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

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: What I think about network states

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

atlasunshrugged wrote: post #91
dragonwriter wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SMOM isn't a network state (it doesn't have pockets of sole sovereign territory spread across the world granted by different states as a result of ground-up political pressure from its members), though it is a sovereign entity that is not a traditional state (specifically, lacking any sole sovereign territory, though it has some diplomatic extraterritorial enclaves and some co-soveriegn territory with Italy.)

I thought it recently got some land in Malta again too?

It has partial extraterritoriality in the upper portion of Fort St. Angelo, it's not their sovereign territory.

Re: What I think about network states

#102

Post by peoplefromibiza »

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.

> trusted party to reconcile the state of the paper with the state of the real world

that's called enforcement of the law, that can rely on force, if necessary.

a blockchain has the same value of paper (on paper) but it can be shut down by cutting electricity and, most of all, has no way to enforce what's stored on it.

Because no trusted party is willing to make the effort, there is no way a bunch of individuals are going to come together and declare war (to whom?) to make it stick.

Re: What I think about network states

#103

Post by peoplefromibiza »

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.

a good old distributed network of centralized databases, one or more for each entity, that get reconciled at intervals.

the network itself is already decentralized.

interoperability and open protocols > immutable ledger (which is a centralized source of the truth)

philosophically speaking a society where information is stored with no restriction but can be made available to other parties in an open and documented manner is more free than one where the "tables of the law" is one immutable and indisputable blockchain because the computer says so.

Re: What I think about network states

#104

Post by siavosh »

A state is in large part defined by having a monopoly over taxes and a military, neither of which any group within an existing state can ever have. So these network states can at most land somewhere between a political party or an online club. Does Balaji address this?

Re: What I think about network states

#105

Post by wbsss4412 »

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…

> To the contrary: democracy makes it more likely that they are tolerated and included.

There is a correlation here, but it isn’t causal. Democracy has been around in countries that support gay rights for much longer than they supported gay rights.

What’s made the difference has been cultural shifts wherein the majority supports gay rights rather than opposing them.

Re: What I think about network states

#106

Post by karpierz »

bloppe wrote: post #52
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.

No, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32109419

Re: What I think about network states

#107

Post by stale2002 »

henearkr wrote: post #27
throwaway0x7E6 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a more integrated Earth yes, that's the ultimate fate of our civilization - becoming a gray biological mass of consumers without identity, culture, or allegiance to anything other than global corporations I'd prefer us to go extinct, and it is thankfully certain that we will

You misunderstood me. I mean partitioning or integration of LAWS. This is exactly what "creating a state" means: having one's own law, which I think is bad. Good laws are most effective when they are enforced without borders. Of course I did not mean to uniformize people!! As for the link with groupism: partitioned laws are the starting point, you say "people from this state have those rights, people from other state…

You are missing the point though.

Some people prefer certain laws, and other people prefer different ones. And there can be a case whether neither set of laws is automatically "better".

For example, private property rights in an interesting topic. Personally, I prefer strong private property rights, but I have no reason to deny another country from choosing something completely different.

If people in another country, instead prefer socialism, or more collective ownership of property, that is fine by me if they do that, as long as they let other people who disagree, choose something else in other countries.

Re: What I think about network states

#108

Post by mkka »

Communitivity wrote: post #21

Balaji sounds bizarre. The strangeness of the idea that Bitcoin is conservative is eclipsed only by the idea everything is run by the CCP, Crypto, and the NYT. I read Vitalik's take as a soft rebuke while trying to give honest consideration to the concept of a Network State. However, for me 'Network State' only seems to be a new term for a Distributed Autonomous Organization (DAO) that provides services typically pro…

Another author with similar distributed governing bodies as a basis for plot is Malka Older in the Infomacracy series with micro democracy.

Re: What I think about network states

#109

Post by paisawalla »

henearkr wrote: post #95
paisawalla wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of exit is that there are too many people, such as yourself apparently, who consider their underdeveloped and underinformed notions of society to be universally applicable -- under force of law if necessary. Put bluntly, I don't want a world where you can tell others whom they should value more than others. That strikes me as an incredibly arrogant proposition and I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings…

What you call "force of law" is just rules decided by everybody for the good of all, in a democracy. You use this expression to make it look like oppression, but it is the complete contrary, it is mutual help by choosing beneficial rules. Helping to build democracies, you help everybody! Except the few dictators, but why would you care for their feelings more than the feelings of the whole population. Unless they are…

TLDR: democracy is rule by the people, unless the people choose poorly or refuse to accept what is Obviously Good and Right.

Your ideas are bad and naive, and because you seem to be disavowing my natural right to refuse to participate in this poorly thought out ideological regime which you would have rule the world, you are also proposing tyranny.

I don't accept that your idea of what "bad" is, is anything other than "stuff I personally don't like," only you have not examined your beliefs enough to realize that. In my view, you are unreasonably optimistic about the prospects for success for any of what you described, and I assume it's because you are unaware of, or view unrealistically, the history of these and related ideas.

Re: What I think about network states

#110

Post by numtel »

joosters wrote: post #57
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'.

So then building them as "network states" is a recognition that nation states have lost the control they had a century ago due to advances in technology and communications. Distance and locality isn't as important when the internet makes telepresence feasible.
Post reply on HN