4 ms·

> Works as well as anything. Which is to say, just barely well enough to keep going. And then there's the whole thing with how its scaling issues are mitigate

• slver 5y ago
  So the big problem in your opinion, is that we're not allowed to legally beat each other up like animals over property disputes. All right. By the way, I don't think blockchains allow you to beat up people, either.
  • tnzm 5y ago
    The big problem, in my opinion, is that a lot of people think we'd inevitably be beating each other up like animals, if it wasn't for the powers that be, who kindly protect us from ourselves. And it is already legal to beat up and kill each other over a property dispute. It just has to be a large enough dispute for the parties involved to be able to afford rebranding it as a "war".
    • slver 5y ago
      Do you know this saying "those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it". You're that saying. Also "war" is the thing that happens between parties above which no legal frame or enforcement institution exists. Countries. There's no actual "international court" (there's the UN one, but it has no powers). This is why wars happen. So in fact, mentioning wars defeats your own point - yes, people will literally kill each other like savages when no legal repercussions exist. Wars show that. Because we have no world government, we can only apply mitigation strategies like sanctions, diplomacy, economic interdependence. These work, but only until a true scarcity occurs, where taking someone else's stuff is a solution. Then it's back to wars.
  • tnzm 5y ago
    To add, it's also completely legal for the powers that be to treat you like an animal if you try to make yourself independent of them. Unlike the existing system of governance, a blockchain doesn't have the mandate to beat up people.
    • slver 5y ago
      I prefer a subset of people who can beat me up for a subset of reasons, rather than all people for any reason.
      • tnzm 5y ago
        Your boot, sir.