More on the possible benefits of Ethereum

Robert Sams points me to this New Scientist article, here is one bit:

Ethereum allows for the creation of complex, yet decentralised, economic tools like financial derivatives, in which two parties can bet on the rise and fall of an asset, or crop insurance that pays out to a farmer according to a weather data feed. Creating decentralised versions of Dropbox or eBay should be possible too, claims Buterin.

Other developers are attempting to copy Buterin’s success by overlaying new code on the existing Bitcoin block chain. One example is the concept of “coloured” coins: with bitcoins labelled to represent other assets such as gold, cars or even houses, you transfer ownership when you trade the labelled coin.

Buterin says Ethereum is much more flexible. “Bitcoin is great as a form of digital money, but its scripting language is too weak for any kind of serious advanced applications to be built on top.”

One of the more advanced concepts being touted for a next-generation Bitcoin is the idea of decentralised autonomous corporations (DAC) – companies with no directors. These would follow a pre-programmed business model and are managed entirely by the block chain. In this case the block chain acts as a way for the DAC to store financial accounts and record shareholder votes.

In a way, Bitcoin is actually the first DAC, says Daniel Larimer, a developer in Blacksburg, Virginia. People who own bitcoins are shareholders in the company, which offers financial services, earns revenue through transaction fees and pays a salary to its employees, the miners. But no one is in charge.

Here is my previous post on Ethereum.


And precisely here is a gigantic untapped pool of potential innovations that can bring real efficiencies. Maybe it'll end to the Great Stagnation

With luck, both an end to the Great Stagnation and short circuit the Average Is Over's expected vision for the 80%.

DACs and better corporate AI structure in general will be key features in small scale wealth pooling and easier economies of scale.

Though, perhaps the weightier issue is: What happens when DACs are used as blackbox buffer corporations programed to minimize taxes?

Where we're going, we don't need taxes (or the roads they build)!

I haven't seen any actual reporting on this that explains the difference between their scripting languages beyond "well ours is Turing-complete", which, IMO, is an anti-feature. As I understand Bitcoin (and by inference Ethereum) this means that you just cannot guarantee that ownership of a coin is verifiable.

And beyond that, I have seen some claims that you can, in fact, embed fully-featured programs in a Bitcoin - the computation just happens outside of the block chain itself. You embed the code for the program as data inside the script, and then have the script verify a proof-of-work on the output of the program.

You're not going to see any stories like that, given the news media. Just read the white paper.

Wow! Just what economists want. A virtual world with virtual coin which can be used to build virtual cars and trucks to drive on virtual toll roads to deliver virtual corn grown on virtual farms to feed virtual miners extracting clean virtual coal to produce virtual power to convert virtual iron ore into virtual steel, all using virtual self driving vehicles and virtual robots to do all the work, enriching virtual capitalists, in a world with no virtual unemployed, sick, disabled, young, or elderly.

By the way, wasn't this created a decade ago by the creators of SimAnt?

Until I can download a car over the Internet for a payment in bitcoin, after downloading over the Internet the 3D printer also paid for with bitcoin, of course, I see all the excitement by economists about this as illustrative of how much economists seek to deny the constraints of nature. That people need food, housing, clothing, means to get around, even if they have no money or income or property is just something most economists can't deal with in their economic theories and models.

At least Locke dealt with this by defining America as a land with effectively infinite common land to allow every man to carve out private property to sustain himself. But even Locke realized that the land was not infinite so he defined the limit to his model as the point when insufficient common land remained to sustain the nomads and to support those carving private plots out of the common. That day occurred three centuries later in the US in the 1920s, leading to and forcing the transformations of the New Deal which ended the era of government land redistribution as solution to political-economic conflict.

Sells 500$ Amazon cards for doge. Food and clothing.

Sorry, no cars yet.

The above is one of the stupidest comments I've ever read on MR. And Sailer posts here.

"Decentralised autonomous corporations" sounds a bit weird. We have directors not because direct voting by shareholders is impossible but because we trust directors to take decisions that'd be better than direct mass voting.

Companies don't run on auto-pilot because there's an advantage to being able to hide your cards & decide course as circumstances arise. Or am I wrong?

I expect if (or when) we use these systems enough to find out what they really are, we will find they are not really corporations -- although by then we might have re-defined the word.

Comments for this post are closed