting power defeats the purpose of using a blockchain at all.
> you've continued to deflect any point where I've indicated that it has any merit as a network at all.
That's because the minute the Ethereum project leaders retroactively altered the transaction history the way they did is the minute the project lost all credibility with me (and hence my original comment about why Ethereum should just switch over to a PostgreSQL database if their stance is that the devs should be able to invalidate prior transactions on a whim). I've outlined a set of reasonable governance safeguards in a sibling thread that I believe could restore confidence in the project by bringing it back in line with the aforementioned core principle of operation that justifies building it as a blockchain (and not just a database), but I'll point out that the project has enacted nothing like them to date.
I'm not opposed to hard forks on principle. I'm opposed to hard forks that get pushed through without measurable majority stakeholder consent. Even if Ethereum had done a very simple miner-based vote to upgrade the system to disable the DAO contract (something they could have done in the time between the attack and the time the attacker could have exited with the DAO's ETH), it would have been enough to satisfy this requirement. But they didn't.
>The idea that a blockchain with thousands of nodes requires redemption from some historical act seems to ignore the very nature of how it functions at a protocol level.
And the idea that it doesn't seems to ignore reality as a whole. Ethereum already had thousands of nodes running when the DAO scandal was perpetrated, that didn't change a thing.
As for your second statement, it stinks of a bag holder grasping at straws. There is zero credibility in the project after the DAO scandal. But you are welcome to convince yourself otherwise.
To the average ignorant trader, sure. Otherwise this statement doesn't hold water. You should really do some research before making such silly uninformed claims.
Anyone who purchases options is indeed gambling. I mean, you're not getting anything in return for your money like when you purchase shares to build equity. When you buy an option, if you're wrong you literally lose all your money.
Now, I know you're gonna say you can lose all your money when you buy shares, but no -- that very rarely, if ever, happens. If you buy a dividend stock than it's even better as a long-term investment.
The only parties options trading isn't "literally gambling" for are the ones selling the options like market makers (Citadel). They know people like to gamble and they're happy to take the other side of the trade because it's free money when they hedge properly (sounds like a casino, doesn't it?).
Let's say I have 1000 shares of MSFT that I can't sell for 1 year, but I'm worried the stock might drop. I can buy puts to hedge against the price dropping, and the strike price determines how much loss I'm willing to accept, and the corresponding premium I need to pay. If the price in 1 year increased, I'm only out the premium for the 10 puts I bought, otherwise I can exercise them.
If you are purchasing “covered” options, it is absolutely akin to paying an insurance premium to limit the impact of short-term price swings, that are out of your control.
Just like you pay health insurance premiums to mitigate against costlier health risks.
You own 1 XYZ at an average price of $200.00. It is trading for $300.00.
You purchase an option to sell 1 XYZ for $300.00, which costs you $10.00, and expires in 3 months.
You just paid $10 to guarantee a minimum profit of $90.00 in 3 months, regardless of whether the price swings down.
There isn’t any morally harmful transaction occurring here, IMO.
It’s actually less risky than owning a stock for 3 months.
Is this transaction a reprehensible one, for you?
To be clear, we’re not trying to say that all options are created equal. Naked options (where you have no position) are in fact straight up gambling, at least insofar as I’ve tried to reasoned about them.
No you didn't address it all. It's also not a strawman because buying options is literally a form of insurance...
Have you ever priced a derivative? What about the estimation of future/realized risk using implied volatility doesn't seem "rooted in statistical analysis" to you?
>The only parties options trading isn't "literally gambling" for are the ones selling the options like market makers (Citadel). They know people like to gamble and they're happy to take the other side of the trade because it's free money when they hedge properly (sounds like a casino, doesn't it?).
Anyone can sell options, not just institutions. And it's still gambling, just with better odds. You can still lose all of your money on the selling side. Naked options even come with the risk of losing more than all of your money. The whole thing is just one big casino with everyone betting against each other to see who's right.
> Please explain to me how I can lose money by writing a covered call option.
When you to sell the underlying to cover. It's right there in the name. Of course you lose money, it's just that your downside risk is capped.
> Us plebs aren't allowed to write naked options, that privilege only belongs to institutional actors.
Yeah because you'll probably lose all your money. Would you rather be allowed to do something incredibly dangerous and then get met with a dispassionate, "Well, almost everyone fails at this but you tried anyway, should have known better! Thanks for playing."?
Writing any amount of uncovered calls where the present stock price is at least higher than the teens generally exposes you to more risk than the average American can absorb with their entire net worth.
That being said, if you really want to, there are places that will let you do it using margin if you guarantee you know what you're doing. Bad idea though.
I would highly suggest researching options trading, as you appear to be completely confused and/or misinformed about even the most fundamental aspects of options.
If you have a question about options, you can contact the Options Industry Council at 1-888-OPTIONS (1-888-678-4667) or visit its Getting Started web page. On the OIC website, you can also read a number of publications, including the "Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options" booklet.
Right. Now lets ask ourselves why one would need to spend hundreds to play a particular game. The answer you will come across most commonly is platform exclusivity deals. I am happy to pay for a game, but not buy the hardware for a system I don't want, just because they leveraged their business clout to prohibit games from releasing on other platforms. In this case, I could care less about the bottom line of the console company or the game company who agreed to what I view as a corrupt collaboration.
Really? Because Satoshi's whitepaper is literally titled “Bitcoin: a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", not "Bitcoin a 'store of value'". It seems to me the real answer is Bitcoin was sequestered by Blockstream and purposely sabotaged in order to promote their offchain solutions. BCH had to hard fork away to maintain the original intention of the project. Thus BCH can be transferred quickly and for mere fractions of the fees in BTC. So bitcoin is a currency, but that currency is now BCH. Whereas BTC exists to serve Blockstream and its for-profit offchain solution, which conveniently solve the limits they fought to impose.
Bitcoin's main purpose was to create an unattackable (by govt or private entities) decentralized consensus. It was best perceived to have been created by the a currency on it. This currency can still be used on layer 2 for smaller transactions.
If you and your buddy opened a tab between each other to have bitcoin settlement at the end of the day, that wouldn't be saying "But you aren't using bitcoin".
I believe you are mistaken, the purpose of Bitcoin was very clear from the whitepaper title. It was to create "a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Bitcoin Cash is the real, continued implementation of bitcoin, as it was designed in its whitepaper. BTC is simply an attempt (rather good one at that) by bad actors, to purposely hamper the protocol and then sell offchain solutions to solve those issues they introduced.
Imagine if for some reason the word "bitcoin" turns out to be problematic (maybe it means "Shit/fart/poop" in Spanish and Chinese, which means most people in these countries wouldn't wanna use it, so the bitcoin people decide to rename the project to "Cryptocoin", are you going to say that clearly this violates the fundamental principles of bitcoin because Satoshi called it "bitcoin"?
Because based on what I read on Satoshi's communication, he would take 2 mins to change the name to something else (look how easily he applied the block size limit when the need arrived).
Similarly, there are essential attributes to what bitcoin is, and there are accidental attributes to it. Clearly the name of bitcoin is not necessary for it to be bitcoin.
What about the 'cash system' part? Clearly you and I disagree on this. I believe that cash part doesn't mean that the basic token must be trasnferable on layer 1.
Changing the name or updating implementation details is not the same thing as completely abandoning the technology.
You're talking about building a completely separate payment system that has nothing to do with Bitcoin, that suffers from all of the original privacy and centralization problems as regular cash, but just because the funds get converted to Bitcoin after some purchases we're still going to pretend it's using the same technology and that it still aligns with Satoshi's original goals?
If we're doing that, then I'm declaring that my credit card is a Bitcoin system, because I can buy Bitcoin from Coinbase using a credit card. I'm declaring that Visa is already just a layer 1 payment system on top of a Bitcoin backend.
As another commenter mentioned to you: "Changing the name or updating implementation details is not the same thing as completely abandoning the technology.". I agree with them, your comparison doesn't make much sense in this context.
I'd argue he CAN indeed do it again today. Perhaps not in the exact way as the DAO fiasco, but lets be clear, the fundamental transgression was selling one story "the code is law" and then not abiding by that law when it affected him and his friends aversely.
So can he still commit such an egregious breach of trust in this timeline, despite having done it before? Absolutely, though that and the DAO instance may indeed look different from one another.