Yes! Eventually #ethereum must stabilize to minimal changes and maximal reliability. But this time is not now.https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/1068959933897437184 …
-
It also benefits from having non-anonymous leaders to guide the discussion in a scalable way...
Nope, naming doesn't prevent disagreement. Probably doesn't even appreciably reduce it, although it can create an illusion of reducing it. And it enables attack vectors from outside against the chain's functionality that don't exist with anonymous developers.
-
-
Centralized bootstrapping... Risky? Yes. Are we doing it anyways? Yes. Has leadership helped *resolve* (not prevent/reduce) disagreement thus far? Yes. Are most of the people upset that it has worked thus far betting on ETH to fail anyways? Yes. Okay then we'll just carry on.
-
I doubt eth devs displayed much courage in their decisions to date to call it risky.
-
Incorrect.
-
Or wisdom and integrity like you've just been offered. Do carry on.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's important to name mechanics. Many disagreements can be resolved by correctly naming the thing disagreed about. Epistemologists have agreed for millennia that including the person making the disagreement is fallacious.
-
I believe this was one of Wittgenstein's themes?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Democracy had Solon Judaism had Moses The USA had George Washington Charismatic leaders have built scalable trust-minimized systems, although they probably must leave eventually.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.