Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colony: A platform for open organizations

colony.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 181 posts

Re: Colony: A platform for open organizations

#131

Post by [deleted] »

mgkabar wrote: post #125
popcorncowboy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary. This is a core project team member saying that in the event a dedicated agent IS sufficiently motivated and DOES manage to compromise a Colony, "well, the answer is simply ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" The many sentences that come before the shrug do nothing to address the very realistic scenario of a breach. The "sarcastic closing comment" was in fact the final truth of it.

It really seems like the most appropriate response to this is indeed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You're assuming quite a lot of this hypothetical hacker - the response above clearly addresses the hypothetical by stating "here are the relevant reasons why this hypothetical is impossible or at least unlikely, and here are the relevant sections in the whitepaper for more verbose information". >The many sentences that come before the shru…

[deleted]

Re: Colony: A platform for open organizations

#132

Post by digikata »

popcorncowboy wrote: post #107
gedrap wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I locate and bribe/extort your main influencer/s to push your project into the ground (block work, object to everything, whatever) or in my preferred direction How's that any different from the current state? Execs of current companies are humans with power to run the company into the ground. You can extort/bribe them like that as well. How does it change anything?

fab13n made a similar comment on this line. So thanks to both of you for illustrating the point (genuinely): > "How does it change anything?" The action itself may appear the same, but in code-as-law systems the consequences of this action change everything. The system of governance is immutable. If I can coerce your primary influencer to destroy your Colony _there is nothing you can do about it_, because the system…

I think it's good to press hard on how newly proposed code-as-law systems work, but at the same time, how are gaps between code-as-law larger or different from say an executive that skims money out of a company, transferring it to other bank accounts. The banking system isn't enforcing any legal contracts in that transaction, and if the malfeasance is discovered then some legal recovery action would order or capture assets to be transferred back. Couldn't a court of law order assets be transferred to a wronged party in a code-as-law system?

Edit: I do think a good "control test" of many of the code-as-law systems is to compare against cases about how it would be different than a ledger managed by a person & the existing legal framework around it, and then a centralized database with security around certain operations.

Re: Colony: A platform for open organizations

#133

Post by mgkabar »

bmelton wrote: post #127
iakh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you help me understand why a token makes sense in this case? It seems just as easy to implement this concept as Colony SaaS.

If it's like Assembly, the coins/tokens themselves don't have value _per se_, they just represent ownership. Basically, in this case, it's acting more of a ledger to represent equity than as the commodity it's typically used as. An example: UserA posts a great idea, and wants help to implement it. UserA is an MBA, has a business plan, a rough idea of execution, etc., but is not a programmer, or a graphic designer, or…

Yeah, this seems very similar to how a Colony is envisioned to run, with a few extra considerations:

Each colony's native tokens act as a representation of equity as described above (more or less), entitling holders to a 'rewards' disbursement periodically - but they also may be employed by the colony for mechanisms of governance in the case of token-weighted voting.

Additionally, whenever someone makes an amount of tokens, they also are awarded an equal amount of reputation, which cannot be transferred and which decays over time. This score also confers influence in the colony for voting and dispute resolution, if the members of the colony wish to make their voting reputation weighted, or some combination of reputation and token-weighted.

Finally, to claim rewards, a user needs to have both reputation and tokens - this means that tokens themselves don't immediately entitle one to rewards; only those who actually contribute meaningful work to the colony (as evidenced by their reputation score) are entitled to proportional rewards.

Re: Colony: A platform for open organizations

#135

Post by popcorncowboy »

mgkabar wrote: post #125
popcorncowboy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary. This is a core project team member saying that in the event a dedicated agent IS sufficiently motivated and DOES manage to compromise a Colony, "well, the answer is simply ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" The many sentences that come before the shrug do nothing to address the very realistic scenario of a breach. The "sarcastic closing comment" was in fact the final truth of it.

It really seems like the most appropriate response to this is indeed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You're assuming quite a lot of this hypothetical hacker - the response above clearly addresses the hypothetical by stating "here are the relevant reasons why this hypothetical is impossible or at least unlikely, and here are the relevant sections in the whitepaper for more verbose information". >The many sentences that come before the shru…

> the response above clearly addresses the hypothetical

Yes, by saying "the hypothetical is moot". Moot. And why? Because "in principle" "this should ... prevent the circumstances enabling such an exploit from ever happening.". Moreover, that we should simply trust that the intrinsic balance of economics means successful projects cannot exhibit a state in which a breach would be profitable, and anyway that the combination of someone smart enough, mean enough and motivated enough to breach is inconceivable.

Which could all be acceptable. Except if they're wrong even once, you lose everything.

> What kind of answer would satisfy you?

I see this response a lot on HN, and it's an obviously cheap shot.

If the asymmetry of outcomes in the two types of breaches is not obvious to you, then lets talk it out.

If an attacker breaches your real world company servers, they can cause a lot of damage. No question. They can steal IP, records, etc etc etc. The examples are legion. You're right.

But if they breach your Colony dAPP? They own you. Not metaphorically. They take de facto ownership of whatever value you've created.

No matter how incredibly well you can hack eg. Apple, you can't ever take over total ownership and control. Even if you hacked the Exchanges and somehow reset all the records, even if you compromised key board members, etc etc in the real world we have recourse, we have liability, we have laws and courts and means to make claims and pursue remedies.

But on the Blockchain? All your Colony are belong to someone-else the moment you edge-case a smart contract. Permanently. (Unless you can convince Vitalik et al to re-fork, case in moot point.) The equivalent would be if Apple ran a server that if you could figure out how to breach you could take ownership of Apple and total control of its operations.

So, "what kind of answer would satisfy"? One in which the design did not fundamentally and existentially depend on no-one ever figuring out a combination to a lock that gave them total and immutable control of a store of ever increasing value.

> It really seems like the most appropriate response to this is indeed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Except, if you've ever been decently burned by a clause in a contract, you'll know that the actual felt response is not even close to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Colony: A platform for open organizations

#136

Post by elena_di »

fab13n wrote: post #73
asymmetric wrote: post #69

Interesting project, but I find it unfortunate that they chose such a historically loaded term.

I thought of ants and bees. In a pro-decentralisation context, the interpretation you're referring to--which is the pinnacle of centralisation forced through violence for selfish goals--is so obviously irrelevant, that it didn't even come to mind.

Yes ants and bees! And the intelligence with which they organise their work and life https://blog.colony.io/the-future-of-work-cf99211e7ac4

Re: Colony: A platform for open organizations

#137

Post by heroprotagonist »

orcdork wrote: post #38
flunhat wrote: post #4

This is the first Ethereum based project I've seen that seems halfway interesting (and I'm one of those "cryptocurrency doubters"). It doesn't somehow recursively relate to Ethereum, doesn't over-rely on blockchain buzzwords, and can be explained in a sentence or two. While first reading the page, I didn't realize that it was even an Ethereum based project until the very end, which I liked. At any rate, I'm intereste…

It's interesting that I'm on exactly the other side - it seemed halfway interesting until I realized there's some kind of cryptocurrency involved (and only figured that out while reading this comment). The org stuff looks interesting - the crypto stuff makes me more suspicious of it's present and future because of the possibility of a money grab.

I was exactly the same. I read this comment, then went back and looked again and saw:

> One organization should not be beholden to, or have to trust another, in order to confidently conduct their business.

>

> That’s why the Colony protocol is built as open source smart contracts on the Ethereum network.

In one breath, "We shouldn't have to trust any other organization" and then immediately after it's "built on the Ethereum network".

I wish this was not a requirement.

Re: Colony: A platform for open organizations

#138

Post by denisnazarov »

popcorncowboy wrote: post #85

Here are just two thought experiments I'd love to hear Colony/elena_di explain: Hypothetical 1: You and a growing team of incredibly engaged Colony members build out a $10M/yr revenue stream. Edge case leaks 87% of tokens to a dedicated hacker. Sorry? Hypothetical 2: I like/hate your successful Colony. So I locate and bribe/extort your main influencer/s to push your project into the ground (block work, object to ever…

For 1: The colony fixes the bug and creates a fork of the contract state (balances, etc) before the hack, so everyone has the same balance but there is no longer a bug. There should be consensus on using this fork going forward because everyone that has created value or invested is incentivized to do so.

Re: Colony: A platform for open organizations

#139

Post by collinvine »

katelynsills wrote: post #9

This is really interesting. I've lately become more curious about theories of transaction costs - how traditional firms might have an advantage because they don't have to bargain over every decision and have understood lines of decision-making. I'm wondering if decentralized organizations might have a transaction cost problem.

Great question. This is the biggest opportunity for software, in my opinion. The boundaries between the firm and the market are, in part, governed by transaction costs. (There are more reasons. You mentioned you're interested in reading more, so I'd recommend this: https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Nature-Firm-Reader/dp/052114...)

Technology has the opportunity to decrease transaction costs amongst a group of participants. Consequently, this could then lead to lower trust amongst participants—one of blockchain's leading selling points.

It's all theory, so we'll see how this plays out, but it's the one thing I think is most exciting: can technology lower transaction costs and thus blur the lines between firm and market.

Re: Colony: A platform for open organizations

#140

Post by collinvine »

lozenge wrote: post #2

I'm happy to see another product in the "opinionated management" space (another is https://www.loomio.org ) but think integrating a cryptocurrency limits the appeal and cheapens the concept. I really can't see who this is designed for.

I think the token allows for more market-based economies. Maybe that's a market economy within a firm, or a market economy within a coworking space amongst members, or in open source projects.

Sure, you could use fiat or a non-blockchain "token", but I believe this open market, with price discovery, adds more value then it detracts.

Post reply on HN