People, People, People…
Constitution technology is more than 200 years old. All you would get from that is a polarized, deadlocked, bickering 2 party congress that can’t do anything. How much time would it take to build a constitution which would have enough consensus? Who is going to write it? How much consensus is enough? How could we rigorously measure how much more consensus we had achieved by any proposed changes? If we only lose 25%, is that enough? Many have expressed doubts about us being able to even write such a contract, and I am in that camp (unless maybe we used Canonizer.com). Even then it would take years. I love it when The bytemaster talks about no contracts!! Another of his brilliant ideas. But a constitution is just a contract that will start polarizing everyone, which will hobble us, and make us very vulnerable to an intelligent community without such unintelligent bureaucratic red tape.
Enshrining a maximum dilution rate into the code is really doing nothing more than placing a spending limit on government. This spending limit is fundamentally tied to the markets ability to absorb the new shares.
Exactly, any dumb hard coded red tape we enshrine makes us very vulnerable. Modern internet and consensus building technology makes it so we do not need to make these kinds of binding red tape rules and bureaucratic polarizing contracts in order to get anything done.
All "Democracies" suffer from the potential of shareholder abuse of power and desire to have unlimited spending ability. Do we trust the shareholders to make good judgements? Do we know enough know to bind them for ever? By what process can we change the rule?
Obviously, if you can efficiently achieve 100% consensus, you can change absolutely anything. If you have the ability to use a modern consensus building tool, which can creatively and dynamically give and take to both sides, to achieve consensus, it isn’t that hard. The bytemaster talks about doing things like giving extra shares to camps objecting to making a certain change, in order to build a larger consensus. Yet another of his brilliant ideas. But, you need a system that can facilitate this kind of stuff efficiently. That I know of no other system in existence could do anything like this, especially without polarizing people into parties, making things worse.
For anyone doubting that building unanimous expert consensus is hard, or not possible with modern consensus building tools, check out what we have done at Canonizer.com among world leading experts in the philosophy of mind field. At least within the Bitshares community, we have a community that thinks much more alike than all experts, hobbyists, and religious nutbags, in the philosophy of mind field. All the extreme crazies that can’t get published to any particular school of thought “peer reviewed” rag being published by the Ivory tower, flocks to Canonizer.com because nobody is censored there.
Before Canonizer.com, no 2 experts even in the same school of thought could even agree on the definition of consciousness, let alone achieve any kind of measurable scientific consensus amongst everyone, with zero censoring of anyone. But with now more than 50 experts participating in greater or lesser degrees, including diverse experts and lay people from many schools of thought like Daniell Dennett, Steven Lehar, David Chalmers, John Smythies, and a growing number of others, including non-censored crazies, we have proven that it is possible to build a definitive near unanimous expert quantitatively measurable scientific consensus. For example, go to this survey topic to see these definitive shocking, (When we started, I never would have believed this much consensus was possible), consensus results:
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88With the default Canonizer algorithm selected, you will see that the popular consensus achieved to date, which includes all the religious nutbags, for the “Representational Qualia Theory” camp is about 75%. Then switch to the expert consensus canonizer algorithm on the side bar, (filters out the crazies) and you will see an effective unanimous scientific expert consensus for that camp!
On the other hand who will trust a constitution after our recent moves?
Exactly, we need to have a way to rigorously measure, concisely and quantitatively, how many people are willing to support any particular action. And we need to be able to dynamically change what we are proposing in an efficient and easy way, which will ensure everyone is still on board, until we get things at least near unanimous, so we don’t lose anyone.
We have already proven the ability to turn on a dime and issue new BTS as necessary.
No, The bytemaster has turned on a dime, but who knows how many of the herd are still running in the other direction?? The Bitshares price crash is proof the entire herd has not turned on a dime. Is it even approaching 75%?? What we need to do is get the entire herd to turn on a dime, and we need to have the ability to know, quantitatively, how many people will follow, if any particular decision is made, and we need to be able to use creative dynamic intelligent negotion tactics to make everyone happy, and easily achieve near unanimous consensus for all such decisions.
In the free market, there are no rules except survival of the fittest and most flexible.
Exactly, and the first crypto currency community that can amplify the wisdom of the entire herd, and get the entire herd to change directions on a dime, without significant losses of the sheep, no matter how dumb, will blow any contract or “constitution” based bureaucracy away, with a leader making decisions before knowing how many of his heard will follow him.
Having the ability to change the dilution rate with some established process that is deemed "hard but not impossible" is what is needed.
While it is true, that it takes quite a bit of effort to teach any community how to build consensus by communicating, concicely and quantitatively, on large scales, Canonizer.com has demonstrably proven we can do way better than this, in far more difficult to build consensus circumstances than exists in the Bitshares community.