Does this have anything to do with Cicada 3301?
Cicada: A Distributed Direct Democracy and Decentralized Application Platform
91–100 of 140 posts
Re: Cicada: A Distributed Direct Democracy and Decentralized Application Platform
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a github post that tries to pass itself off as a "paper" (because it sounds official, right), and ends with "And that can change the world". Wow that's academic and objective. Why are we upvoting delusional content that lacks a real understanding of behavior, politics, and law? Because if you want to change the world, a basic understanding of that might help. He could start with Plato and Xenophon and the Tri…
Primarily because HN is very libertarian-leaning, and has a lot of people who do not understand people or societies as a result.
You must think us Libertarians get insanely promoted and upvoted on HN or something. The truth is no where near that.
Re: Cicada: A Distributed Direct Democracy and Decentralized Application Platform
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes no sense. What's the correct decision? All the people voting completely against their interests now think they're making the correct decision. Not all decisions or votes are equal and the outcome of an election can change what can even be voted on and by whom for the next round.
I'm responding to the point that voters need to be rational and educated for a direct democracy to function. It only requires that voters have a bias, however slight, to making the 'right' decision. Don't think too much about how to define 'right' because you'll drive yourself mad. All that matters is the belief that in the long run people tend to make 'right' choices slightly more often than wrong ones.
That wasn't the point. The question is whether it's a good idea - and it's not when people don't know or don't care about what they're voting on, both of which requires education and rational (long-term) thinking.
Re: Cicada: A Distributed Direct Democracy and Decentralized Application Platform
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's explicitly not how our system works. If you have a claim to a right rooted in the Constitution, you do not need to convince the majority to see things your way. Your rights emanating from the Constitution (and further from the Constitution of your state) trump the majority.
You could have Supreme Courts without representative Democracy. You could have direct democracy on issues (Brexit e.g.) within representative democracy. Majority agrees with this form of government including Supreme Court and Constitutional Rights. If 99% of USA agreed to not follow constitution, would Supreme Courts be able to enforce their opinions? Majority agrees to give that power to Supreme Court and is upholdi…
[deleted]
Re: Cicada: A Distributed Direct Democracy and Decentralized Application Platform
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. It's harder to bribe all Joes. It's easy to influence all Joes on the social media platforms virtually all of them use. > 2. Direct democracy would not follow party lines, there is no need to. Party line is less of a problem in countries with sensible representative democracies, i.e not FPTP. > You can have gun rights and abortion rights. You can have social safety net programs and curb illegal immigration. You…
>> 1. It's harder to bribe all Joes. >It's easy to influence all Joes on the social media platforms virtually all of them use. And that is a good thing. If they can be influenced in a bad way quickly, then they can be influenced in a good way, or away from bad way, quickly as well. Representative democracy was a compromise of the days where direct democracy was not possible due to limits of communication. Not so in t…
"...And that is a good thing. If they can be influenced in a bad way quickly, then they can be influenced in a good way..."
Are you just interested in making arguments for arguments' sake? Besides that, all of your comments are good examples about why direct democracy is not a always a good idea - because most people don't have enough time/desire to think issues through, and yet they are willing to be adamant about their opinions on them.
Re: Cicada: A Distributed Direct Democracy and Decentralized Application Platform
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Primarily because HN is very libertarian-leaning, and has a lot of people who do not understand people or societies as a result.
You must think us Libertarians get insanely promoted and upvoted on HN or something. The truth is no where near that.
I see a lot more libertarian ideology appear on the front page than anything else, politics-wise, even if there's reasonable arguments in the comments. From blockchains to direct democracy to universal income, and a while back, an incredible amount of writings on property rights for some reason.
Re: Cicada: A Distributed Direct Democracy and Decentralized Application Platform
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure you are right. Many Latin American countries fair just fine when you adjust for their inherent handicap. Maybe they had bad policies, maybe whey didn't, I'm not sure they'll be massively better off under any other system. If we're not talking about Cuba and Venezuela which have exactly opposite problem of failing to turn evidently unsuccessful decisions.
> Many Latin American countries fair just fine when you adjust for their inherent handicap Policy volatility is about as significant a driver of Latin American per-capita economic growth as income inequality. Capital inflows and debt are insignificant; only U.S. interest rate volatility is comparable to domestic factors. "Regarding macroeconomic policies, the higher the volatility of discretionary fiscal policy, the…
Maybe Chile didn't see so many reversals but they were BIG.
Take it with a grain of salt.
Re: Cicada: A Distributed Direct Democracy and Decentralized Application Platform
#98Cool readme, let's check out the code!
Oh.
Re: Cicada: A Distributed Direct Democracy and Decentralized Application Platform
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a github post that tries to pass itself off as a "paper" (because it sounds official, right), and ends with "And that can change the world". Wow that's academic and objective. Why are we upvoting delusional content that lacks a real understanding of behavior, politics, and law? Because if you want to change the world, a basic understanding of that might help. He could start with Plato and Xenophon and the Tri…
Primarily because HN is very libertarian-leaning, and has a lot of people who do not understand people or societies as a result.
I'm not sure if these idea is very libertian though.
Also really not sure about HN and libertarianism. HN seems to be more interested in (Scandinavian style) socialism IMO.
Re: Cicada: A Distributed Direct Democracy and Decentralized Application Platform
#100First of all, regardless of all the claims made in the document, I find it awesome to see such a gigantic writeup that tries to be at least a bit internally consistent. It reminds me of Bit451 [1][2], although that one was simply insane. So about Cicada: the document quickly notes that the 'human unique identifier' is at the core of the proposal. It is claimed that it "allows us to prevent Sybil attacks and ensure ev…
Personal identity seems like a generally intractable problem, despite the lofty goals stated in the introduction. And without it, the document is built on a foundation of sand. An argument that I find myself having quite frequently about Bitcoin and pseudonymity is that pseudonymity and concealing identity is not a feature of the system, but rather that defining two-way identity in any sort of useful way is such a di…
We know multiple ways to reliably identify someone using biological markers with near-perfect accuracy. Yes, that lack of perfection leaves open the possibility of subversion, but so what? You'll grow old and die waiting for the perfect solution.