Follow

Blockchain is a technology that provides decentralization for people who cannot conceive of decentralization. It tries to force a group into agreeing on a single truth, when decentralization really is about accepting multiple, possibly conflicting truths.

This is childish thinking. Children ask for absolute truths, and don't tend to feel comfortable with "it depends". There is a lot in education that is aimed at molding adults who can live with that answer. Blockchain is the antithesis to this.

@jens so you can't think of a single scenario, where it would be beneficial for a group of people, to come to an agreement?

@franz I can't think of a single instance where it's healthy for everyone to have the same opinion.

@jens aren't you happy, that you can take the 2 Euro your employer paid you, to buy the same piece of bread today, tomorrow, and the day after?

@jens okay, Germany is experiencing a little bit of inflation. People aren't used to it. Fine.

In any case, the money you earned a year ago, still buy's you a reasonable amount of stuff today.

If the value were to collapse completely, would you still prefer no agreement, over a agreement?

@franz Inflation isn't what I'm alluding to. It's related, but indirectly.

What I'm talking about is that there is no law for the price of bread. Every baker can set their own. There is no group agreement here. In fact, there are laws specifically against price fixing. Because a single opinion without alternatives is well understood to be a terrible idea.

@jens alright, fine. Every bakery can set their own "price".

What's that price based on? Pieces of metal? Consumables like fuel? Dept?

Wouldn't it be beneficial, if we all agree on a somewhat stable medium of exchange? So I get paid X, the bakery can buy flour with X, and I can finally get my bread for X.

And once we agree on that medium of exchange; who guarantees authenticity and longevity (allows for planning)?

@franz I'm not talking about currency. Why do you try to bring it back there?

@jens I asked you, whether there's a scenario, where it would be beneficial for people to agree on a single truth.

You said there's none.

I brought up currency, because it's arguably the most prominent application of blockchain technology to date - where a single truth is desired.

Maybe I didn't get your original point?

@franz We don't agree on currency, either. We don't all have the same currencies. We have a barter economy alongside one based on any currency, because we know you can't value everything with it. Many nations adopt a neighbourly currency as a second, or even preferred one.

I'm saying I can't think of a single situation in which everyone having the same opinion is good. Currency, it turns out, is another one of those situations.

@jens I totally agree with you; For sure it's beneficial for countries to have their own currency, but doesn't that still mean that we agree on a single truth - at least within a group, or community?

Don't countries (or mostly citizens within countries) usually adopt a neighboring currency exactly because more people, more readily agree on a single truth for that currency?

@franz There is no single truth. That is the point I'm getting at. Trying to force everything into a single-truth point of view is, frankly, very tiring.

@jens and again, I agree with you. We could never understand all the unknowns; things we haven't considered, or failed to predict - which is likely a significantly higher proportion than what we do know.

Yet it still seems beneficial for a group to agree on something, as long as we're willing to change our minds, as soon as there's clear evidence to the contrary.

So, let's agree for it to be true, that it's better for us, not to murder each other.

@franz This is not getting anywhere. Last attempt.

Sure, let's agree on something. Let's also disagree on stuff. Let's each manage how far our agreement or disagreement goes at any given moment.

Blockchain isn't like that. It codifies "the agreement" into stone. Want to disagree? You can't, you're just out. Want to consider some different topic? It's not on the chain, so we can't reach agreement. Worst, want to agree on one topic and not on another? Chain can't do that.

@franz It's simply unsuitable as a technology to model agreement relationships, because it only knows one truth.

That's agreement by despotism.

@jens I understand your point, but isn't that what we want, under certain conditions?

If my company has 100 shares, and I'd like to distribute them. I can do so, with 100 pieces of paper, bearing my signature; 100 entries in a database, that are each allocated to whomever is interested - or a blockchain, which behaves much like the database, with the difference that nobody can go back, and arbitrarily modify the allocation.

Isn't that, in this case, an advantage?

How about property deeds? Would it be preferable to keep a record of who owns what, on a piece of paper than can easily disappear, or burn; a database, which anyone with access can modify, or a blockchain, that we can observe as a source as a single source of truth, in regards to ownership of properties.

Of course all this is nullified, once someone disagrees with the allocation, but I guess in our society, it would be up to courts to make a decision on whether it's justified or not.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Finkhäuser Social

A private instance for the Finkhäuser family.