Quote from: iamnotback on June 20, 2016, 12:30:54 AM

Smooth and I discussing the optimum way of funding/launching development, and the Nash equilibrium of block chains.

Ethereum, Blockstream (Bitcoin core), BitShares, DASH all break Nash equilibrium.

I agree with smooth, there should be no DAO nor governance (i.e. no voting, not even from miners) in control of forking the block chain. The DAOs should only be for decentralizing projects and organizations (including corporations). DASH and Bitshares have this incorrect PoS+governance design and Ira Miller@DASH is incorrect about automation being unrealistic or evil:

Quote from: iamnotback on June 18, 2016, 10:28:42 PM

Quote from: Jestah on June 18, 2016, 10:07:39 PM

Quote from: wh00per on June 17, 2016, 11:04:37 PM

Quote from: greentea on June 17, 2016, 09:06:47 PM

so how can you shut down a decentralized autonomous organization?

Do you know any decentralized autonomous organization ?

I don't ..

Yes, DASH.org. The first DAO.

The difference: Marketing that feature is taking a backseat to development. Doing it right I'd say.

DASH does seem to be a functioning DAO where D is distributed but sure if it is decentralized control. The stakeholders apparently vote on the actions or management of the development of the open source. The stakeholders apparently approved to have % of the mining rewards paid to a foundation which then distributes the funds according to projects approved by votes of the stakeholders. However what is not clear to me is to what degree this is all enforced by smart contract protocol or done manually by the foundation.

There are allegations however that the distribution of the DASH tokens were highly concentrated by an alleged instamine and subsequent masternode ROI scheme which may have further concentrated the tokens held by the core insiders. But I don't know if anyone has been able to prove conclusively that DASH is not really decentralized, although the suspicion is apparently strong amongst some especially Monero supporters.