> Using weakly biased arguments that government or business is responsible for "protecting" the customer is ridiculous, especially in light of recent revelations of corruption in our government and business sectors.
I don't think it's even close to funny that someone could potentially have their entire life savings stolen because of some zero-day so luckily, not everyone shares your libertarian utopia dreams.
I believe that p2p currencies are here to stay in some form or another but I don't think they will supplant our traditional banking system.
So I hear you think it is serious that someone could have their life savings stolen. While I would agree with the fact it is a serious matter, I see a dissonance following it where you speak for my "dreams" being a "libertarian utopia".
Not only do you imply my political alignment, but you insult my proposal that we might improve our processes by embracing these new technologies instead of low trust legacy systems. In short, I think you are blaming me. I also think you are wrong.
I can't speak for others, but my idea of utopia is continued marginal improvement over the performance of the current solutions done with centralized control by starting to decentralize the bits that deal with trusted infrastructure. I don't expect utopia to be perfect. I don't expect it to be functional all the time.
The current problems with the DAO have very little to do with the base infrastructure provided by Ethereum. In fact, the hardware Ethereum is running on currently has even less to do with with the DAO. The point being that infrastructure boundaries can be assigned levels of responsibility to them. You want most of Ethereum's code managed by the guys who wrote it, at least for a while. They'll fix stuff where is needed, but their responsibility ends at the service level. The DAO code itself should be managed by other groups responsible for it. Perhaps there could be a third group that insures the investment in a DAO. And another that insures that group, etc.
Point being, social structures in place today are probably a good guide for instantiation of contracts that insure loss to errors in the code RUNNING ON TOP OF Ethereum. Ethereum promises immutable data structures for the runs. The runs themselves remain uncertain at some level, given all states of the contracts it issues may not be computable. It may be similar in nature to the dissonance you show in your statements - where some contracts literally get into an argument with themselves. If that happens, perhaps they get a gas tax for wasting other DAO's time with questions that can't be answered in a reasonable timeframe.
I don't think it's even close to funny that someone could potentially have their entire life savings stolen because of some zero-day so luckily, not everyone shares your libertarian utopia dreams.
I believe that p2p currencies are here to stay in some form or another but I don't think they will supplant our traditional banking system.