Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What I think about network states

vitalik.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 144 posts

Re: What I think about network states

#51

Post by zimpenfish »

nradov wrote: post #16
capableweb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line between insane and genius is indeed seemingly small. Reminds me of when I talked with a quantum scientist. Most of what he said, sounded like ramblings from a coke head, but seemingly others around him understood what he said and continued the discussion, so I can only assume they were actually having a real conversation. If I'd met the guy under different circumstances, I'd definitely wouldn't have believed…

I listened to an interview with Kanye West. Most of what he said was batshit crazy. The man is obviously mentally ill. But occasionally he said something so profound and insightful it made me think for a moment that he was the only sane one and it's the rest of us who are crazy.

> The man is obviously mentally ill.

[1] "Kanye was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2016, something he has since spoken about openly. He has said that he experiences manic episodes, which typically include paranoia, and that he is not medicated for the condition."

AIUI he refuses to medicate because he thinks it will interfere with his creative output.

[1] https://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/article/bipolar-disorder-kany...

Re: What I think about network states

#52

Post by bloppe »

Nextgrid wrote: post #38

"Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. For your crypto-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the blockchain with the state of the real world... at which point you may just let the trusted party run a good old database.

"physical, trusted party" is a way of describing a blockchain network.

Re: What I think about network states

#53

Post by seibelj »

elif wrote: post #41

The biggest mistake of this idea is the libertarian-leftover concept that such a group needs to become it's own sovereign nation. Libertarians depend on that impossible outcome because of their ultra-hardline anti-tax, anti-police, anti-social-service perspectives. However, almost all rational groups of thinkers would still happily pay taxes to have access to hospitals, be issued useful passports, to not have to defe…

You are painting all libertarians with a broad brush. Just as not all Democrats are communists and not all Republicans are Nazis, not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists that want the state to be destroyed. It is a way to dismiss libertarians but it isn’t true.

I’m a libertarian and I still want our constitutional republic in the US. I just advocate for market-based solutions vs. top-down paternalistic solutions and I want to reduce the size of the government. But I believe in the military, police, laws, taxes, etc.

Re: What I think about network states

#54

Post by kardianos »

The fundamental foundation of USofA is that it tries to bind together a core minimum values and agreements, along with checks to that power to allow pursuit of the individual and of individual states. This is the result of despair to that, or not recognizing this. But this paper, if I read it correctly, rather then pointing to a shared reality, points to shared perceptions. As if the word of man makes reality. This is always doomed to fail because eventually reality will assert itself.

I would prefer to articulate and achieve a shared foundation for the future: https://corinth.kardianos.com/latest.pdf

Re: What I think about network states

#55

Post by conorcleary »

Nextgrid wrote: post #38

"Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. For your crypto-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the blockchain with the state of the real world... at which point you may just let the trusted party run a good old database.

...a good old... centralized database? Welcome to the future, where pushing back with your opinion just helps reinforce the need for decentralization.

Re: What I think about network states

#56

Post by ibz »

Nextgrid wrote: post #38

"Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. For your crypto-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the blockchain with the state of the real world... at which point you may just let the trusted party run a good old database.

Very much agree. The only cryptocurrency that does not require a trusted third party is Bitcoin - and that is because it uses energy as a link to the real world. All the PoS crap is just various trusted third parties, which the fiat system already has (governments, banks...) and works better and is well regulated and well understood. Zero added value.

Re: What I think about network states

#57

Post by joosters »

ryukafalz wrote: post #33

There’s a lot here that’s entirely unnecessary but I’ve wondered recently if a “network state”-like thing devoted to certain public services might be beneficial. In particular, a large enough group could likely negotiate better rates for health insurance than an individual in the same way a large employer does, and could provide a stronger social safety net (maybe even potentially a UBI?) in the same way some governm…

We used to call those 'co-operatives' and 'unions'.

Re: What I think about network states

#59

Post by zach_garwood »

conorcleary wrote: post #55
Nextgrid wrote: post #38

"Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. For your crypto-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the blockchain with the state of the real world... at which point you may just let the trusted party run a good old database.

...a good old... centralized database? Welcome to the future, where pushing back with your opinion just helps reinforce the need for decentralization.

"Decentralization." You keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think means.

Re: What I think about network states

#60

Post by jerrre »

Nextgrid wrote: post #38

"Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. For your crypto-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the blockchain with the state of the real world... at which point you may just let the trusted party run a good old database.

What do you mean when you talk about "the real world", is there one such thing?
Post reply on HN