3 ms·
> eventually software will mediate something important enough Will it though? Its hard for me to imagine a judge ignoring the law because the computer says so
by jayd16 3y ago
> eventually software will mediate something important enough
Will it though? Its hard for me to imagine a judge ignoring the law because the computer says something else.
- DisplayFlex 3y agoEven folks into the deep end of crypto ignore their own "code is law" ethos if the outcome is unfavorable (see cases of incorrect transactions, DAOs ignoring decisions, etc). Why'd one expect crypto rules to be binding outside of its universe then?
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoIt's not about whether the rules are binding. If the rules have the support of the users and so do their violations, then it's all good. I mean, maybe you should think twice about participating in a rule set that comes with a community that feels the need to break the rules regularly, but that's all somewhat orthogonal to the language used to express those rules. NFT's are the adversary-resistant equivalent of mutexes and semaphores. It seems short sighted to think that we'll never need that. Even if trust in crypto never improves, there's still room for trust in cloud providers to degrade. That is, regrettably, the typical direction when it comes to companies.
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoI'm proposing that it will be an NFT which indicates to you that that person is a judge. Governments get cancer and become ineffective. Then they're replaced by new ones through revolution. The tools of revolution become the buerocratic machinery of the subsequent regime. You don't need crypto unless you're coordinating against a powerful adversary--like a government--so I think it's reasonable to assume that crypto will end up being part of the revolutionary's tool belt, and therefore part of the buerocratic machinery.