• kool_newt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Your comment seemed anti blockchain in general and so I was replying on that level not particularly about the contracts.

    Your claims all make perfect sense if you think or current system is acceptable, with some billionaires and others that can’t eat and police making sure it stays this way. The blockchain is about making the future better by enabling trustless transactions to occur without those things.

    Current contracts are often held by corporarations and enforced by police. I’m a realistic person that believes climate scientists. I’m pretty sure if we have capitalism, corporations, and police (all things we need to enforce contracts) in 20 years it will be in a fascist, dystopian, ecological collapse context and I hope to not be around to experience it.

    I’m much more interested in how to build a better world that doesn’t need these authoritarian forces, and the blockchain is a technology useful in this endeavor. I don’t claim that it is without flaw or can prevent crime.

    immutable nature of the blockchain renders theft absolute, with no recourse

    What recourse would be available in the dollar system that doesn’t mean somebody isn’t paying to make another whole? If someone stole my cash, or stole from my bank because I lost my ATM, who is making me whole at 0 cost?"

    Also immutable doesn’t mean not able to be modified, it just means you can’t modify the past (lie about what happened). If you want to change something, it’s a forward change, with past states still visible.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’ve said a lot of words but you still haven’t explained how crypto actually solves these problems.

      Once again: laws, including contract law and currency, aren’t magic spells. They don’t have power just because they exist. They require the power of a state to enforce them. Crypto is the same. Just because you’re tracking transactions on a public immutable ledger doesn’t change anything about that.

      Now, as an anarchist, I’m not saying that to defend the current system. I am saying the solution is to remove the actual power of the state. Crypto is only attempting to replace tokens of state power, with no attempt to address the power itself.

      And yes, I understand how you could in theory make changes to a contract with further ammendments, the thing is that costs transactions. There is no such thing as a modification based purely on consent of the parties. That is a serious problem for their usefulness, which was my actual point.

      • kool_newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’ve said a lot of words but you still haven’t explained how crypto actually solves these problems.

        That’s because it doesn’t, it wasn’t meant to. Crypto is not meant to be THE all-in-one solution that solves all of our problems. It solves a tiny subset of our problems, namely, how do we share a database without trusting each other. Other questions such as the enforcement of contracts is outside the scope of blockchain technology as it should be.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right but again, that problem is not one that existed. The future is federation - communities working together based on trust, not finding novel ways to track who has & does not have resources.

          It wastes a medium country’s worth of emissions every day just to count coins or write things down, and it doesn’t get used to liberate people it gets used for scams.

          • kool_newt@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right but again, that problem is not one that existed. The future is federation - communities working together based on trust, not finding novel ways to track who has & does not have resources.

            Nice, agree, though I’m of the opinion that the transition time will be significant as culture adapts, and until then, blockchain could help, especially between groups.

            It wastes a medium country’s worth of emissions every day just to count coins or write things down

            This depends on the specific chain/coin. As I understand Eth just made or is in the midst of a change that makes energy use hardly a concern. It’s not like the dollar doesn’t take any energy. Think about all the bank computer DBs etc in massive global datacenters, branch offices, and the people that need to manage them, etc.

            and it doesn’t get used to liberate people it gets used for scams.

            Blockchain is a tool, nearly any tool can be used for cool things or shitty things. A database is fundamental type tool, and one that can run without need to trust others you don’t know seems like it could be useful too. I’m anarchist but not under the impression that within my lifetime I would be able to trust someone on the other side of the world to not mess with a DB for profit (remember the transition time will be full of people who grew up in an exploitative world). I’m pretty sure the long-term anarchist future is like you said, federation, decentralization, etc. Within my group of 500 or so, sure, no need to track anything. Between groups, there may be some need. And enforcement would be along the lines of deciding not to work with those who demonstrate maliciousness.

            btw, thanks for the civil intelligent conversation!

            • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              With ethereum, they’ve been promising this for a while. I believe they are talking about “proof of stake”. The problem with this is of course that you need stake to begin with. This is effectively just capitalism. They explicitly say this in their language:

              In Ethereum’s proof-of-stake, validators explicitly stake capital in the form of ETH into a smart contract on Ethereum.

              https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/

              So that just reproduces the problem where you need money to be part of the ecosystem, and an ultra-wealthy bad-actor could easily undermine the system.

              Now, as for the idea that any tool can be used for good or ill, I would say that’s true of technology, but not tools. The actual implementation of any given technology affects how it will be used. This is what the saying, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” is talking about. In media the saying is, “The medium is the message.”

              Similarly, you can’t use nuclear weapons for anything good, at least not currently. There was a whole project called “operation plowshare” that tried to find good uses for these things. They just ended up creating a bunch of irradiated craters.

              So cryptography is the technology, blockchain is the tool. My point is that if you understand what that tool does, and you look at how it gets used historically, it’s pretty obvious that it’s used for scams. Yes, there are promises that it could be used for better things in the future, but until it actually does so, there’s no reason to believe it.

              A good podcast about this is the Behind the Bastards episodes on crypto:
              https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-lets-talk-about-cryptocurrency-90181213/
              https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-lets-talk-about-cryptocurrency-90276347/

              As for the transitional period where state power is being eroded and communities are being built, it might be true that you can’t trust someone halfway around the world, individually. This is where I’m basically just brainstorming how I personally would suggest this problem be solved:

              I would still rely on federation. For instance, as things stand right now, countries have trade agreements between one another, and those agreements don’t work because of some outside police force, they work because those entities rely on one another. There is a level of trust, even though states are notoriously untrustworthy, they still know the level of trust is stable enough to make their currencies compatible and engage in trade.

              If you’re in a federated community that trades with other communities on a basis of mutual aid and trust, you could easily have a trade agreement from your federated communities with capitalist states. Then whatever mechanism you would use to negotiate requests internally, you just create a similar mechanism where you request an item that is for sale from a capitalist country, and the federation organises the sale externally. That insulates you from needing to trust anyone externally.

              This would be what you would do if you absolutely had to, but I can also see why such communities would want to minimise their support for capitalist states. Ultimately the only reason such a state would have an agreement with a federated bloc of anarchist communities would be because they benefited somehow. I would say in such a world the downfall of such states is inevitable, but maybe it’s the most peaceful way to manage such a transition. Ideally, you wouldn’t trade in single transactions with people on the other side of the world. Most goods can be produced internally in any reasonably sized economy, and if you don’t have cheap vs expensive labour, there’s no reason most goods need to be imported. Currently we import clothing, for example, across oceans for absolutely no reason other than to exploit cheap labour. That’s enormously wasteful in so many ways. I personally would far rather have a slower pace of consumption, and make industry more localised, than use crypto just for individual overseas purchases.

              Oh and I’m happy to talk to anyone who is responsive to the points I’m making. If you weren’t I wouldn’t have spent this long talking to you :)

              • kool_newt@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                For instance, as things stand right now, countries have trade agreements between one another, and those agreements don’t work because of some outside police force, they work because those entities rely on one another. There is a level of trust, even though states are notoriously untrustworthy, they still know the level of trust is stable enough to make their currencies compatible and engage in trade.

                Are you familiar with Beau of the Fifth Column? He speaks of international relations as akin to “a poker game where everyone is cheating”. Trade agreements work by relying on each other and I agree there is some level of trust but I’m pretty sure they still use documentation (blockchain is a form of trustless documentation), there are still contracts and threats of force. Between nations you arguably have anarchism as there is no higher power (unless you consider the EU/NATO etc, but that’s more like a group of anarcho-bullies).

                Now, as for the idea that any tool can be used for good or ill, I would say that’s true of technology, but not tools

                Not sure I understand the difference between tech and tools. I don’t really think that ANY tool can be used for good or ill. I think that is true of most tools, but I see capitalism as a tool, but it’s one that’s only useful to a certain type of person and only useful to take advantage of others. I can see how you could see the blockchain the same way, especially based on it’s historical use so far. But I don’t think it’s inherent in the blockchain tool like with capitalism. Blockchain to me is like money or any other tracking technology like a spreadsheet. Not things I want to see in my anarchist utopia (as money in any form facilitates resource hoarding) but things I see useful and 100% inherently evil for the time being.

                Ultimately the only reason such a state would have an agreement with a federated bloc of anarchist communities would be because they benefited somehow. I would say in such a world the downfall of such states is inevitable, but maybe it’s the most peaceful way to manage such a transition. I

                Interesting. I have an uncommon or unpopular opinion here. I think that if real and lasting anarchism is ever gonna happen, it’s going to have to happen globally simultaneously to some degree (and I think it’s in-progress now). Global powers will have to all be degrading. I just don’t see major countries allowing a significant anarchist region to exist, especially one like the U.S. that has nuclear weapons and a massive military. The remnants of NATO aren’t going to just tolerate what to them are a bunch of yahoos with the world’s best weapons. Also, I think anarchism only really makes sense globally. If any state, especially any capitalist state remains, they will destroy the world and pull us down with them.

                Ideally, you wouldn’t trade in single transactions with people on the other side of the world

                Exactly, I see world trade as reduced, regularly eating a fruit that’s ripe on the other side of the world just doesn’t seem sustainable.

                • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Maybe the tools/technology dichotomy isn’t so clear, but I guess I’m talking about how technology is applied and how tools are designed. Like the difference between a wood axe and a polearm - both are built on the same fundamental principles of adding a sharpened metal object to the end of a wooden stick, but one of them is good for chopping wood and the other is good in battle. You could swap them around, but they’d be almost useless at one another’s jobs. How they are designed dictates how they are used, and currency technologies are no different. They are a type of accounting, but they are built around lack of community. Debt the First 5000 Years by David Graeber is a great book on this topic, explaining the social origins of debt and how money really isn’t such a big part of most of human history, only rising to its current form with the advent of imperialism and colonialism.

                  I guess my point with the blockchain thing is that even though I can see some use for keeping records in a decentralised way, I still don’t see blockchain solving any real problems there. Again, if you need decentralisation you should base it on trust, and basically anything you do in that sphere you can do with simple authentication, which is a type of cryptography we’ve had for many decades now. If the outside world is using blockchain you could make a case for using it in a limited way when you absolutely have to, but I certainly wouldn’t advocate for supporting blockchain.

                  Advocating for it on the basis of hypothetical future uses for it is basically falling afoul of the AM/FM distinction, AKA Actual Machines vs Fucking Magic. Actual machines exist and you can see their track record; fucking magic is whatever the scam artist sells it as. If the technology hasn’t proven itself yet, then you can’t make plans based on it.

                  My point about international relations was that “trust” works even in that cutthroat context. I love Beau btw, he’s absolutely right about that point. Weirdly I think the first place I understood that concept was from reading Ice Station by Matthew Reilly, which is just the most trashy action novel you could imagine.

                  I agree that anarchism is slowly emerging everywhere, and that’s kind of how it has to be. I imagine it as a smattered, regional emergence in disparate places, which once it passes a crucial tipping point it floods everywhere all at once. Like I think people would be shocked at how fast society can change once the systems of oppression crumble.

                  The question of nuclear war is a sobering one. It is in theory possible that one continent goes before another, and in that case perhaps a nuclear power might decide to attack with nuclear weapons. The only thing you could do in that case is say, “Well, our territory now contains nuclear weapons too, so MAD is still in effect.” It’s not a great answer, but it’s the only one I can think of.

                  • kool_newt@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Debt the First 5000 Years by David Graeber

                    Been wanting to read this one, still on The Dawn Of Everything.

                    Like I think people would be shocked at how fast society can change once the systems of oppression crumble.

                    I like that, I’m particularly interested in how to prepare materially and culturally in an attempt to minimize the collateral damage.

                    Great talking to you comrade, you’re seem a wise one.