141–150 of 295 posts
The problem I have with blockchain enthusiasts, after talking with them about their philosophy, is that they seem to consider trust a bug, and believe that ideal world is achievable with straitjackets of technical solutions that eliminate trust. Trust is a feature, not a bug. If trust is violated by rogue agents, it is because they exist[0], not because trust itself is a folly. However, blockchain-adjacent initiative…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is scale. If society only had 400 people, the 390 people that were not scammers could remove the 10 people who are scammers from their economic system manually. If you create a online store, one million strangers could connect to it. You need a way to understand who is a scammer in that situation.
This is true, and why all political ideologies fail. They can't cater for scale, or when they do, they do so by tyranny, which also fails eventually. Blockchain/Bitcoin has already been thoroughly corrupted, so ironically will prove itself to be entirely untrustworthy before it even gets established as whatever wonderful thing is assumed is still coming from it.
And where, Oh where, are other good original thinkers, please? I don't care about "agree" or "disagree" I just care about the #$?* thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you reframe it as the absence of mistrust, trusting being the natural state.
Trusting blindly is not a natural state. We evolved in the ecosystem you see around you. In freak cases, eg. the dodo bird, you can see what happens when blind trust meets competition.
It feels like blockchain is trying to be a solution for the 'global community' that can't trust itself, but will never solve that problem because it's inherently an unsolvable utopian dream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true, and why all political ideologies fail. They can't cater for scale, or when they do, they do so by tyranny, which also fails eventually. Blockchain/Bitcoin has already been thoroughly corrupted, so ironically will prove itself to be entirely untrustworthy before it even gets established as whatever wonderful thing is assumed is still coming from it.
Who has bitcoin been corrupted by?
The problem I have with blockchain enthusiasts, after talking with them about their philosophy, is that they seem to consider trust a bug, and believe that ideal world is achievable with straitjackets of technical solutions that eliminate trust. Trust is a feature, not a bug. If trust is violated by rogue agents, it is because they exist[0], not because trust itself is a folly. However, blockchain-adjacent initiative…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Iceland we already have digital identity from a centralised authority. I log into my bank, health service, sign papers (including loans) and so on with a government managed digital ID. So this isn’t even something that needs invention let alone by web3.
But does it allow you to anonymously prove that you are a human? You don't want to go telling random websites who you are. No one says this can't be done. In fact, it's explicitly mentioned in the essay, that the problem this approach has is that it's centralized and you typically can't use it as an anonymous proof of humanity, or disclosing information selectively. So, why is this important? Well, while you can stil…
The problem I have with blockchain enthusiasts, after talking with them about their philosophy, is that they seem to consider trust a bug, and believe that ideal world is achievable with straitjackets of technical solutions that eliminate trust. Trust is a feature, not a bug. If trust is violated by rogue agents, it is because they exist[0], not because trust itself is a folly. However, blockchain-adjacent initiative…