News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

mgkabar

Re:Colony: A platform for open organizations on Thursday October 05, 2017 @04:02PM (#15412162)
This is a really intriguing organizational structure. I'd love to ask you some more questions about how it works if you have any free time... please hit me up at (griffin {at} colony.io)
Re:Colony: A platform for open organizations on Thursday October 05, 2017 @03:43PM (#15412015)
Whoa, ok, let's back up here for a second, because I feel like this got a little lost in the shuffle: the dismissive sarcasm was a response to something specific, not to smart contract security of the Colony Network.

The three points above are all valid and absolutely important, and should be consistently and properly considered by anyone developing smart contracts or anything security related. There's no disagreement about that.

popcorncowboy, however, wanted to make an argument that assumed a security breach in order to make a broader point about "code-is-law" and DAOs in general, but was waiting for a response to unveil his second statement (which you can read now). The sarcasm was a response to the rhetorical and argumentative style of popcorncowby, not an illustration of the Colony dev attitudes toward the security of the smart contracts that will comprise the Colony network.

EDIT: phrasing

Re:Colony: A platform for open organizations on Thursday October 05, 2017 @11:57AM (#15410187)
Yeah, this seems very similar to how a Colony is envisioned to run, with a few extra considerations:

Each colony's native tokens act as a representation of equity as described above (more or less), entitling holders to a 'rewards' disbursement periodically - but they also may be employed by the colony for mechanisms of governance in the case of token-weighted voting.

Additionally, whenever someone makes an amount of tokens, they also are awarded an equal amount of reputation, which cannot be transferred and which decays over time. This score also confers influence in the colony for voting and dispute resolution, if the members of the colony wish to make their voting reputation weighted, or some combination of reputation and token-weighted.

Finally, to claim rewards, a user needs to have both reputation and tokens - this means that tokens themselves don't immediately entitle one to rewards; only those who actually contribute meaningful work to the colony (as evidenced by their reputation score) are entitled to proportional rewards.

Re:Colony: A platform for open organizations on Thursday October 05, 2017 @10:47AM (#15409585)
It really seems like the most appropriate response to this is indeed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're assuming quite a lot of this hypothetical hacker - the response above clearly addresses the hypothetical by stating "here are the relevant reasons why this hypothetical is impossible or at least unlikely, and here are the relevant sections in the whitepaper for more verbose information".

>The many sentences that come before the shrug do nothing to address the very realistic scenario of a breach.

If you're assuming blackhat success for any conceivable project/company/database regardless of security measures taken to prevent it, what would an appropriate response even look like? What kind of answer would satisfy you?

Re:Colony: A platform for open organizations on Thursday October 05, 2017 @10:01AM (#15409189)
I think the many sentences that come before the shrug emoji illustrate that the case is not very realistic. You're taking the final, sarcastic closing comment out of context.