4 ms·

> I don't know about you, but my institutions aren't failing. They just require regular maintenance. There's the rub: do they get the regular maintenance they

by seabee 13y ago

> I don't know about you, but my institutions aren't failing. They just require regular maintenance. There's the rub: do they get the regular maintenance they require, and who foots the bill when it breaks? What are the incentives to do so, and the consequences if you don't? I don't believe institutions are 'failing' in the sense that they cannot operate, but that they are a net loss to society. The trustless economy is a response to the lack of trust in those who control the economy - whether by enacting policy or being too-big-to-fail - to operate for the greater good of society. It is not about distrusting people, it's that you shouldn't need to trust people. You may evade or buy your way out of the laws of the land, but you can never escape the laws of mathematics. Of course the economy runs a lot better when you can trust everyone. There also exist better forms of government, if you ignore human fallibility or selfishness. But it's not about abolishing institutions, even if the purpose is to obsolete certain types.

pron 13y ago
> You may evade or buy your way out of the laws of the land, but you can never escape the laws of mathematics. Very true, but the laws of mathematics don't have feelings, desires or empathy. That might be good, except for one thing: we're human and we do. As people, we should want to have the freedom to decide our own fate, not put it in the hands of an alien entity. That entity might be right but it won't be right for us.
- shadowmint 13y ago
  What are you even talking about now? Seriously, some of the stuff you were saying in other comments actually made sense, but all you're doing is losing credibility when you go off the deep end and start with the 'fear the machine' nonsense. Take a deep breath, go get some food or something; you don't have to reply to every single comment. (...and a considered comment is worth 10 flash responses that haven't been thought out~)
- Xdes 13y ago
  >As people, we should want to have the freedom to decide our own fate, not put it in the hands of an alien entity. This is what I don't understand about your argument: the governance of cryptocurrencies is the same democracy you're advocating elsewhere. The difference is replacing the fallible human element with a set of mathematical rules. Noone is saying the rules cannot change (or altcoins would not exist). The entire purpose of the cryptocurrency experiment is to find rules that everyone will like and aren't based promises from politicians, corporatists, or plutocrats.
  - pron 13y ago
    Altcoins precisely prove that finding rules everyone would like is impossible (or close enough). So suppose you'll settle for a majority. How will you persuade people? If there's a lot at stake, and the system is complex enough, you can't expect everyone to be well versed in the details, so you'll need professional politicians and a representative democracy. I think you're reading too much into what cryptocurrency is. It is simply a somewhat-elegant solution to the problem of building a decentralized, digital cash. That's it. It doesn't try to find new ways to run the economy, although some of its supporters do because that's their politics. It doesn't even prove that this is, indeed, a serious practical problem, but that's what some of its supporters believe. What you call fallible, others might call "free". For example, I would like to give the government the freedom to quickly devalue the currency in a time of a job crisis. What you're proposing either takes away that freedom altogether, or places a serious bureaucratic burden on the process, so that it might not be feasible. You're basically suggesting a system with an unbreakable bureaucracy which is just about the only thing worse than the current situation. There will be no one to talk to – hey, it's just the algorithm – other than somehow convince a majority of anonymous account holders, with whom you can't bargain because they're unlikely to reveal their true interests. The difference between us, I think, is this: we both don't like politicians plutocrats and corporations. But you believe that they can be eliminated through some elusive algorithm, while I think society contains within it endless cycles of many concurrent power struggles, and each of us must find their place in it, and fight for the values they believe in, knowing full well that the fight is never truly over.
    - 13y ago

by seabee 13y ago

pron 13y ago

> You may evade or buy your way out of the laws of the land, but you can never escape the laws of mathematics. Very true, but the laws of mathematics don't have feelings, desires or empathy. That might be good, except for one thing: we're human and we do. As people, we should want to have the freedom to decide our own fate, not put it in the hands of an alien entity. That entity might be right but it won't be right for us.

shadowmint 13y ago
What are you even talking about now? Seriously, some of the stuff you were saying in other comments actually made sense, but all you're doing is losing credibility when you go off the deep end and start with the 'fear the machine' nonsense. Take a deep breath, go get some food or something; you don't have to reply to every single comment. (...and a considered comment is worth 10 flash responses that haven't been thought out~)
Xdes 13y ago
>As people, we should want to have the freedom to decide our own fate, not put it in the hands of an alien entity. This is what I don't understand about your argument: the governance of cryptocurrencies is the same democracy you're advocating elsewhere. The difference is replacing the fallible human element with a set of mathematical rules. Noone is saying the rules cannot change (or altcoins would not exist). The entire purpose of the cryptocurrency experiment is to find rules that everyone will like and aren't based promises from politicians, corporatists, or plutocrats.
- pron 13y ago
  Altcoins precisely prove that finding rules everyone would like is impossible (or close enough). So suppose you'll settle for a majority. How will you persuade people? If there's a lot at stake, and the system is complex enough, you can't expect everyone to be well versed in the details, so you'll need professional politicians and a representative democracy. I think you're reading too much into what cryptocurrency is. It is simply a somewhat-elegant solution to the problem of building a decentralized, digital cash. That's it. It doesn't try to find new ways to run the economy, although some of its supporters do because that's their politics. It doesn't even prove that this is, indeed, a serious practical problem, but that's what some of its supporters believe. What you call fallible, others might call "free". For example, I would like to give the government the freedom to quickly devalue the currency in a time of a job crisis. What you're proposing either takes away that freedom altogether, or places a serious bureaucratic burden on the process, so that it might not be feasible. You're basically suggesting a system with an unbreakable bureaucracy which is just about the only thing worse than the current situation. There will be no one to talk to – hey, it's just the algorithm – other than somehow convince a majority of anonymous account holders, with whom you can't bargain because they're unlikely to reveal their true interests. The difference between us, I think, is this: we both don't like politicians plutocrats and corporations. But you believe that they can be eliminated through some elusive algorithm, while I think society contains within it endless cycles of many concurrent power struggles, and each of us must find their place in it, and fight for the values they believe in, knowing full well that the fight is never truly over.
  - 13y ago