3 ms·

I assert that the diffusion of responsibility is a key feature of decentralized technology precisely because it renders us unable to "nip it in the bud".

by jMyles 8y ago

wpietri 8y ago
Unfortunately, it does so for everybody. Including people who have a strong interest in the world not seeing Bitcoin as scam central. It all strikes me as a classic tragedy of the commons.
hudon 8y ago
Not really. When the MPAA wanted action taken on torrented movies, they didn’t just throw their hands up in the air and go “whelp, it’s decentralized!“, they went after the authors of the protocol, the ISPs, hell even domain name registrars (that listed torrent websites). You can still torrent films, but you could get prosecuted or fined. Furthermore, some content is completely censored from torrent sites. All that to say, it’s not clear to me that “decentralized technology” can prevent the very human process of holding others accountable. It does slow down that process for now, since the software obfuscates what’s going on (who’s doing what), but regulators will understand how the tech works eventually...
- jMyles 8y ago
  I think that in very high-level terms, you're quite correct. You say, for example, 'it’s not clear to me that “decentralized technology” can prevent the very human process of holding others accountable' - I mean, yeah. That's a good starting point. On the other hand, your comment betrays some of the underlying revelation here: indeed, the MPAA has gone after the centralized components of peer-to-peer file sharing, as you point out. Yet, the bit torrent protocol remains as strong as ever (which, to be fair, isn't terribly strong in the first place). The internet has learnt and will continue to learn from this, and the next generation of censorship resistance will decentralize some of the points of failure you have listed (which we centralized in the bit torrent iteration). As for your last point: regulators understanding how the tech works is not meaningful if regulators are no longer the ones making decisions about the world. That will be a wonderful shift if our goals include peace and justice, which governments have consistently and correctly seen as threats to their existence. At the end of the day, my point is really this: even in the most wild-eyed crypto-anarchist fantasy, everything is fine. There's no need for the doom and gloom that we're routinely seeing on HN in threads like this.
  - hudon 8y ago
    Sorry but I don’t buy this anarchist ideology. Evidence shows that these are the most peaceful times in human history, and governments are bigger than ever. Sure, we need to be smart about keeping leaders in check, and progress is jagged, but overall, aren’t you much happier to be born now than 3000 years ago? Would you have preferred to be born at any other time? Because if not, then you must realize that we’re here due to our capacity to unite and form a government that on average contributes to our progress (even if that progress is, admittedly, jagged rather than linear).
    - jMyles 8y ago
      > aren’t you much happier to be born now than 3000 years ago? Indeed I am - this is the most exciting time I can imagine being alive. And I agree in full with everything you've said. However, I think that governments, which have been essential for many of the developments we've enjoyed so far (and this is despite their reliably selfish and monopolistic tendencies), have largely run their course and are less useful with each passing day. I am thankful even for my own government (in the USA), despite it being run in a completely childish fashion at this moment. But recognizing the importance of something doesn't mean that I want it to live forever. Indeed, I think it often means being willing to let it go.
    - mdpopescu 8y ago
      Governments might be bigger, but they are a lot more limited. Indeed, we consider the Chinese and North Korean governments to be an aberration, even though they would have been considered ridiculously progressive 3000 years ago. Also, let's not forget the 100+ million people governments still managed to kill in the 20th century, even with all those handicaps.
- magduf 8y ago
  >You can still torrent films, but you could get prosecuted or fined. You could, but national laws still vary a lot, and in some countries, the MPAA simply has no power to do anything. Routing BT traffic through those countries with a VPN makes it pretty difficult for them to take action. >but regulators will understand how the tech works eventually... Maybe, but they have no power over laws in different countries.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
sgt101 8y ago
And yet, should it become illegal for people to exchange fiat for crypto and for domiciled entities to own crypto all the decentralisation in the world wouldn't help.
- jMyles 8y ago
  I don't really see the connection. It seems to me that such a move will make decentralized money more valuable and more likely to be used, not less.
  - Nursie 8y ago
    Most people don't care about decentralised money. Stop the on/off ramps they currently use for speculation and the vast majority will stop speculating, as they were only in it for the get-rich-quick factor.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      Again, I don't think that making it illegal to transact in crypto will have the effect of "stop[ping] the on/off ramps" - I think the opposite is far more likely.
      - Nursie 8y ago
        So you think that if, say, coinbase and others are made to stop accepting deposits, Joe and Jane Retail-Investor are going to seek illegal methods to continue 'investing'? I am think you overestimate people's interest, and underestimate just how much of a get-rich-quick bubble this has been.
- stale2002 8y ago
  You are talking about an extreme edge case situation, where the entire world declares crypto to be illegal. I will agree that in this situation, crypto is probably dead. The much more likely scenario, though, is that a couple countries try to make crypto illegal, and other countries don't, and the decentralization of crypto makes it very difficult for the attacking country to stop it. The banning country isn't going to be able to target miners in other countries or take down exchanges that aren't located there. Crypto is still useful in this much more likely scenario. Think countries like Venezuela. They don't want people moving money outside the country, and yet people are doing that right now, with crypto, and the Venezuelan government can't stop it.

I assert that the diffusion of responsibility is a key feature of decentralized technology precisely because it renders us unable to "nip it in the bud".

by jMyles 8y ago

I assert that the diffusion of responsibility is a key feature of decentralized technology precisely because it renders us unable to "nip it in the bud".

wpietri 8y ago

Unfortunately, it does so for everybody. Including people who have a strong interest in the world not seeing Bitcoin as scam central. It all strikes me as a classic tragedy of the commons.

hudon 8y ago

Not really. When the MPAA wanted action taken on torrented movies, they didn’t just throw their hands up in the air and go “whelp, it’s decentralized!“, they went after the authors of the protocol, the ISPs, hell even domain name registrars (that listed torrent websites). You can still torrent films, but you could get prosecuted or fined. Furthermore, some content is completely censored from torrent sites. All that to say, it’s not clear to me that “decentralized technology” can prevent the very human process of holding others accountable. It does slow down that process for now, since the software obfuscates what’s going on (who’s doing what), but regulators will understand how the tech works eventually...

jMyles 8y ago
I think that in very high-level terms, you're quite correct. You say, for example, 'it’s not clear to me that “decentralized technology” can prevent the very human process of holding others accountable' - I mean, yeah. That's a good starting point. On the other hand, your comment betrays some of the underlying revelation here: indeed, the MPAA has gone after the centralized components of peer-to-peer file sharing, as you point out. Yet, the bit torrent protocol remains as strong as ever (which, to be fair, isn't terribly strong in the first place). The internet has learnt and will continue to learn from this, and the next generation of censorship resistance will decentralize some of the points of failure you have listed (which we centralized in the bit torrent iteration). As for your last point: regulators understanding how the tech works is not meaningful if regulators are no longer the ones making decisions about the world. That will be a wonderful shift if our goals include peace and justice, which governments have consistently and correctly seen as threats to their existence. At the end of the day, my point is really this: even in the most wild-eyed crypto-anarchist fantasy, everything is fine. There's no need for the doom and gloom that we're routinely seeing on HN in threads like this.
- hudon 8y ago
  Sorry but I don’t buy this anarchist ideology. Evidence shows that these are the most peaceful times in human history, and governments are bigger than ever. Sure, we need to be smart about keeping leaders in check, and progress is jagged, but overall, aren’t you much happier to be born now than 3000 years ago? Would you have preferred to be born at any other time? Because if not, then you must realize that we’re here due to our capacity to unite and form a government that on average contributes to our progress (even if that progress is, admittedly, jagged rather than linear).
  - jMyles 8y ago
    > aren’t you much happier to be born now than 3000 years ago? Indeed I am - this is the most exciting time I can imagine being alive. And I agree in full with everything you've said. However, I think that governments, which have been essential for many of the developments we've enjoyed so far (and this is despite their reliably selfish and monopolistic tendencies), have largely run their course and are less useful with each passing day. I am thankful even for my own government (in the USA), despite it being run in a completely childish fashion at this moment. But recognizing the importance of something doesn't mean that I want it to live forever. Indeed, I think it often means being willing to let it go.
  - mdpopescu 8y ago
    Governments might be bigger, but they are a lot more limited. Indeed, we consider the Chinese and North Korean governments to be an aberration, even though they would have been considered ridiculously progressive 3000 years ago. Also, let's not forget the 100+ million people governments still managed to kill in the 20th century, even with all those handicaps.
magduf 8y ago
>You can still torrent films, but you could get prosecuted or fined. You could, but national laws still vary a lot, and in some countries, the MPAA simply has no power to do anything. Routing BT traffic through those countries with a VPN makes it pretty difficult for them to take action. >but regulators will understand how the tech works eventually... Maybe, but they have no power over laws in different countries.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sgt101 8y ago

And yet, should it become illegal for people to exchange fiat for crypto and for domiciled entities to own crypto all the decentralisation in the world wouldn't help.

jMyles 8y ago
I don't really see the connection. It seems to me that such a move will make decentralized money more valuable and more likely to be used, not less.
- Nursie 8y ago
  Most people don't care about decentralised money. Stop the on/off ramps they currently use for speculation and the vast majority will stop speculating, as they were only in it for the get-rich-quick factor.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    Again, I don't think that making it illegal to transact in crypto will have the effect of "stop[ping] the on/off ramps" - I think the opposite is far more likely.
    - Nursie 8y ago
      So you think that if, say, coinbase and others are made to stop accepting deposits, Joe and Jane Retail-Investor are going to seek illegal methods to continue 'investing'? I am think you overestimate people's interest, and underestimate just how much of a get-rich-quick bubble this has been.
stale2002 8y ago
You are talking about an extreme edge case situation, where the entire world declares crypto to be illegal. I will agree that in this situation, crypto is probably dead. The much more likely scenario, though, is that a couple countries try to make crypto illegal, and other countries don't, and the decentralization of crypto makes it very difficult for the attacking country to stop it. The banning country isn't going to be able to target miners in other countries or take down exchanges that aren't located there. Crypto is still useful in this much more likely scenario. Think countries like Venezuela. They don't want people moving money outside the country, and yet people are doing that right now, with crypto, and the Venezuelan government can't stop it.