3 ms·

I admit I don't even understand what that is supposed to mean. He writes that laws(!) are not considered "law" until "the people on the blockchain" - whatever t

I admit I don't even understand what that is supposed to mean. He writes that laws(!) are not considered "law" until "the people on the blockchain" - whatever that means, agree to it? So the making of laws somehow, obscurely, depends on "the blockchain"? How? Why? It makes no sense to me. What exactly does that mean? A vote of the people over each law, by blockchain? That's the only interpretation I can think of, and it still makes no sense. To me, and I admit my brain is quite limited, every explanation involving "blockchain" sounds surreal at best. I actually took two technical/programming courses (on edX and somewhere else) on "blockchains" so I think I understand the technology, but I'm still puzzled each time somebody explains something that involves this thing. IT seems understanding the technology is of no use - at least to me - when trying to understand the proposed use cases. How exactly the world is supposed to be changed in these scenarios remains a mystery to me, all I read is "magic".

erikpukinskis 8y ago
The language is ambiguous, your quote puts together parts of two separate clauses. The people aren't on the block chain, the "law is finalized (by those people) on the blockchain". So, throughout the day as a judge is making rulings, their clerk is signing transactions on probably an Ethereum dapp.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  Well, yeah, and as I said, I don't understand any of it. The point, I mean. That does not mean that - if I had the power - I would prevent anyone else from going down that route. Quite the opposite, I'm an interested observer, but I wait with judgment until I see something at work in the real world that makes sense to me. So far all I ever see is [insert arbitrary problem here] and then "...and you can do that better with the blockchain" is added. Of course, I may not have the wiring necessary to understand it, just like I can play some kinds of music to some people and they just won't get it. I'll wait and see.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

The language is ambiguous, your quote puts together parts of two separate clauses. The people aren't on the block chain, the "law is finalized (by those people) on the blockchain". So, throughout the day as a judge is making rulings, their clerk is signing transactions on probably an Ethereum dapp.

ItsMe000001 8y ago
Well, yeah, and as I said, I don't understand any of it. The point, I mean. That does not mean that - if I had the power - I would prevent anyone else from going down that route. Quite the opposite, I'm an interested observer, but I wait with judgment until I see something at work in the real world that makes sense to me. So far all I ever see is [insert arbitrary problem here] and then "...and you can do that better with the blockchain" is added. Of course, I may not have the wiring necessary to understand it, just like I can play some kinds of music to some people and they just won't get it. I'll wait and see.