I think each dot represent a member of the FOMC and that person's expectation of the future interest rate. And I just discovered that it's 17 dots, but only 10 full members and 5 alternate members of the committee (https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomc.htm).
Jim acknowledges Bitcoin is a form of Money in that interview!
I do not think it matters who the "Eth governors" are or what they think, I assume you are referring to the original Ethereum development team? I suppose this is a theoretical point of weakness in this governance model, just like Bitcoin.
Secondly I do not think it matters that the precedent does not exist in Bitcoin, However such a situation could not exist within Bitcoin, since this is all only possible through the existence of these smart contracts and the creation of such a DAO. This is why it is possible to return the DOA funds and not effect anyone else, that would not be possible in Bitcoin since it would require a rollback which could not be justified, importantly that is not the case with Ethereum now.
I can't help but see the parallels, the argument I just made about Bitcoin and Ethereum depending on game theory incentives and not social convention. Also seems very familiar with our discussions with @jonny1000 here.
I think part of the similarities simply lie in that there is a disagreement within the community that is resolved through a decentralized proof of work governance mechanism, we see some of the same patterns, and ideological divides being drawn up.
I would say that the same is probably true with Ethereum right now, we might disagree on the extend, but we are seeing the same results from using the same governance mechanism and it has not fully played out yet for either, this is why what is happening to Ethereum now could also be very instructive for Bitcoin itself.
There is always a chance that we are wrong, except for our own existence. I applaud your wisdom, I think I could be wrong on my theory of governance for Bitcoin, though if I am correct I expect to see that blocksize limit lifted and for Bitcoin to soar, along with its alternatives.
oh noes!:I do not think it matters who the "Eth governors" are or what they think, I assume you are referring to the original Ethereum development team? I suppose this is a theoretical point of weakness in this governance model, just like Bitcoin.
Secondly I do not think it matters that the precedent does not exist in Bitcoin, However such a situation could not exist within Bitcoin, since this is all only possible through the existence of these smart contracts and the creation of such a DAO. This is why it is possible to return the DOA funds and not effect anyone else, that would not be possible in Bitcoin since it would require a rollback which could not be justified, importantly that is not the case with Ethereum now.
I can't help but see the parallels, the argument I just made about Bitcoin and Ethereum depending on game theory incentives and not social convention. Also seems very familiar with our discussions with @jonny1000 here.
I think part of the similarities simply lie in that there is a disagreement within the community that is resolved through a decentralized proof of work governance mechanism, we see some of the same patterns, and ideological divides being drawn up.
I would say that the same is probably true with Ethereum right now, we might disagree on the extend, but we are seeing the same results from using the same governance mechanism and it has not fully played out yet for either, this is why what is happening to Ethereum now could also be very instructive for Bitcoin itself.
There is always a chance that we are wrong, except for our own existence. I applaud your wisdom, I think I could be wrong on my theory of governance for Bitcoin, though if I am correct I expect to see that blocksize limit lifted and for Bitcoin to soar, along with its alternatives.
We just don't know if we are right or wrong. But Diodoros Kronos proved that there is no such thing as a chance and a probability:
That was short and intense, both guys talking as fast as they could at the same time. Too bad Bloomberg don't spend more time on the basic fundamentals of money.
I think the governance model of Ethereum is presently exactly the same as Bitcoin, being that miners vote on any rule changes, in theory at least they are meant to follow the economic majority since that is what best aligns with their own self interest. It is the same in Ethereum, the environment, people, history and culture might be different but the governance model is essentially the same.
The way that I see it is that the question relating to the fork only really applies to Ethereum the protocol. The rules of that specific contract become irrelevant to a certain extend, because the governance mechanism can override any of the contracts rules through "consensus". Some people might see this as being very problematic, but it can be seen as a positive feature as well. This is why some people think it would be better if these contracts are build on layer two solutions, instead of having the contracts build directly onto the blockchain like Ethereum.
Ah, the beauty of public debate and the free market finding the right solution!
I'm going to think on this one for a bit - I think there's an important distinction governance styles but I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment (you keep doing this to me while I'm at work, damnit. LOL).
No that is the market. High price means consume one less (transaction) and produce one more. (Larger block). Low price means consume one more, and produce one less.
I think it's important to remember that we are not arguing for bigger blocks (that's the way they -- the kore junta -- want to portray our position) but for a free market.
:
