4 ms·
It is interesting that this (otherwise great piece) does not mention cryptocurrencies / blockchain at all (by 2015/16 this was a "thing" already) or the triumph
by college_physics 4y ago
It is interesting that this (otherwise great piece) does not mention cryptocurrencies / blockchain at all (by 2015/16 this was a "thing" already) or the triumph of surveillance capitalism. It only goes to show that cryptographic work is, if anything, even more critical and influential to how to digital realm will be shaped.
From the beginning of time till just a decade or so ago, our political, social and economic/financial structures were based on certain assumptions about information privacy. These assumptions are being violated massively as we speak, Sometimes the "experiments" are giant flops, sometimes they are frighteningly successful.
The discussion about the global distribution of interconnected silicon and who has what access and control over which parts has barely begun. What geopolitical segmentation will we see. Is its economy going to be
free or some sort of digital feudalism? Will it encode humanistic concepts or introduce new types of segmentation into first/second class humans? etc.
- najdan33 4y agoIt would be interesting to see a list of what a small player (eg. small country) effectively needs to be able to bootstrap chip/IC production.
- jgerrish 4y ago> It is interesting that this (otherwise great piece) does not mention cryptocurrencies / blockchain at all The term "crypto bro", and its societal connotations, is relatively new. Even if cypherpunk work is decades old. Google Trends shows that. I recognize that, for most citizens, all cryptography work gets tainted by that term, "crypto bro". If I meet somebody at a social event tomorrow and tell them I build NFT crypto libraries for Woozle, vs. CRC32 crypto libraries for Tooble, are they going to differentiate? A lot of the current progressive crowd will wrinkle their nose, regardless. I recognize the trend-makers who coined that term did so with political means in mind. I recognize that they were attempting to say, "We're all part of this system. Unrestrained pursuit of work above all else can be harmful. By coining this term multiple people are taking a social hit." But I also recognize some may want to re-orient allegences not just for the benefit of those we may spend less time with if we work more, but to reinforce other power structures. Decades have been spent iterating on that idea. Good puzzles and enigmas take a while to work out. Anyways, I'm happy they're proud of their work. There are some good points hidden in there, even if I'm more hardened to the reality now.