5 ms·

Use the ones whose financial rules appeal to you.

lottin 5y ago
We are talking about regulation. Regulation is a set of rules concerning capital requirements, consumer protection, etc. that apply to all market participants. Even if such a set of rules could be implemented as a "smart contract" (a computer program), a smart contract only has authority over the specific assets it controls. It's powerless to enforce a regulatory regime. So, to say that a regulatory regime can be replaced with smart contracts is basically a crackpot idea.
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  First they ignore you Then they laugh at you...
  - lottin 5y ago
    And then they win? Seriously, you need to think about this more carefully. You're basically arguing that everybody should make their own rules, and disregard everybody else's rules, which is kind of antithetical to the whole concept of civilisation...
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      I'm arguing that people should have a say in the rules they live under. That's kind of fundamental to the whole concept of democracy. A regional entity can't really have full control over its monetary system unless it's a 'nobody goes in or out' fortress like North Korea. In which case, it's of course difficult to have a democracy in anything but name! So to talk about the rules of local politics as if they can contain the monetary system through which they trade with others doesn't seem to me like the product of careful thought either. The US was sort of in that position because it was the global hegemon, but that should hardly be thought of as the historical norm.
      - lottin 5y ago
        As far as I can tell market regulations can either 1 - apply to all market participants 2 - apply to some market participants but not others 3 - have no regulations at all I say that regulations should apply to conventional finance and crypto, because anything else would be giving an unfair advantage to some market participants, so I'm arguing for 1. The crypto bros are saying that they don't want financial regulations to apply to them, because they don't want to, but they still want regulations to apply to conventional finance, so they are arguing for 2. What is your position exactly? Because sometimes it seems that you want 3, but it's hard to tell from your confused rhetoric.
        SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        A gradual transition from human actors as middlemen (who need regulation because they have self-interest) to disinterested algorithms which are self-regulating.
        lottin 5y ago
        So a self-driving car should not be bound by the traffic code because it has no self-interest but human drivers should be bound by it? Why should having or not having self-interest make any difference as to whether the rules apply to you?
        SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        If all self-driving cars are hardcoded to never break the speed limit there's no reason to have radar traps. Self driving cars already have codes that they follow, which the public can oversee the same way they oversee traffic codes now. For that matter if self-driving cars became able to respond faster than a human, there'd be no need for the old speed limits at all. A car would probably know its hardware much better than a human and know what it's individual fastest safe speed would be. Universal speed limits would only be necessary while there are human and AI drivers on the same roads. Which is why, as I said, a phased change-over would be best.

We are talking about regulation. Regulation is a set of rules concerning capital requirements, consumer protection, etc. that apply to all market participants. Even if such a set of rules could be implemented as a "smart contract" (a computer program), a smart contract only has authority over the specific assets it controls. It's powerless to enforce a regulatory regime. So, to say that a regulatory regime can be replaced with smart contracts is basically a crackpot idea.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
First they ignore you Then they laugh at you...
- lottin 5y ago
  And then they win? Seriously, you need to think about this more carefully. You're basically arguing that everybody should make their own rules, and disregard everybody else's rules, which is kind of antithetical to the whole concept of civilisation...
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    I'm arguing that people should have a say in the rules they live under. That's kind of fundamental to the whole concept of democracy. A regional entity can't really have full control over its monetary system unless it's a 'nobody goes in or out' fortress like North Korea. In which case, it's of course difficult to have a democracy in anything but name! So to talk about the rules of local politics as if they can contain the monetary system through which they trade with others doesn't seem to me like the product of careful thought either. The US was sort of in that position because it was the global hegemon, but that should hardly be thought of as the historical norm.
    - lottin 5y ago
      As far as I can tell market regulations can either 1 - apply to all market participants 2 - apply to some market participants but not others 3 - have no regulations at all I say that regulations should apply to conventional finance and crypto, because anything else would be giving an unfair advantage to some market participants, so I'm arguing for 1. The crypto bros are saying that they don't want financial regulations to apply to them, because they don't want to, but they still want regulations to apply to conventional finance, so they are arguing for 2. What is your position exactly? Because sometimes it seems that you want 3, but it's hard to tell from your confused rhetoric.
      - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        A gradual transition from human actors as middlemen (who need regulation because they have self-interest) to disinterested algorithms which are self-regulating.
        lottin 5y ago
        So a self-driving car should not be bound by the traffic code because it has no self-interest but human drivers should be bound by it? Why should having or not having self-interest make any difference as to whether the rules apply to you?
        SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        If all self-driving cars are hardcoded to never break the speed limit there's no reason to have radar traps. Self driving cars already have codes that they follow, which the public can oversee the same way they oversee traffic codes now. For that matter if self-driving cars became able to respond faster than a human, there'd be no need for the old speed limits at all. A car would probably know its hardware much better than a human and know what it's individual fastest safe speed would be. Universal speed limits would only be necessary while there are human and AI drivers on the same roads. Which is why, as I said, a phased change-over would be best.