are you intentionally attacking Bitcoin here? This pretty much sums up exactly what is wrong with lauding the original paper as revolutionary.
New forms of technological governance don’t necessarily lead to corresponding change in socioeconomic governance.
Alas, the fraud of hyping supposed big breakthroughs in human governance is far from unpopular. Vastly more progress has been made learning (and improving) how computers work than in figuring out much less improving how humans work. https://twitter.com/La__Cuen/status/1001102779371393024 …
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
-
-
I think his point is that if you want better socioeconomic governance you are barking up the wrong tree. It is much more plausible to use technology to improve computers, than to improve humans.
-
Exactly. If you believe this is true then blockchain’s design tradeoffs don’t make sense - they’re affording (technologically) a mode of governance that is at odds with our socioeconomic reality. An impedance mismatch of the highest order.
-
I feel like you're agreeing but also disagreeing. Blockchain is probably unlikely to solve societies problems, but it's true that with random exploration people sometimes accidentally come up with technologies which change society. It's just not something we can control...
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Will we get an analysis of Proof of Stake? Maybe we’re talking about something different.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also: the point of lots of research in crypto is how to make things work w/o the need of understanding how humans work (which is a resistant approach; much more than risking a mistake in the conclusions of a behavioral research) (& I’m saying that as a human behavior researcher).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Many of those of us who spend more time on human governance systems do it for two reasons: 1. Blockchains still have 1/3+1 to 1/2+1 potential social attack vectors. 2. I don't know how computers work!! [the typical bizdev person trying to be useful!] ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
3. Limited accountability and integrity. 4. Exploitation of public position, power and resources for private gain.
-
Agreed. Human subjective governance is insecure, perhaps Bitcoin's anarchic model is the most suitable: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-14/bitcoin-blockchain-demonstrates-the-value-of-anarchy … ht
@eiaine [the blockchain principles I'm working on work regardless of governance model]
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Much more effort goes into exploiting human weakness than improving human capability.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Computers are great at improving, humans... not so much. So isn't it more cost-efficient to focus on improving computers?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's not just governance though. UX is a huge issue in the space too -- humans have to use this stuff. Most people cannot handle passwords let alone private keys.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and yet look at what we can do. I'm taking to you by way of subatomic particles about how to organize the species
-
Fermi.
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.