3 ms·

So war on the blockchain? That sounds like a good example of what is meant by "dystopian." Imagine a world where whether Ukraine gets to stay sovereign or becom

So war on the blockchain? That sounds like a good example of what is meant by "dystopian." Imagine a world where whether Ukraine gets to stay sovereign or becomes part of Russia is determined by a global consensus of the wealthiest wallet addresses on a blockchain. It's like you took democracy, but got rid of the elements of constitutional republicanism that mitigate the weaknesses of democracy, leaving only the weaknesses. Except not really, because that would be a plain tyranny of the majority of unique human persons and this is a tyranny of a majority of wealth, which may only be a tiny number of people. I guess it's more like returning to feudalism, except the lords and kings no longer have to raise armies and fight each other. The richest coalition just wins automatically.

gumby 4y ago
> Imagine a world where whether Ukraine gets to stay sovereign or becomes part of Russia is determined by a global consensus of the wealthiest wallet addresses on a blockchain. Actully, this is basically what’s happening in your example. The citizens of the wealthiest countries are participating in the war by sending armaments and aid to Ukraine. The majority of the world’s citizens* are sitting it out or providing some amount of assistance to the Russian side, mainly through commerce. It’s not on the blockchain, but essentially wealth is “voting”. FWIW I’m far, far from being a blockchain supporter. I’m just addressing your example. * yes, at the UN the majority states voted against Russia, but if you look by populations, the west won an “electoral college” victory on the topic.
- jnovek 4y ago
  I think the point is that it’s just a change of venue for making consensus; the roles don’t change. A small number of people with lots of resources choose whether a large number of people with few resources fight each other to the death. GGP implied that war was something a blockchain could “fix”, but GP argues that it, at best, it maintains the status quo. In my opinion, it’s a little worse than the status quo because at least before those with few resources got some small say in the matter via their elected representatives.

gumby 4y ago

> Imagine a world where whether Ukraine gets to stay sovereign or becomes part of Russia is determined by a global consensus of the wealthiest wallet addresses on a blockchain. Actully, this is basically what’s happening in your example. The citizens of the wealthiest countries are participating in the war by sending armaments and aid to Ukraine. The majority of the world’s citizens* are sitting it out or providing some amount of assistance to the Russian side, mainly through commerce. It’s not on the blockchain, but essentially wealth is “voting”. FWIW I’m far, far from being a blockchain supporter. I’m just addressing your example. * yes, at the UN the majority states voted against Russia, but if you look by populations, the west won an “electoral college” victory on the topic.

jnovek 4y ago
I think the point is that it’s just a change of venue for making consensus; the roles don’t change. A small number of people with lots of resources choose whether a large number of people with few resources fight each other to the death. GGP implied that war was something a blockchain could “fix”, but GP argues that it, at best, it maintains the status quo. In my opinion, it’s a little worse than the status quo because at least before those with few resources got some small say in the matter via their elected representatives.