1. We are a community of readers. Join us!

    Readup is a social reading platform. No ads. No distractions. No liking or upvotes. We help you pay attention to what matters: reading.

    You must read the article before you can post or reply.
    • DellwoodBarker
      Top reader this weekReading streakScribe
      2 weeks ago

      10 Read. Deserves AOTD True~TruelyReallySlowlyDeeply

      Will Be paying More Attention to these Focused Areas as a result of this Incredible Deep Dive.

      💓🙏🏼👑

      Second, we can look at DOs. The obvious difference between a DO and a DAO, and the one inherent in the language, is the word “autonomous”; that is, in a DO the humans are the ones making the decisions, and a DAO is something that, in some fashion, makes decisions for itself. This is a surprisingly tricky distinction to define because, as dictatorships are always keen to point out, there is really no difference between a certain set of actors making decisions directly and that set of actors controlling all of the information through which decisions are made. In Bitcoin, a 51% attack between a small number of mining pools can make the blockchain reverse transactions, and in a hypothetical decentralized autonomous corporation the providers of the data inputs can all collude to make the DAC think that sending all of its money to1FxkfJQLJTXpW6QmxGT6oF43ZH959ns8Cq constitutes paying for a million nodes’ worth of computing power for ten years. However, there is obviously a meaningful distinction between the two, and so we do need to define it.

      My own effort at defining the difference is as follows. DOs and DAOs are both vulnerable to collusion attacks, where (in the best case) a majority or (in worse cases) a significant percentage of a certain type of members collude to specifically direct the D*O’s activity. However, the difference is this: in a DAO collusion attacks are treated as a bug, whereas in a DO they are a feature. In a democracy, for example, the whole point is that a plurality of members choose what they like best and that solution gets executed; in Bitcoin’s on the other hand, the “default” behavior that happens when everyone acts according to individual interest without any desire for a specific outcome is the intent, and a 51% attack to favor a specific blockchain is an aberration. This appeal to social consensus is similar to the definition of a government: if a local gang starts charging a property tax to all shopowners, it may even get away with it in certain parts of the world, but no significant portion of the population will treat it as legitimate, whereas if a government starts doing the same the public response will be tilted in the other direction.

    • bartadamley
      Scout
      2 weeks ago

      Come wander down the crypto rabbit hole and you will find DAOs to be one of the most fascinatingly complex things.

      Over time, we will undoubtedly come up with better definitions. But here in this post, Vitalik Buterin (co-founder of Ethereum) does a great job in starting the conversation.

      The ideal of Decentralized Autonomous Organizations is easy to describe: it is an entity that lives on the internet and exists autonomously, but also heavily relies on hiring individuals to perform certain tasks that the automaton itself cannot do.

      • DellwoodBarker
        Top reader this weekReading streakScribe
        2 weeks ago

        🤯👍🏽🧚🏽

        Da~Yum, AB! This article is Ah~Mazing! As usual tendencies towards a Late~Bloomer Here yet Finally Falling Down this Rabbit Hole with you and Wondeously/Awakeningly So.

        We, ReadUpPers, should Be paying more Attention to your Laser Focused Reading Imports Here. I Will Be DO-ING moreso as a result of this Masterful DAO~ISM Read.

        Deeeeeep. Slooooow. Reeeeaaal.

        🙌 Here for Bit 😉

        🤯That Quandrant Chart, 2, though🤯

        🗝⚖️May We each find the Ultimate InterDependent Centering And Balancing Prosperity Within the QC⚖️🗝