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

111–120 of 144 posts

Re: What I think about network states

#111

Post by apeace »

pwdisswordfish9 wrote: post #80
ls15 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> "Paper" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your paper stack says. For your paper-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the paper with the state of the real world... This but unironically.

Right. It's not the paper or stone tablets that ever made any changes. It was the people willing to do it in the real world. So the point is that blockchains don't open up any new possibilities that weren't there before. People always could've done whatever they were willing to do. Blockchains may have some benefits, but it's not as if people starting independent states was impossible before them.

Re: What I think about network states

#112

Post by akhmatova »

ls15 wrote: post #65
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.

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

You need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the paper with the state of the real world...

Otherwise known as working State with an army, a navy, nukes, and democracy (for stability), or some semblance thereof, and all the other stuff that keeps it humming along for 200+ years despite internal turmoil, foreign attacks, and all that. And rich enough to keep its economy humming too, and its coffers flush with cash and other reserves.

That's what makes a stable currency; not "fiat" or "paper stacks".

Re: What I think about network states

#113

Post by betwixthewires »

Nextgrid wrote: post #66
jerrre wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

By real-world I mean off-chain assets where the source of truth is usually the state of the physical world (as opposed to the blockchain, like it is with cryptocoins).

I have some thoughts on this.

Fundamentally, the "state of the real world" is the result of might is right, force or threat of force. The state of the real world is the result of action, and action is an act of force on the matter of the world, the act of changing things away from their most stable state by way of expression of energy. This is an act of force in it's simplest sense on non living things. Where living things are concerned, it becomes recognizable as force because living things have their own agenda, and putting them into a state you prefer necessitates some degree of coercion.

So a hypothetical world where entities like these network States, blockchain states and consensus mechanisms control real world assets is a world where action on the real world, including use of force, is automated. You don't have to have permission from the current status quo structure of institutions for blockchains and the like to have real world effect, you just have to have a way for them to act with or without institutional approval. A world where construction, modification and aggressive action is automated and thus can be deterministically and provably democratic is what you get out of all this.

Re: What I think about network states

#114

Post by jvanderbot »

henearkr wrote: post #48
jvanderbot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A democratic earth would stand a decent chance of marginalizing your social-political-religious group. There's a while lot of demographics on Earth. Think about a random sampling of all humans. Most are in Asia, esp India and China, and most are traditionally religious. Would women's rights be a priority? Fair employment? Gay rights? I do think that an integrated and conscientious Earth is important, especially with…

Gays are a minority in every democracy, and this does not make them marginalized in all those countries. To the contrary: democracy makes it more likely that they are tolerated and included. So your argument is not at all compelling. Also, to help you see it: take European Union as an example. It is only a loosely integrated democracy, but still, we elect EU MPs etc. EU does not prevent at all to have traditions and…

Any minority group that is not acknowledged by the majority as being worthy of basic rights will struggle and probably be marginalized.

Western nations do well with certain minority groups (they have many allies). Other cultures do not. The question is whether the majority of people would fall into a western like mindset or not. I think not.

Re: What I think about network states

#115

Post by elif »

seibelj wrote: post #53
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…

No, I'm painting historical secessionist libertarian movements as secessionist libertarian movements.

The abolition and replacement of the state.

Reformist libertarians are categorically excluded from the context of my criticism.

Re: What I think about network states

#116

Post by imtringued »

ls15 wrote: post #65
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.

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

We have banks and law enforcement.

Re: What I think about network states

#118

Post by imtringued »

rufusroflpunch wrote: post #36
lottin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly how I feel about anarcho-capitalism (also known in the USA as libertarianism), and ideology that seems devised by a 10 year old with no life experience. How a grown-up person can take this nonsense seriously is beyond me. Bewildering.

I'm sure they would say the same thing about whatever nonsense you believe.

You can achieve the stated goals of anarcho capitalism or anarcho communism with policies that have nothing to do with these movements.

In fact the problem with anarcho capitalism is that the freedoms it provides are also the rope on which it hangs itself. It is the dodo of economic systems with no sense of self preservation.

Getting rid of the rope involves taking away some freedoms that nobody should have, but that would go against the spirit of both anarcho capitalism and libertarians.

Re: What I think about network states

#119

Post by lazzlazzlazz »

henearkr wrote: post #42
ipiz0618 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like dystopia to me. At least now we could flee to another country from tyranny.

Ugh to your credit I should have precised that I do NOT envision this integrated Earth to be anything else than a democracy. Sorry, it was obvious for me.

I'm not sure how being a democracy makes it any better, since it might very well be a tyranny of the majority. Democracy hardly guarantees the freedom to leave.

Re: What I think about network states

#120

Post by gumby »

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.

> "Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says.

"My program would be so great if I didn't have to do I/O"

I made essentially this comment yesterday on the corncob article, but now realize it's the essence of crypto/dao fandom.

Post reply on HN