IF we had an ideal justice institution that was never wrong and never corruptible in its morality judgements it would be foolish not to give it control of bitcoin mutability. What is more ideal than a jury of our peers?
Well a general doubt that an ideal fair consensus model of morality and justice is optimal for civilization and progression. Most fair, perhaps. Most advanced/effective? Dubious. I like the woods your exploring, not sure this aggregate is optimal.
-
-
So given the premise that it is a jury system that never gets its judgements wrong and always pays out properly judgments would you agree to relinquish immutability to it? We MUST be reasonable. Must!
-
Never gets judgements wrong relative to its internal structure, an abstraction of the world structure. If I disagree with the moral views of the entire world, should I relinquish my own views, to remain reasonable? Dangers flirting with freedom of thought and the human spirit.
-
Should the whole world be held hostage to your subjective protest/complaint?
-
Debatable. Are you going to step in and stop/force/change me? With what enforcement? What about a million me? What if we become a minority with veto rights in the model? Do you fork us off the social chain like the DAO hack?
-
I think of the possibility of setting the veto threshold requirements in relation to the amount of stolen property such that the thieves can't hope to gain from paying for veto power etc.
-
Interesting. Doesnt combat too big to fail institutional theives, and geopolitical cabals from undue influence. Especially entering a hyper consumeristic attention economy.
-
You think the governments will get together to collude against the system?
-
People within governments with self interest and powers to protect. You think they won't?
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
If we can define idealness in systems, why shouldnt we shoot higher than aggregate of people. For devils advocate, I could argue we should explore this model, but keep the council toothless, and train AIs on its work over a few decades.
-
There are no higher moral principles than those defined by the propriety of the entirety of our society.
-
Perhaps, but youll never get all of society to feel that way, and many great men were reckless individualists. See: human spirit.
-
What won't society see? You commented on my observation that there is no higher moral judge than our aggregated view. Differing individuals need not agree with this for it to be true or harnessed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.