Repeat after me: blockchain is centralised.

You want to tilt the power dynamics to favour social justice? You don’t do that by making a billion copies of the same database. You do it by ensuring that a billion people can have their own unique databases.

Expend your energy to realise topological decentralisation not global proofs. Sure, it won’t make you a billionaire but if that’s what you want, what the fuck you reading my feed for?

@aral yes but isn't it a good system for non-government-controlled money?

I know it attracted all kinds of jerks (money always does) but I believe the underlying idea is sound.

@qwazix @aral
But the government control is necessary to make the money have value. They can deploy violence (or threat thereof) upon you to force you to have money come tax time. There is no punishment for not having cryptocurrency.

Money backed by a confusing sales pitch will never beat money backed by state violence.

@machado is it? I see it being able to have the function of a measurement system. An agreed-upon system of value.

People need to exchange value in other forms besides taxes and barter isn't always practical.

@qwazix Without violent enforcement, you can only have trade at very small scales, at which money isn't really necessary. At that point you are dealing with some form or other of reputation economy.

@machado why? It seems to me that capitalism has outgrown nation states anyway.

@qwazix Capitalism changed the power dynamics, but it still requires nation states. They enforce property, transactions, contracts. With no state, if I go to a restaurant, what's forcing me to pay after I eat? If you stop paying rent, how do I evict you from the house? What ensures a product in transit reaches its destination?

@qwazix And if your answer is privatized violence, an unsupervised market will produce a monopoly which then becomes the new state.

Violence allows you to control infrastructure, and destroy competing infrastructure. Any unilateral disarmament will see your infrastructure destroyed or stolen by those who did not disarm.

Any market of violence will eventually produce a state, even if it doesn't call itself or isn't recognized as such.

@qwazix Under capitalism, the state enforces property, and the corporations control the distribution. Members of the enforcing entity have an incentive to benefit the distributing entities in exchange for bigger slices.

The state can always take the capital unilaterally. It doesn't because it's usually a less profitable move for the individual decision makers. Companies don't have the same power, at best they can't put themselves at the mercy of a different state.


@qwazix For a practical example, just look at how smaller countries won't bother enforcing foreign intellectual property until some lobby pays them to do it.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Refactor Camp

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!