161–170 of 194 posts
Part of the problem is they based this language off of JavaScript on purpose no less. It should be hard to make mistakes like this yet a single capitalization would change the semantic meaning enough to prevent this! Terrible design choices for a financial banking language.
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.
A bank robber isn't considered a "thief" for violating the laws of physics, either. What's your point? 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…
Part of the problem is they based this language off of JavaScript on purpose no less. It should be hard to make mistakes like this yet a single capitalization would change the semantic meaning enough to prevent this! Terrible design choices for a financial banking language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solidity is a contract-oriented, high-level language whose syntax is similar to that of JavaScript and it is designed to target the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). http://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/
Syntax being similar is not the same as being based on it.
This case feels so closely to the very interesting case of Aviva France[1], where a not "well-futureproofed" life insurance contract is making a person very rich by the day. Unfortunately for Aviva, their contracts are actually law in contrast to Ethereum where if the devs feel like it, they can do/revert anything. [1]: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/02/27/2120422/meet-the-man-...
Am I missing something? I thought the devs had to have everyone agree to do a hard fork. If the devs were in complete control, that wouldn't have been necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building a financial system without some level of flexibility and human judgment seems like an awful idea. Forgive the lengthy story, but this tale courtesy of Matt Levine is perfect for this [1]: > The California electric grid operator built a set of rules for generating, distributing and paying for electricity. Those rules were dumb and bad. If you read them carefully and greedily, you could get paid silly amounts…
That is their selling point, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building a financial system without some level of flexibility and human judgment seems like an awful idea. Forgive the lengthy story, but this tale courtesy of Matt Levine is perfect for this [1]: > The California electric grid operator built a set of rules for generating, distributing and paying for electricity. Those rules were dumb and bad. If you read them carefully and greedily, you could get paid silly amounts…
That is their selling point, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever the goal, unless they guarantee you a payment and fund that payment with membership fees paid by later entrants, it's not a ponzi scheme.
What are you talking about membership fees? That isn't the criteria for all Ponzi schemes you know? You don't sound like you know what a Ponzi scheme is.
>is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator generates returns for older investors through revenue paid by new investors, rather than from legitimate business activities.
The operator pays revenue to those who joined earlier with the fees received from those who joined later.
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).
There's no way of framing this that preserves the philosophical purity.