3 ms·

>“Anything that is completely computer-operated is a potentially oppressive system.” Anything that is completely people-operated is a certainly oppressive syst

by eudox 13y ago

>“Anything that is completely computer-operated is a potentially oppressive system.” Anything that is completely people-operated is a certainly oppressive system.

vbuterin 13y ago
Copying from a post I made on Reddit: Lately I have become much more comfortable with the idea of computer-controlled systems for one simple reason: our world is already computer controlled. The computer in question is the universe with its laws of physics and humans provide the inputs to this great multisig by manipulating their body parts. At the "base layer", no semblance of compassion really exists: the person who wins is the one who can wield the most violence. This is true even in anarchies; when it comes down to it, it's the guy with the guns who has the final say. And yet humans have managed to take this base layer and build all sorts of other structures on top. The world of programmatic smart contracts is exactly the same; it's just a set of cryptographic "laws of physics" that you can build stuff on, except it's designed to be both much more efficient and at the same time voluntarist at the core - unlike in the "real world", it's much harder to successfully steal a private key than it is to create and use one.
- FD3SA 13y ago
  Very well said. In addition, due to our evolutionary origins, humans tend to be inherently far more prone to malevolent behavior. Human history demonstrates the severity of this tendency quite dramatically. A an impartial system of rules may not be understanding of specific emotional contexts, but it is by definition fair. This is because it will always behave in the same manner given the same inputs. Given the judicial reality of most present (and past) societies, I would trust my fate to a carefully designed legal algorithm over a human jury every time.

3 ms·

>“Anything that is completely computer-operated is a potentially oppressive system.” Anything that is completely people-operated is a certainly oppressive syst

by eudox 13y ago

>“Anything that is completely computer-operated is a potentially oppressive system.” Anything that is completely people-operated is a certainly oppressive system.

vbuterin 13y ago
Copying from a post I made on Reddit: Lately I have become much more comfortable with the idea of computer-controlled systems for one simple reason: our world is already computer controlled. The computer in question is the universe with its laws of physics and humans provide the inputs to this great multisig by manipulating their body parts. At the "base layer", no semblance of compassion really exists: the person who wins is the one who can wield the most violence. This is true even in anarchies; when it comes down to it, it's the guy with the guns who has the final say. And yet humans have managed to take this base layer and build all sorts of other structures on top. The world of programmatic smart contracts is exactly the same; it's just a set of cryptographic "laws of physics" that you can build stuff on, except it's designed to be both much more efficient and at the same time voluntarist at the core - unlike in the "real world", it's much harder to successfully steal a private key than it is to create and use one.
- FD3SA 13y ago
  Very well said. In addition, due to our evolutionary origins, humans tend to be inherently far more prone to malevolent behavior. Human history demonstrates the severity of this tendency quite dramatically. A an impartial system of rules may not be understanding of specific emotional contexts, but it is by definition fair. This is because it will always behave in the same manner given the same inputs. Given the judicial reality of most present (and past) societies, I would trust my fate to a carefully designed legal algorithm over a human jury every time.