All of tsathoggua's Comments + Replies

I hate this so much, and it happens so often with Tech stuff. Just because something is brand new, and does not have laws or regulations relating to it right now does not mean that people can simply do whatever they want.

Courts are still going to litigate this stuff, and people are definately going to sue if they start losing huge amounts of money, and it is just worse that the creators are basically not planning for these issues, but just going off the basis that it is all going to work out.

1ChristianKl
Of course the creators do plan for the issue. They make sure that there no central point of failure that can easily be attacked.
1ChristianKl
Which of those people who lost bitcoin when MtGox has hacked sued the miners to transfer the stolen money back to their accounts?
7Lumifer
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. When people say that some things (like the blockchain) are outside of the law, they don't usually mean that no one can be sued or that the courts won't try to enforce judgements. What they mean is that those things are hard for the law to reach. A court might issue a judgement but it won't be able to enforce it. The general idea is that enforcement is so difficult and expensive so that it's not worth it. For a simple example, consider piracy (of the IP kind). It is very much illegal and... so what? I can still go online and download the latest movie in a few minutes. It's not that the FBI can't bust me if it really wants to. It can. But it's inefficient and cost-prohibitive. As to smart contracts, that's just a misnomer. They are not contracts. They are determistic mechanisms, set up for a particular purpose. Bespoke machines, if you wish. A contract in law implies a meeting of the minds which these algorithms cannot provide. Instead, they offer a guarantee that if you do A, B happens. They are more akin to vending machines: you feed in some money and you get the item. It's not a contract between you and the vendor -- it's just a machine which you used.

In the specific case of the project known as 'TheDAO', the terms of service does indeed waive all legal rights and says that whatever the computer program says supersedes all human-world stuff.

I may have missed it, but that is not at all what the link you posted says. It has a waiver of liability against 3rd parties (basically the DAO operation). It does not say that you cannot have liability between to parties subject to a contract, or even seem to mention anything about dispute resolution.

Also, I would like to point out that you CANNOT have a contrac... (read more)

1HungryHobo
You're still conflating the term "smart contract" and the idea of a legal contract. That's like conflating "observer" in physics with a human staring at you or hearing someone talking about a Daemon on their server and talking as if it's a red skinned monster from hell perched on the server. Imagine someone says "This is a river, if you throw your money in it will end up somewhere, we call the currents a 'water contract', the only difference to a normal river is that we've got the paperwork signed such that this doesn't count as littering" It does indeed end up somewhere and you're really really unhappy about where it ends up. Who do you think you're going to take to court and for what contract?
0scarcegreengrass
You might be correct. I suspect you know more about the law side of this than i do.
1ChristianKl
Which two people do you mean? The creators of the the DAO don't have control over it. When people who brought tokens sue them, they can't give them the money back.

Right, except Is there a section in the code that says the parties agree to have no legal recourse? Because if not, I can still appeal to a judge. The simple fact is that in the legal eyes of the law, the code is not a contract, it is perhaps at best a vehicle to complete a contract. You cannot simply set up a new legal agreement and just say "And you don't have any legal recourse".

0WalterL
I guarantee that if they could appeal to a judge, they would be. That's just not possible. Ultimately, one of two things will happen. Parties: The attacker: They used an exploit to transfer ether from one 'account' to another. The victim: They no longer have ether that they used to. The miners: They trade electricity/computation for network tokens in order to protect history from being rewritten. They are the reason I can't just write a program to give myself every bitcoin. They wouldn't run it. If they did, their users would abandon them for a fork from before my patch. The way crypto works, you can basically count on consensus winning out. Thus, ultimately one of two things will happen. 1: The miners accept an update and fork to rewrite history such that the victim retains their ether. 2: The miners accept the attacker's bribe (or not) and do not do so. The thief keeps the ether. In order to influence whether 1 or 2 happens a judge would have to compel the actions of the miners. That is, he would have to seize control of the currency. It has never happened. If you think that it will in this case, I'm willing to bet you that you are wrong.
2TimS
It depends. You probably can't write a contract that literally says "no recourse for breach." But you probably could achieve substantially the same effect. For example, you might define substantial performance so low that it is always met, then explicitly waive any right to good faith and fair dealing) and any injunctive relief. If a court found the contract enforcible, I'm not sure how they could fashion a remedy.

The law cannot compell you not to murder either, but does that mean you can go out an do it freely? No.

The law doesnt need to compell the computer code, it can force people to do things, it can force the code to be rewritten, it can shut down servers that run the code, it can confiscate the money used in the processes.

These are not some magical anonymous items that are above the law and inviolate. While it is true that they have not been litigated yet, that time is quickly coming, and they still rely on outside individuals to complete the contracts, and are still governed by all the same laws that everything else is.

4ChristianKl
The idea of the blockchain is that there no single server that runs the code and that could be attacked that way. A lot of de jure illegal transactions happened on the bitcoin blockchain without a court confiscating the transactions. When MtGox was hacked they couldn't simply ask a court to confiscate the Bitcoins that the hacker stole. There are a lot of drugs sold via Bitcoin and the courts also don't confiscate those. If people make a bet in Augur that the US government doesn't like, the US government can't shut down Augur. At least that's the idea on which Ethereum and Augur are build. Augur can trade a market about whether a certain drug will get FDA approval and the market participants are anonymous. That means they can use insider information. It's impossible to backup that anonymous transaction with standard contracts but smart contracts can.
0Lumifer
It is an article of faith is some circles that the blockchain is exactly this kind of magic :-/

But that isnt even true. If two people enter into a contract they are governed by law, regardless of whether it is a paper contract or computer code. I highly doubt there is any legal language in the computer code saying that the agreeing parties waive any US legal rights.

The code is not the contract, but rather a vehicle to effect the contract. You can have the exact same setup without the code.

On top of that, there is some legal questions as to what the DAO stuff actually is as a legal matter.

3scarcegreengrass
Just to clear some things up: * In some contexts, 'smart contract' is a misnomer: it's just a computer program that resembles a legal contract but does not interact with the government in any way. It just moves money according to agreed-upon rules. I don't think it's common to use both a legal contract and a 'smart contract' to enforce the same agreement. * In the specific case of the project known as 'TheDAO', the terms of service does indeed waive all legal rights and says that whatever the computer program says supersedes all human-world stuff. (https://daohub.org/explainer.html) * All of this stuff is so experimental that there's an exception to everything at this point.
-1ChristianKl
Law might want to govern them, but the power of the state is limited. A court can't compel a computer that executes code to do anything.

Did the Allies win WW I?

I think it is pretty obvious that by most measures that the central powers did not win the war, but did that victory create a lasting peace?

It obviously didn't. The way the "victory" in WW I was handled pretty much set the stage for WW II.

It is the same way in the middle east, you can have a "victory" or "win" but that does not mean long lasting peace.

0ChristianKl
They didn't beat Germans in Germany. They beat the German army outside of it and the Germans admitted defeat. The Sunni groups that are precursors of deash and that were active before the US left Iraq were never beaten to defeat.

So I will comment on the one example that I can speak somewhat fluently on, which is Thought experiment #2.

In the modern economy, hedges are publicly traded as well as the stocks. It is impossible for one to rise in value without the other falling, simply because information is public. If the executive begins to buy huge hedges against his corporations stock, the value of the hedge will rise.

Even if no one knows who exactly is buying these hedges, the price is going up, and so people will either begin to buy hedges as well, thus reducing the gain on them, ... (read more)

naively assuming linear returns to medical research funding

Likely the returns in medical research would be not even close to linear. The Law of diminishing returns will hit you hard. Spending 10x more on research will likely net you far less than a 10x increase, you would likely be lucky if you got half or a quarter of that. Science comes in steps and part of the process that reduces so much waste is peer reviewing and replication of results. Some processes simply cannot be sped up, regardless of funding. Even with infinite funding, I would be impressed... (read more)

0Algernoq
I'd really like to see published research on this. I did some searching and found that there's a lot of uncertainty because the problem isn't well-defined (different research has different values), it's hard to experiment with (very long lead-times), and there's no political value in knowing the truth (research spending is politically equivalent to highway repair spending). No one even really knows the value of current research. Research isn't a defined process (there are different ways to get to useful results), and people respond to incentives...it's possible (though very unlikely) that a 10x increase in research funding would have more than a 10x improvement due to attracting much more productive researchers who currently go to better-paid industries.
0Algernoq
It's cheaper in some situations (hard to say which without a design study), due to reducing shipping costs (as you note), maintenance costs, and cost to scale production up or down. For "better", well, it puts the project within reach of a small team of inventors/hobbyists with minimal funding, and allows everyone who buys a self-replicating robot to own a bit of the means of production. The alternative, monolithic non-self-replicating factories, are usually owned by amoral narcissists who succeeded in a highly political company, and the technologies produced are typically licensed, not sold. I'd rather be an owner than a subletter.

I think the end goal is to stop him from down-voting as well as commenting as mentioned in the last sentence of the post.

I guess the question is whether someone who took action by themselves to mass down vote for the express purpose of removing other users from the site would stop simply because his primary method was removed.

If I were doing the down-voting, and was then de-karmified, it would be the next logical step to find another way around the system such that I could continue my actions without the use of karma.

3CCC
Hopefully, preventing him from commenting will mean that he begins to be less personally invested in the comment threads on the site, and thus more likely to spend his time doing other stuff instead of downvoting comments.

Do they grade the exams themselves? For instance whether a particular exam is a good test of ability or not? or do they actually grade the student work? It would seem the former would be much more advantageous.

0xnn
The draft examination papers are sent to the external examiners, who make comments as they deem appropriate. These might, for example, be "this question is too hard" or "this question is not clear". The final approved exams are then taken by the students and marked by the lecturers who set them. The external examiners then return during the moderation process, helping to decide where the boundaries for various classifications should be set.

While I think that there is some validity to your point, I would like more data rather simply your opinion on the matter. I will now play devil's advocate.

As it stands, there are some outside players that regulate universities, mainly the regional associations that give colleges their accreditation. Standards for accreditation can be found here: http://www.ncahlc.org/Criteria-Eligibility-and-Candidacy/criteria-and-core-components.html

Apart from that, you say that part of the problem with "contemporary" universities, but what has changed in recen... (read more)

1Stefan_Schubert
Good questions. I don't know whether there was grade inflation prior to the 20th century; perhaps there was. Of course there are bodies that oversee the universities to different degrees. However, my guess is that such systems can never extert the same pressure at the universities as completely independent grading can. Consider the driving school parallell again and compare a system where driving schools would be able to issue licenses, but where they were checked now and then by government bodies with the present system where the licenses are issued by the government. It seems to me obvious that if those checks weren't extremely stringent - something that most checks of universities certainly aren't (many of them are also a bit arbitrary, something there's been a big discussion on in Sweden, where I come from) - the former system would lead to a lowering of standards. It would also extert less pressure on low standard driving schools, who in the present system are either forced to improve or are out-competed. In some areas you do have independent tests already, which is brilliant. That's exactly what I'm advocating. However, usually you don't. Employers can influence university degrees in some areas, as you say, but in most areas this influence is very limited (and resented by professors and left-wing parties and student organizations). I don't have more data at the moment. What kind of data is it that you want? I don't think I just stated my opinion, though - I offered reasons for my views. Besides, they are widely shared - the point about perverse incentives seems really obvious actually.

I am not sure that trustworthiness has increased marginal utility. Think about ebay or Amazon, what is the difference between 99% positive and 100% positive. Or 97% positive or 100% positive. It would seem to me that with trustworthiness there is a tipping point, at which there is a huge spike in marginal utility, and all other increases don't really add much utility.

100% positive on Amazon isn't the same as the 100% trust mean. 100% on amazon really is just a bit higher the 99%. 100% trust can't be expressed by Amazon ratings as the the underlying rating can still be hacked or 'optimized'.

Generally in a wild population, "play" as young animals provides for the development of skills that are useful in adulthood, for instance cats that chase after everything as kittens will be better chasing after stuff like mice and rodents as adults. So once an animal has learned the skill, the only practice that is needed is the actual use of the skill.

Developmentally and psychologically, there is a condition called neoteny. This is where juvenile traits carry on into adulthood. This is seen in many cases of domestication and can be seen vary wel... (read more)

4NancyLebovitz
Some wild species (crows, otters) are more inclined to play as adults than others.

Memory has definitely changed with the advent of technology. The ability to acquire information almost instantaneously has definitely reduced the need to remember more information. Also, I feel that social interaction has changed due to instantaneous communication. People expect others to instantly reply at any time and be available at all times. I know this is a cause of increased stress (http://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/mba_student/12/) in the work place and a blurring of tradition work/home life boundaries.

I think the permanence of technological communi... (read more)