I'd be happy to try something like this again, but I think the current iteration clearly needs work and should be dissolved / refunded so that we can make that choice at a later date.
You're saying you trusted it, got burned, and are already looking forward to the next one?
The DAO was described as "the code of the contract is the absolute truth, any other description is just a guideline", which was hailed as a new miracle by the investors, and now that it doesn't mean mountains of gold the founding principles are suddenly not important anymore?
The "hacker" simply used the DAO as it was meant to be used (i.e. according to the smart contract code), and deserves the funds. If there is a hard fork, I hope he sues slock.it for controlling the DAO, and stealing the funds he is owed according to their own terms ("The contract is king").
Actually, a bug was exploited.
By that reasoning, I should be allowed to legally contact Amazon customer service and socially engineer access to others' accounts, then place orders to be shipped to myself. If the customers call and cancel the orders as fraudulent, I should be awarded damages in a lawsuit against them.
It's also worth noting that, if you're a person that doesn't have any monetary interest in The DAO, you don't have any right to vote for anything, meaning you're no different than somebody standing near a poker table spouting out your philosophies about where others should put their money (aka in the industry as a railbird).
That's called a loophole in a contract, and folks exploit those all the time.
You're on the receiving end, which sucks, but based on the rules of the DAO, you have no recourse.
The entire presupposition, when putting money into this thing, was that the code was the contract. Period.
If you failed to audit the code to find the loophole, you signed on to a financial arrangement without fully understanding the nature of the contract.
If you don't feel you're qualified to evaluate the terms of the contract, maybe we've just discovered a reason why "smart contracts" aren't such a great idea after all...
You don't have such an agreement with Amazon.
Regarding your edit: I don't want to vote for anything. I'm simply pointing out that there is a (real-life!) agreement, and a party (slock.it et al.) not holding themselves to that agreement, and that I'd enjoy seeing that played out in court, where it belongs.
I never decided that.
The idea of distributed investments and unstoppable tools that are distributed isn't about "f* the government" or anarchism; it's about not letting anyone other than a consensus of ourselves manipulate us.
> I'm simply pointing out that there is a contract, and a party not holding themselves to that contract, and that I'd enjoy seeing that played out in court, where it belongs.
The point is, if we disagree, what can you do, if you don't have any interest or control over this (hint: nothing)?
Regarding your last paragraph: I'm not sure why you're attacking me personally here.
> I'm not sure why you're attacking me personally here.
Are you sure you're replying to the right person?