3 ms·

> There are plenty of examples of people doing this important work because they legitimately believe that a world where fiat control is divorced from the levers

> There are plenty of examples of people doing this important work because they legitimately believe that a world where fiat control is divorced from the levers of governmental power is a positive change. Regardless of their intentions this is a bad idea and deserves every line of criticism it receives. Governance, law, and financial regulation exist for reasons that programmers have no place or reason to replace. Wether they wish it or not there is a centralization of authority that will happen. In Ethereum’s case either the oligarchs with the most money will set the rules, or more likely, actual governments with armies and the ability to enforce laws will.

idiotsecant 5y ago
>Regardless of their intentions this is a bad idea and deserves every line of criticism it receives. That's a fair criticism, even if I don't agree with it. I don't think it's possible to imagine a world where consensus is shared widely enough that 'mutually assured destruction' of the financial network prevents transaction censorship, particularly when zero knowledge based networks allow validation of network transactions without knowledge of who is transacting, what transaction is taking place, or when it might occur. >Governance, law, and financial regulation exist for reasons that programmers have no place or reason to replace. I don't think anyone is suggesting that governance, law, or financial regulation should go away. Those things seem important. The governments of the world can enforce those things like they always have. They just lose the ability to manufacture more money when it's time to fight a new war or pay off one special interest or another (but only if most of the people participating in that society buy into the idea that the government is not a good steward of that power) Imagine a world where the people ruled by a government have some say in whether they're doing a good job with monetary policy or not. I certainly don't have that today - I get to punch the 'RED GUY' or 'BLUE GUY' button on my voting ticket but neither of them are particularly interested in changing something that fundamental.
- agentultra 5y ago
  > particularly when zero knowledge based networks allow validation of network transactions without knowledge of who is transacting, what transaction is taking place, or when it might occur. Sounds great if you want to buy things law enforcement would be interested in tracking down. > Those things seem important. Understatement of the year. > Imagine a world where the people ruled by a government have some say in whether they're doing a good job with monetary policy or not. Assuming you live in the US, then you do -- it's called democracy. But giving power to a handful of rich people and asking them to make monetary policy is an oligarchy and it's not a good idea.
  - idiotsecant 5y ago
    >But giving power to a handful of rich people and asking them to make monetary policy is an oligarchy and it's not a good idea. Oh geez, we should probably stop doing that then.
    - agentultra 5y ago
      Agreed. This is what I mean about giving a bunch of programmers/developers the power to choose new forms of governance/financial infrastructure. These are social structures that affect everyone and shouldn't be given to developers no matter how well-meaning they are.

idiotsecant 5y ago

>Regardless of their intentions this is a bad idea and deserves every line of criticism it receives. That's a fair criticism, even if I don't agree with it. I don't think it's possible to imagine a world where consensus is shared widely enough that 'mutually assured destruction' of the financial network prevents transaction censorship, particularly when zero knowledge based networks allow validation of network transactions without knowledge of who is transacting, what transaction is taking place, or when it might occur. >Governance, law, and financial regulation exist for reasons that programmers have no place or reason to replace. I don't think anyone is suggesting that governance, law, or financial regulation should go away. Those things seem important. The governments of the world can enforce those things like they always have. They just lose the ability to manufacture more money when it's time to fight a new war or pay off one special interest or another (but only if most of the people participating in that society buy into the idea that the government is not a good steward of that power) Imagine a world where the people ruled by a government have some say in whether they're doing a good job with monetary policy or not. I certainly don't have that today - I get to punch the 'RED GUY' or 'BLUE GUY' button on my voting ticket but neither of them are particularly interested in changing something that fundamental.

agentultra 5y ago
> particularly when zero knowledge based networks allow validation of network transactions without knowledge of who is transacting, what transaction is taking place, or when it might occur. Sounds great if you want to buy things law enforcement would be interested in tracking down. > Those things seem important. Understatement of the year. > Imagine a world where the people ruled by a government have some say in whether they're doing a good job with monetary policy or not. Assuming you live in the US, then you do -- it's called democracy. But giving power to a handful of rich people and asking them to make monetary policy is an oligarchy and it's not a good idea.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  >But giving power to a handful of rich people and asking them to make monetary policy is an oligarchy and it's not a good idea. Oh geez, we should probably stop doing that then.
  - agentultra 5y ago
    Agreed. This is what I mean about giving a bunch of programmers/developers the power to choose new forms of governance/financial infrastructure. These are social structures that affect everyone and shouldn't be given to developers no matter how well-meaning they are.