Not sure what your threshold is for "interesting calculations" but running an entire tech business for years on end with no central governance or traditional corporate structure seems incredible to me. You can participate too if you wish, maybe try drive it into the ground for fun? Or maybe run a seed server with decent uptime and get paid for it instead?
Rather than theoretical putdowns based on some strange misconceptions of how this stuff works under the hood, that's a real life counter example.
Really anything can be applied for as a contribution, you can rock up right now and say you'll translate the docs into Esperanto for X amount and the community decides if that's worth paying out of the pool for this round, if rejected you can apply again next round, no hard feelings.
No one is in control, it's all decided communally with votes recorded onchain for each proposal and paid out automatically if they pass, they have coloured coins as the proxy for the votes (sort of like stock voting but digitally and with cryptographic signatures), those same coins are also what people pay for trading fees, making a closed loop between funding and advancing the DAO. If people trade less, there's less money for dev work, creating incentives for a range of stakeholders to collectively make proper choices and produce good results.
Never once have they raised money from speculators, no ico or anything. All funding has come from people using the product itself.
Let's say the community decides it's worth paying for that. Does payment happen up front, or only upon completion of work? If the latter, who decides if the work meets the standard that was expected and thus is worth paying out for?
> In an email, Bisq told Decrypt the platform doesn't use smart contracts "at least not in a commonly understood sense of Ethereum smart contracts."
The mechanism seems to be let's do all computation of the chains.
However the DAO can the notary's job more transparently and without corruption (real oversight of their activities is cheaper... heck, it's possible)
Aside, notaries where I come from are extremely expensive and inefficient. I'd choose a blockchain in a split second if I could, for anything requiring human notaries now.
This is one of the fundamental problems with blockchains: Local problems often lead to global consequences, requiring forks of the blockchain and/or high level intervention to maintain consistency or to roll back exploits. Here's the classic example:
https://www.coindesk.com/learn/2016/06/25/understanding-the-...
'Don't write bugs' is not a viable strategy for software development.
We’ve been hearing this for basically as long as cryptocurrencies have been around.
I suspect we will see a currency that can do decent throughput, but I think it will require advances in the underlying theory for that to happen and that’s a few years away.
The only reason people think it's a problem is because bitcoin and ethereum have limited themselves so much.
https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/
Surely the people who design the protocols aren't intentionally sabotaging the usefulness of the blockchain with these limits? If the limits are raised, what problems are introduced, and what advances are needed to avoid them?
It already works to have large blocks, it always has. Why don't you tell me specifically and technically where you think the bottleneck is?
The CPU is a fraction of one core, bitcoin's transaction fees have been at times more than the cost of hard drive space to store the entire chain, and only servers even need to sync chains in the first place.
Bitcoin is crippled to sell a second layer. If you look at its throughput, it is literally less than a dial up modem. The average block size is 700KB every 10 minutes. You can print base64 characters on a laser printer and get more data throughput on paper.
No one has ever been able to give me a credible answer here because it doesn't exist. The best anyone can do is gish gallop with unrelated nonsense hoping that other people who read their reply can't make sense of it.