151–160 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No.
Basically 'Why not?' you wanting it to be a male makes no sense ... unless you get a kick out of casting yourself as a protagonist in this story ... in which case go figure.
If R2-D2 used Ethereum. C-3PO: He made a perfectly legal move. Han: Let him have it. It’s not wise to upset a Wookiee (The Ethereum founders). C-3PO: But sir. Nobody worries about upsetting a droid (a regular contract user without influence). Han: That’s cause a droid (regular contract user) don’t pull people’s arms out of their sockets (hard fork the entire crypto currency and call you a thief) when they lose. Wooki…
Had Vitalik ignored the vote and put his organization and the "canonical" chain on the non-HF side his would be the "abandoned" no-name chain, and people would now be mining some ETH derivative in line with their votes.
This is honestly just a fulfillment of "code is law", with the obvious rule above it being "humans accept or reject laws collectively". In this case, people rejected the former "law" and opted for one that captured the spirit/intent rather than the letter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
jesus christ, who the fuck would make two identical symbols differentiated by only capitalisation? (Other than these guys obviously)
It's surprising that most languages will happily let you do this. Lots of C programs have 'FOO' and 'foo'; not so many will have 'Foo' as well but it's probably more common than you think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the whole point was to do away with "implicit" or "everybody knows" or other human-interpretation/subjective factors? If the premise is "the code is the contract, period, except we reserve the right to change the contract at any time or even to cause the contract retroactively never to have existed, based on implicit or subjective factors decided by humans and not by code", then it's a very different beast.
Except no one reserved that right. The majority of the users agreed to basically create a new currency with the same history, minus the theft /unethical taking of money (if you insist on calling it legal).
Thief? He strictly followed the terms of a contract by people who were very clear that "code is law" and who did not want institutions were the result is decided by human judgement.
Can we do an experiment and use 'she' for anonymous players in these stories? Would be kinda cool. The article uses 'he' throughout, and only acknowledges the possibility of it being either/or/group in the final paragraphs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically 'Why not?' you wanting it to be a male makes no sense ... unless you get a kick out of casting yourself as a protagonist in this story ... in which case go figure.
He's not the one asking for an imposition of some rule. When you write the article, pick whatever pronouns you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But code is written by humans... have you ever seen code with no bugs? In 20 years of professional development I have not. Given that humans are imperfect, and could even potentially act in bad faith, isn't it reasonable to have an exception clause? I get the argument to not have one; that it's impossible to have favorites and central figures manipulate the system, but nothing is perfect.
> isn't it reasonable to have an exception clause It absolutely is. Which is why you don't say "code is law". Which is why Ethereum is dumb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we do an experiment and use 'she' for anonymous players in these stories? Would be kinda cool. The article uses 'he' throughout, and only acknowledges the possibility of it being either/or/group in the final paragraphs.
Does it matter? And if it does, wouldn't it be better to just use "they" and avoid gender issues all together?
Is it even illegal to hack Ethereum? Some purists would say the smart contract was behaving as written.
The principle of Ethereum is that code is law, the "hacker" followed the law to the letter and acted in a prescribed manner. What's the crime here exactly?
Thief? He strictly followed the terms of a contract by people who were very clear that "code is law" and who did not want institutions were the result is decided by human judgement.
Code is law. The community decided/realized the "law" as written wasn't the one they wanted, so they created a fork that captured both the letter and spirit of the "law" rather than the letter of some other one they didn't want.
I don't get the holy wars over this, other than the fact that some people are obviously very motivated to pump their empty shell coin in the hopes that it beats the leading ETH one. "Code is law" and "laws are imposed upon humans against their collective will" lead to two very different things.