100 years of whatever this will be • Hacker News Board

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#701

Post by supernovae » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:40 PM UTC

dcow wrote: post #602

fragmede wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where defi is coming from, and the regulations are onerous, but also those regulations were hard-fought for, and came about on the backs of real problems for real people, often by being exploited by people most accurately described as conmen. Caveat emptor, sure, but on the way from "investing your play money" to someone close to retirement's 401k, there's a much bigger pitfall. The "battles" are shaping up to…

I truly don’t think DeFi is, at its heart, anti-regulation. I do think a lot of early proponents are armchair anarchists, but that’s just the scene . I think it’s anti corruption/abuse of power by institutions too large to fail—often due to lack of meaningful regulatory political power, across the board. (You’ll probably easily find people playing with web3 dns also advocating for personal data regulations, for examp…

Today there was a crypto hack that cost over 110 million because the website's cloudflare key was hacked/leaked apparently.

With 0 regulation and no recourse built into crypto, one poor soul lost 50.8 million in 900 bitcoins.

You're not going to replace people problems with tech. Period.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#702

Post by walterbell » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:40 PM UTC

engineer_22 wrote: post #217

lisper wrote: post #103

This essay seems deep and profoundly insightful but I don't think it actually is. Its ultimate call for "better designed regulation" is the no-true-scotsman fallacy in sheep's clothing. How do you know if your regulations are "properly designed?" If they produce good outcomes. But the problem is that there is no consensus about what a good outcome is. Some people are not happy, for example, unless women are quite lit…

At first I was agreeing with you - it's hard to find consensus when asking "what is good?" It's a problem as old as politics. You hit the nail on the head! Then you started on a partisan diatribe about how the other side of politics is wrong (and stupid). What I think you've failed to realize, is that the other view is necessary . A single party state is totalitarian by definition if not by fact. There must be other…

> the other view is necessary.

Yes. In fact, so necessary that fake opposition becomes necessary to legitimize totalitarian policy, if organic opposition has been silenced or removed.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#703

Post by marksbrown » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:43 PM UTC

Relevant : https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#704

Post by maerF0x0 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:46 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #320

maerF0x0 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood the reason we even have marriage defined in government at all, and thusly would include "gay" marriage (all marriage is marriage if it's undefined)... We don't have a government definition of prayer or baptism, but for some reason we have have codified that one religious practice into our government? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Also why do they get varyingly get tax incentives or disincen…

I mostly agree with you but there are certain useful functions. It’s an optional service the state provides to many many* people with negligible transaction fee, as with, for example, maintaining the roads, air traffic control, or food safety. Those things help you even if you never leave your home or never fly. First it’s a default mechanism for saying things like “if I get hurt this person can come see me in / ask…

> It’s an optional service the state provides to many many*

This is essentially the power of attorney portion of my post. Perhaps it would be more inclusive if we just had a way to grant certain checkboxes and options to certain individuals. eg I could grant financial decisions to my mother, friend, cousin, and could even give a time limited grant to a girlfriend like "For the next year you can make life and death medical decisions for me" or whatever.

Sadly i dont see it happening because our government is so archaic

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#705

Post by t2riRXawYxLGGYb » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:46 PM UTC

notpachet wrote: post #49

All of the current histrionics that we hear from DeFi advocates regarding escaping the evil centralized Banks and Regulators and what not -- you know what they remind me of? They remind me of what I hear from junior developers when they're tasked with fixing an antiquated, broken software system. These developers typically lack the experience and the patience necessary to fix the system incrementally from within, so…

It's true that rewriting everything is not always the right answer and that fixing existing systems is underrated. However, there are very few instances in history of systems being indefinitely fixed and upgraded. Most societies were not gradually improved and reformed forever: eventually they fell and were replaced with new societies. The same is true of technology and companies: most technology is eventually completely replaced with newer, better technology that is inspired by earlier technology but that is still new. The cool thing about DeFi is that it has built-in ways of upgrading itself. In traditional systems, upgrades are more centralized and have a single point of failure: once that point of failure (eg the developer/maintainer) stops upgrading, the system dies.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#706

Post by walterbell » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:46 PM UTC

What's the technological equivalent of regulatory capture of trusted governance roles?

1. system control plane with security vulnerabilities, where the first attacker can lock out subsequent attackers?

2. corporate board without poison-pill, special class of shares with extra powers, or other defenses against hostile takeover?

3. corporate or IP acquisition due to debt, market failure or poor fiscal governance?

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#707

Post by maerF0x0 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:47 PM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #634

maerF0x0 wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Marriage is a contract. The really interesting thing is that marriage is a contract that changes over time (as the government modifies law), without either party re-consenting to the new agreement. It's part of why I will probably never get married, it technically represents infinite risk.

> without either party re-consenting to the new agreement This can also happen time with non-marriage contracts, which is why prudent drafters include severability clauses

> prudent drafters include severability clauses

yes, but we dont get to draft the law/contract that is marriage -- that's done by law makers. IIRC even a pre/postnup cannot contradict law.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#708

Post by kube-system » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:52 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #707

sangnoir wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without either party re-consenting to the new agreement This can also happen time with non-marriage contracts, which is why prudent drafters include severability clauses

> prudent drafters include severability clauses yes, but we dont get to draft the law/contract that is marriage -- that's done by law makers. IIRC even a pre/postnup cannot contradict law.

Still, this is not different than other contracts. Negotiability is not an essential element of any other contract. Nor can other contracts contradict law.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#709

Post by miguelazo » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

This reminds me of all the tech people (from Bill Gates on down) who think society can solve its toughest problems by supposedly sidestepping politics, as if they were not political actors and their “solutions” devoid of political context.

Also, charter schools are the education equivalent of “greenfield” solutionism alluded to in earlier comments.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#710

Post by cactus2093 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:53 PM UTC

moffkalast wrote: post #389

jimsimmons wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Than anytime in human history is such a dumb way to characterize it. I mean, do we really expect the world to go backwards? It has happened in the past for sure, but regressions have not been a thing in the modern world for quite a while. So “than anytime in human history” has, is and will likely be true and that makes the characterization pointless.

Also "at least we're not in WW3, life is good!" is such a crap argument I can't even. A guy writes a blog post on important issues to focus on and what this guy comes up with is: "shut up, be happy".

I think the author invited this though. Half the article is a well thought out discussion of important problems. There is some nuanced thinking about markets and capitalism that addressed both the pros and cons.

But the article started and ended with completely unsupported claims about how the world is going to hell and "we all feel it".

The commenter you're responding to merely pointed out that, no we don't all feel it, most people actually have things very good these days. And that doesn't mean there aren't still major issues that we should be working hard on.