Decentralized Woo Hoo

I think the case that they are inescapable risks is pretty strong. I think the history of formal design and software engineering is pretty clear that the designing a foolproof system is effectively and practically speaking impossible except for extremely small, extremely isolated problem spaces.

I don't think smart contracts are in that space and I don't think any level of maturity is going to get you there.

There's a lot less woo around decentralization than around crypto.

The cryto woo I can't stand, but I don't mind at least a bit of decentralization woo. Within reason.

Algorand is carbon negative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NykZ-ZSKkxM

>The Dirac equation has nothing to say about the phenomenon of mind except to describe the chemistry that gives rise to it.

On the contrary, the question of mind is precisely what is at stake in our investigation of the particle-wave nature of the electron.

"From the point of view of wave mechanics, the infinite array of possible point paths would be merely fictitious, none of them would have the prerogative over the others of being that really traveled in an individual case. I have, however, already mentioned that we have yet really observed such individual particle paths in some cases. The wave theory can represent this, either not at all or only very imperfectly. We find it confoundedly difficult to interpret the traces we see as nothing more than narrow bundles of equally possible paths between which the wave surfaces establish cross-connections. Yet, these cross-connections are necessary for an understanding of the diffraction and interference phenomena which can be demonstrated for the same particle with the same plausibility -- and that on a large scale, not just as a consequence of the theoretical ideas about the interior of the atom, which we mentioned earlier. Conditions are admittedly such that we can always manage to make do in each concrete individual case without the two different aspects leading to different expectations as to the result of certain experiments. We cannot, however, manage to make do with such old, familiar, and seemingly indispensable terms as "real" or "only possible"; we are never in a position to say what really is or what really happens, but we can only say what will be observed in any concrete individual case. Will we have to be permanently satisfied with this...? On principle, yes. On principle, there is nothing new in the postulate that in the end exact science should aim at nothing more than the description of what can really be observed. The question is only whether from now on we shall have to refrain from tying description to a clear hypothesis about the real nature of the world. There are many who wish to pronounce such abdication even today. But I believe that this means making things a little too easy for oneself."

The Fundamental Idea of Wave Mechanics (Schrodinger 1923)

"So, like sales tax. Which we have uniform and open laws for. Or income tax. Which we have uniform and open laws for."

Laws are not mechanisms, proof of transaction, records etc..

'Smart Contracts' as something unassailable in courts are ridiculous obviously.

But 'smart contracts' that facilitate micro-transactions, every day purchases, and flow through the system without human interaction seem like a good idea.

Imagine when you buy that thing on your Business Visa, and the 'smart contract' is signed, sent to head office, sent to your accounting software, balanced, money in your bank account immediately etc.. All with a series of signed elements.

I understand that's not exactly what it's supposed to look like, but that's the kind of thing I see happening.

While you could say 'there should be a standard for that' it might be that the standards are not nimble enough, and a more generic 'start contract' system could work to tie it all together.

And maybe importantly: to skip VISA and classical banks while we're at it.