4 ms·

In the absence of a governing authority, property disputes would revert to being settled by violence or the threat thereof. Why should my band of armed thugs d

by giaour 5y ago

In the absence of a governing authority, property disputes would revert to being settled by violence or the threat thereof. Why should my band of armed thugs defer to what it says on the blockchain when they could instead hit you with a $5 wrench until you vacate the premises? https://xkcd.com/538 https://xkcd.com/538

aflag 5y ago
Because everyone else around them would help defend the validity of the deeds, as they all own property in the same way. Like I said before, I'm far far away from having all the answers about how to set up a decentralized society and I'm not even sure I would like to live in such a society. However, issuing deeds and currency is an important job that currently you need a central government you trust to do. With a blockchain that problem is solved. There are plenty of other problems besides that. But it is one less item in the checklist.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- giaour 5y ago
  > Because everyone else around them would help defend the validity of the deeds, as they all own property in the same way. That feels a bit like saying that everyone will pitch in to stop mugging since we all carry physical cash in the same way. Maybe some civilians would intervene some of the time, but most will not risk their own bodily autonomy to defend another's property. Issuing deeds and currency feels like the easy part of creating an agreed upon land registry or economy. I have a printer and know how to use SQLite, so nothing is stopping me from issuing my own physical currency or deeds today. I could even save paper and put them on my own personal blockchain. Convincing others to honor my currency or deeds sounds like the hard part.
  - aflag 5y ago
    It is not the easy part if you want a decentralized government because no one person can be tasked with issuing and governing over those, otherwise that person will have power over everyone and kind of defeat the purpose. That doesn't mean that there aren't other equally or even harder challenges. I was not claiming that blockchains was the last problem stopping us from becoming decentralized. Anyway, like you said, nothing prevents you from issuing your currency and deeds today. And, before blockchains, the only way to have a decentralized government would be for many people to do that. However, that system is more fragile than a system built on a single blockchain everyone agrees on. The big thing about blockchains is that it allows people to all agree on a certain asset, without giving control of that asset to a single party. That is big news for anyone group wanting to live in a decentralized society, because it was one of the big problems.
- dale_glass 5y ago
  Reality (eg, Jews in Nazi germany) shows that this is bullshit. If the local government and population is on your side, then you're fine. If however you're a minority that's now deemed to be the enemy, then what supposedly belongs to you doesn't matter one bit. You can prove it as mathematically as you want, and you can have your neighbors on your side, but if a bigger army of goons shows up to take your stuff, they'll take it. Ultimately this is an entirely political problem, and the blockchain will simply be completely ignored if things go to shit.
  - aflag 5y ago
    I think you're missing the point. I agree with everything you said. The validity of everything comes from the people (the majority at least) agreeing on the legitimacy of something. Everyone agrees on the legitimacy of the dollar, so that's why it has value. However, by agreeing on that, we give USA's central bank a lot of control over it and, therefore, power. If everyone agrees that dollars are worthless, but bitcoins have value instead, then the central bank has a lot less control. Moreover, a society without a central government would never be able to agree on any fiat money without the blockchain. Now, such society could do so. Also, that society would have a hard time evaluating the legitimacy of deeds without the blockchain. So that is yet another feature that can help building such society if one so inclines.
    - dale_glass 5y ago
      Things like BTC are even worse. BTC has two main sources of control: 1. The developers. Somebody has to develop the software, and no matter what, this ends up being a very select group. If you have multiple groups, that's still not a lot of people and they'll have to cooperate somehow, which will result in some sort of system you're not involved with. 2. The miners. They group up into pools, and there's not that many of them that are big enough to matter. Those two groups are the ones truly in control, and they're unelected, unaccountable, and have their own interests and agendas. If you think the banks are bad, then using a system made of a cabal distributed among the globe is hardly better.
      - 5y ago
arlcode 5y ago
My band of thugs however would offer people the ability to buy protection from your band of thugs. I may even be inclined to write down some rules and introduce a process to resolve conflicts without unnecessary damage to people and property. (In this hypothetical scenario any form of land registry is only as valid as I say it is.)
- giaour 5y ago
  Then in the end, we all live by the rules established by whoever has the largest band of thugs. Good thing we got rid of government and created this libertarian utopia.
- FledNanders 5y ago
  > My band of thugs however would offer people the ability to buy protection from your band of thugs. Thereby reinventing the police > I may even be inclined to write down some rules and introduce a process to resolve conflicts without unnecessary damage to people and property. and the courts. But maybe that was your point?
  - arlcode 5y ago
    Indeed it was :) With a big enough population at least one government and a basic bureaucracy will be formed by someone. A few people in the Blockchain space seem to think that technology can fundamentally change that.
    - FledNanders 5y ago
      Ah, I thought so! And I agree! I'm hopeful that when the Ponzi schemes fade away, we'll end up with a slightly more informed populace that has inadvertently received an introduction to political science, state-building, the origins of power, etc. Civics teachers take note! :)
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Almost the entire populace will be more informed -- except for the Ponzi-"coin" proponents, because they're busy innoculating themselves against reason by... Well, being Ponzi-"coin" proponents; strengthening their own biases by debating in favour of these ludicrous schemes. Like, right here on this page.

by giaour 5y ago

aflag 5y ago

Because everyone else around them would help defend the validity of the deeds, as they all own property in the same way. Like I said before, I'm far far away from having all the answers about how to set up a decentralized society and I'm not even sure I would like to live in such a society. However, issuing deeds and currency is an important job that currently you need a central government you trust to do. With a blockchain that problem is solved. There are plenty of other problems besides that. But it is one less item in the checklist.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
giaour 5y ago
> Because everyone else around them would help defend the validity of the deeds, as they all own property in the same way. That feels a bit like saying that everyone will pitch in to stop mugging since we all carry physical cash in the same way. Maybe some civilians would intervene some of the time, but most will not risk their own bodily autonomy to defend another's property. Issuing deeds and currency feels like the easy part of creating an agreed upon land registry or economy. I have a printer and know how to use SQLite, so nothing is stopping me from issuing my own physical currency or deeds today. I could even save paper and put them on my own personal blockchain. Convincing others to honor my currency or deeds sounds like the hard part.
- aflag 5y ago
  It is not the easy part if you want a decentralized government because no one person can be tasked with issuing and governing over those, otherwise that person will have power over everyone and kind of defeat the purpose. That doesn't mean that there aren't other equally or even harder challenges. I was not claiming that blockchains was the last problem stopping us from becoming decentralized. Anyway, like you said, nothing prevents you from issuing your currency and deeds today. And, before blockchains, the only way to have a decentralized government would be for many people to do that. However, that system is more fragile than a system built on a single blockchain everyone agrees on. The big thing about blockchains is that it allows people to all agree on a certain asset, without giving control of that asset to a single party. That is big news for anyone group wanting to live in a decentralized society, because it was one of the big problems.
dale_glass 5y ago
Reality (eg, Jews in Nazi germany) shows that this is bullshit. If the local government and population is on your side, then you're fine. If however you're a minority that's now deemed to be the enemy, then what supposedly belongs to you doesn't matter one bit. You can prove it as mathematically as you want, and you can have your neighbors on your side, but if a bigger army of goons shows up to take your stuff, they'll take it. Ultimately this is an entirely political problem, and the blockchain will simply be completely ignored if things go to shit.
- aflag 5y ago
  I think you're missing the point. I agree with everything you said. The validity of everything comes from the people (the majority at least) agreeing on the legitimacy of something. Everyone agrees on the legitimacy of the dollar, so that's why it has value. However, by agreeing on that, we give USA's central bank a lot of control over it and, therefore, power. If everyone agrees that dollars are worthless, but bitcoins have value instead, then the central bank has a lot less control. Moreover, a society without a central government would never be able to agree on any fiat money without the blockchain. Now, such society could do so. Also, that society would have a hard time evaluating the legitimacy of deeds without the blockchain. So that is yet another feature that can help building such society if one so inclines.
  - dale_glass 5y ago
    Things like BTC are even worse. BTC has two main sources of control: 1. The developers. Somebody has to develop the software, and no matter what, this ends up being a very select group. If you have multiple groups, that's still not a lot of people and they'll have to cooperate somehow, which will result in some sort of system you're not involved with. 2. The miners. They group up into pools, and there's not that many of them that are big enough to matter. Those two groups are the ones truly in control, and they're unelected, unaccountable, and have their own interests and agendas. If you think the banks are bad, then using a system made of a cabal distributed among the globe is hardly better.
    - 5y ago

arlcode 5y ago

My band of thugs however would offer people the ability to buy protection from your band of thugs. I may even be inclined to write down some rules and introduce a process to resolve conflicts without unnecessary damage to people and property. (In this hypothetical scenario any form of land registry is only as valid as I say it is.)

giaour 5y ago
Then in the end, we all live by the rules established by whoever has the largest band of thugs. Good thing we got rid of government and created this libertarian utopia.
FledNanders 5y ago
> My band of thugs however would offer people the ability to buy protection from your band of thugs. Thereby reinventing the police > I may even be inclined to write down some rules and introduce a process to resolve conflicts without unnecessary damage to people and property. and the courts. But maybe that was your point?
- arlcode 5y ago
  Indeed it was :) With a big enough population at least one government and a basic bureaucracy will be formed by someone. A few people in the Blockchain space seem to think that technology can fundamentally change that.
  - FledNanders 5y ago
    Ah, I thought so! And I agree! I'm hopeful that when the Ponzi schemes fade away, we'll end up with a slightly more informed populace that has inadvertently received an introduction to political science, state-building, the origins of power, etc. Civics teachers take note! :)
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Almost the entire populace will be more informed -- except for the Ponzi-"coin" proponents, because they're busy innoculating themselves against reason by... Well, being Ponzi-"coin" proponents; strengthening their own biases by debating in favour of these ludicrous schemes. Like, right here on this page.