Only people who actively participate in blockchain governance understand blockchain governance (At least today, at least for now)
Show this thread
-
lol, guess I'm totally 'that guy (girl)." My q was bc if people aren't using the blockchain to add something, then the governance is a collective action problem just like any other, and Szabo is right that public choice econ helpshttps://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/871859046701187073 …
tl;dr Politics ("governance") is corruptible and should be ruthlessly minimized.
-
-
But at what cost? Autonomous software is not necessarily your friend; it does not necessarily encode your intent when you deploy it, can be abused, and can be the basis of a dystopian future
-
I think that's a false choice. The choice isn't btwn people deciding things with no structure vs everything is encoded in a smart contract. You can divide power between roles, you can put up a bond that will be slashed if you break the rules, etc. Lots of room for invention!
-
The autonomous driving folks I worked with hated the word "autonomous" bc every time they came up with a nifty improvement someone cried that "this isn't truly autonomous" bc the car still had a steering wheel and, more importantly, a brake.
-
The SAE automated driving taxonomy came out of that research. I'm not aware of any blockchain that is truly autonomous. They're all "highly automated" (able to deal with all known environments but hand over to humans in unforeseen situations).
-
Sidebar: the SAE model of the different levels of autonomy is so good.
-
It's come from the peeps who are not allowed to take anything into development if it's not on secure legal grounds. Sometimes slow and deliberate corporate (or consortial) R&D has its benefits...
-
PS I'm sure there will be a similar document on enterprise almost-blockchains ("blockchain-related program activities") soon...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hashrate is corruptible with miner monopoly/centralized development with less secure sidechain to bailout native scaling problem. Bitcoin is a failed project, but the shill must go on, too much conglomerates with skin in the game for bubble to be over. Re-centralization=2big2fail
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
protocols for governance and protocols for protocol governancepic.twitter.com/GF6aM9mPrQ
-
defrag politics and identify corrupt sectors
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Isn't this just authoritarianism? Without discourse and compromise (politics) how will the system change in response to changing circumstances?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The statement in itself is politicized. If you can see the irony!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
micro governance in my mind looks like a shardchain where communities are fractals in a larger minimal governance protocol. how do humans organize this. we optimize towards many small decisions.
-
ie. 1. “i like math” 2. “we like math” 3. “2+2=4” 4. “some of us like 1mb blocks” 5. we have our own chain and so do you + regression testing
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You can't minimise politics you can only move power around. Making something 'beyond politics', is about the most political thing you can do. Now you can argue that is a good thing but the argument for goodness is essentially political.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.