4 ms·
> ownership being public record is an important part of the social contract. This is silly. Public ownership records are a practical utility, not a deep-rooted
by wyager 9y ago
> ownership being public record is an important part of the social contract.
This is silly. Public ownership records are a practical utility, not a deep-rooted moral practice.
Incidentally, we’ve figured out how to have digital asset ownership without invoking “the social contract” or any of its many connotations; we have blockchains now. Namecoin solved this exact problem, although it never took off.
- closeparen 9y ago>not a deep-rooted moral practice. How do you think the Freedom of Information Act got there? It may be going out of fashion, but many of us do believe that the workings of public institutions should be transparent because we value transparency itself. The public record would be much smaller if pragmatism were the only reason to make something public record. ICANN (or whatever supplants it, like Namecoin) is the Register of Deeds of the internet.
- newscracker 9y agoGovernments and larger corporations, which are generally a lot more powerful than individuals, ought to be forced to be transparent to individuals, and not the other way around. Anything on the former is welcome. Anything on the latter needs stronger justifications.
- closeparen 9y agoOwnership of a zero-sum resource like land, spectrum, or DNS is the most fundamental form of power.