Author Topic: Freedom is indeed about choice…  (Read 7629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
I don't think compliance UIAs help baddies, but they do allow users to experience holding both free and controlled assets and help them realize the benefits and pitfalls of each.

This.

BitShares is, among other things, a great platform for educating people about their options.

Even if we were to encounter a completely evil anti-chain that was the antithesis of everything we believe in, it would at least represent a chance to compare and contrast the differences while we remain unflinchingly true to the principle that freedom means allowing people to have choices we don't like.



Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss
Thom I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy fundamentals and very much agree alot of your posts, but I think this issue isn't as clear cut as you think it is. The ability to enter voluntarily into a contractual agreement for someone to have control over your assets is a freedom like any other and important in certain use cases. I also think it is very important to allow for both scenarios and that the incentives aren't skewed either way by the blockchain whether its total freedom of your assets, or the abdication of ownership to play out and let the pieces fall where they may.

My reasoning for this is that it provides a clear cut Apples to Apples comparison of exactly why freedom is so incredibly goddamn important!
+5%

So long as there is a clear cut separation between controllable assets and Market Pegged Assets, with reasoning and fail-safes ensuring that the separation remains indefinitely then I do not think there is a problem.

Quote from: Thom
I look at it as we are adding the ability for one entity to control the assets of another entity, to nullify the purchase, to offer something in place of true property ownership
Then that particular asset is not property, but a contract or agreement of some other kind. So what?

If you want property then buy MPAs and don't trust any issuing-entities.
Why can't there be both? BitShares aims to assimilate all areas of finance, sometimes people want somebody else to have access to their assets.
Reputation and competition will "regulate" these issuers and nobody is forcing anybody to use them. Maybe that is the danger that you predict, but external-force cannot be solved by bts code.

BM has talked about the need to move away from a contract based society, as it requires force to guarantee all promises. Instead, reputation and web-of-trust type systems should replace them.
MPA's do not require trust, but for everything else that does then UIA and asset-control is available.

I understand that an absence of an answer here doesn't mean that 'infection' is impossible, but I would like you to hypothesize on how a bad-actor could corrupt the MPA system, specifically using the tools given to them by UIA control.
If UIA's didn't have 'compliance' features, then how would these attack vectors be mitigated?

I am assuming you are worried about a government using the threat of imprisonment to force users to adopt a fiat 2.0 bitasset, where they have all the power and control they currently wield.
How do UIA compliance features aid them in this endevour?
"USE THIS OR ELSE!" would seem to me to work just as well if only MPA's existed, they could just premine their own bts chain and get people to use that instead.

My reasoning for this is that it provides a clear cut Apples to Apples comparison of exactly why freedom is so incredibly goddamn important!
I don't think compliance UIAs help baddies, but they do allow users to experience holding both free and controlled assets and help them realize the benefits and pitfalls of each.
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline Myshadow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
I respectfully disagree with all of this. The beggar analogy is flawed. It assumes the giver was upset based on an issue of ownership but in fact it could be his upset was due to wasting resources that could benefit someone. I'm sure the giver would have been willing to give for any other purpose than to disrespect the giver's efforts to earn the money or to selfishly burn it so NOBODY would benefit. It's practically a fraud what the beggar did. It was a very vindictive act that took advantage of the giver's generosity to accomplish nothing more than to deprive the giver of the gift and then destroy it, helping no one.

To permie I also disagree. It is a matter of principles. It is a contradiction on it's face. How can BitShares say it stands by it's principles and promotes freedom but also build in tools that destroy ownership? Admit it, this is a compromise for the sole purpose of gaining adoption by more people. It promotes forceful control of another's assets with a big stick of power by providing the big stick of power to anyone that wants one. You look at it as "Removing" a feature but I look at it as we are adding the ability for one entity to control the assets of another entity, to nullify the purchase, to offer something in place of true property ownership. It provides the tools of confiscation making it possible inside the BitShares ecosystem rather than barring them entry to prevent the ultimate corruption that will occur like it did in the mainstream financial ecosystem.

The claim that BitShares is all about freedom of choice may be true, but building bad choices into the system is essentially incentivizing bad choices. This could well become the Achilles heel of BitShares. Granted, it will likely lead to a boom in growth first, but those that are here and believe in the first principles BitShares was founded on will fade away as more of that big stick of power begins to permeate the ecosystem, and it will. Allowing regulation is the first crack in the dam.

I myself will not participate in buying any assets that don't provide me with exclusive ownership rights. That is not ownership it is a rental or lease. Those that want to enter into such arrangements are people who don't understand basic property rights or, are wiling to risk the loss of access or use of property. Those people don't have true ownership of the property, only the illusion of ownership. I will not buy into that. Unfortunately the illusion won't be realized until the big stick is used on the first poor bastard the controllers wish to make an example of.

Thom I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy fundamentals and very much agree alot of your posts, but I think this issue isn't as clear cut as you think it is. The ability to enter voluntarily into a contractual agreement for someone to have control over your assets is a freedom like any other and important in certain use cases. I also think it is very important to allow for both scenarios and that the incentives aren't skewed either way by the blockchain whether its total freedom of your assets, or the abdication of ownership to play out and let the pieces fall where they may.

My reasoning for this is that it provides a clear cut Apples to Apples comparison of exactly why freedom is so incredibly goddamn important! I'd take the other side of the argument and say without this clear cut case, in the future people who choose to abdicate slavery over freedom will manage to convince people their way is better due to the r-selection bias(Generally leftism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory) the great abundance of resources freedom and innovation inevitably creates. If there is a clear cut case of failure (I know there are many of these, but people generally think of countries and cultures as apples to oranges comparisons with too many confounding factors to draw accurate conclusions from) or more likely, many small clear cut cases as a constant reminder then most humans may eventually overcome their genetic biases toward r-selective traits when faced with the r-selective pressure of abundant resources.

I feel that whilst it may be a bumpy ride, and alot of people will lose alot of money making bad decisions, this is the best long term solution... Give humans a system without the freedom to hang themselves and they'll inevitably fuck it up just like John B. Calhouns mice did.

If they don't do that I think they'll change it and hang themselves when they collectively forget why they're doing it in the first place/rationalize it away very badly due to r-selected genetic biases toward collectivism.

I think the Swinging pendulum of Political bias toward r-selection pressures in resource abundant environment is the societal wrecking ball we're seeing that is about to smash through the politically and historically unaware masses dreams and livelyhoods... If you can allow these opposing viewpoints to play out in the one place where it is abundantly clear which strategy is better then we'll see real societal progress the likes of which we can't even begin to imagine right now due to the immutability of the blockchain as a historically accurate and constant reminder of the terribly bad results of one over the other... At least that is how it works in my head... Thoughts?

Disclaimer... I just read this book and it may have had an unusually large influence on this post :P http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/
« Last Edit: July 17, 2015, 03:07:07 am by Myshadow »

Offline Thom

I just want to do whatever I can to further the cause of long term freedom and empower the individual by encouraging personal growth and voluntary interactions without violence, fear and intimidation.

Thom, I understand and share your feelings on emotional level.
Where I do not agree is the philosophical level.

My position is this: If I have true freedom I should be able to choose not to be free and still be part of the freedom community.
So for me freedom is big enough to include its opposite.

Imagine this situation:
I am a beggar and I ask you for money, you send me 100 bitUSD and I immediately burn it.
Now, if you are upset with me - it means you have not truly given me the money.
You thought you did and your intentions were good but in fact you did not part with your money (as you still had some expectations attached to it) so it was not a true act of giving.

For me the same thing applies to freedom.
Let's give people freedom and still include them in our community if they choose to not to use this freedom.
For me only this will be a true act of freedom-giving.

Quote from: permie
Removing the ability to provide compliance features would be an attempt to control market forces, IMO.

I respectfully disagree with all of this. The beggar analogy is flawed. It assumes the giver was upset based on an issue of ownership but in fact it could be his upset was due to wasting resources that could benefit someone. I'm sure the giver would have been willing to give for any other purpose than to disrespect the giver's efforts to earn the money or to selfishly burn it so NOBODY would benefit. It's practically a fraud what the beggar did. It was a very vindictive act that took advantage of the giver's generosity to accomplish nothing more than to deprive the giver of the gift and then destroy it, helping no one.

To permie I also disagree. It is a matter of principles. It is a contradiction on it's face. How can BitShares say it stands by it's principles and promotes freedom but also build in tools that destroy ownership? Admit it, this is a compromise for the sole purpose of gaining adoption by more people. It promotes forceful control of another's assets with a big stick of power by providing the big stick of power to anyone that wants one. You look at it as "Removing" a feature but I look at it as we are adding the ability for one entity to control the assets of another entity, to nullify the purchase, to offer something in place of true property ownership. It provides the tools of confiscation making it possible inside the BitShares ecosystem rather than barring them entry to prevent the ultimate corruption that will occur like it did in the mainstream financial ecosystem.

The claim that BitShares is all about freedom of choice may be true, but building bad choices into the system is essentially incentivizing bad choices. This could well become the Achilles heel of BitShares. Granted, it will likely lead to a boom in growth first, but those that are here and believe in the first principles BitShares was founded on will fade away as more of that big stick of power begins to permeate the ecosystem, and it will. Allowing regulation is the first crack in the dam.

I myself will not participate in buying any assets that don't provide me with exclusive ownership rights. That is not ownership it is a rental or lease. Those that want to enter into such arrangements are people who don't understand basic property rights or, are wiling to risk the loss of access or use of property. Those people don't have true ownership of the property, only the illusion of ownership. I will not buy into that. Unfortunately the illusion won't be realized until the big stick is used on the first poor bastard the controllers wish to make an example of.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline sittingduck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Great analogy with the beggar. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jakub

  • Guest
I just want to do whatever I can to further the cause of long term freedom and empower the individual by encouraging personal growth and voluntary interactions without violence, fear and intimidation.

Thom, I understand and share your feelings on emotional level.
Where I do not agree is the philosophical level.

My position is this: If I have true freedom I should be able to choose not to be free and still be part of the freedom community.
So for me freedom is big enough to include its opposite.

Imagine this situation:
I am a beggar and I ask you for money, you send me 100 bitUSD and I immediately burn it.
Now, if you are upset with me - it means you have not truly given me the money.
You thought you did and your intentions were good but in fact you did not part with your money (as you still had some expectations attached to it) so it was not a true act of giving.

For me the same thing applies to freedom.
Let's give people freedom and still include them in our community if they choose to not to use this freedom.
For me only this will be a true act of freedom-giving.

Offline Permie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
  • BitShares is the mycelium of the financial-earth
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: krimduss

Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.

I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).

A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.

People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?

If the "fork to the left" chain were totally separate from the "fork to the right" chain then it significantly reduces the opportunity for a rider to affect both chains. The communities each have their own values and their own delegates and any changes proposed must be acceptable to the delegates and shareholders to be adopted. All proposals of a "general applicability" should be met with a higher degree of scrutiny to to avoid any unwanted impact. Having separate chains provides protection from "riders" that way. That's not what is happening tho. I seriously doubt there are enough funds to support 2 completely separate chains right now.

However, if the regulators seriously threaten Cryptonomex with "implement this quietly or get locked in a cage" the community would be fucked, IF Cryptonomex acquiesced and "did as they're told".  If the regulators want to force their will upon either chain they have the power to make it happen, IF people give them that power and buckle under their threats. And although it's much milder, I can see the point of view that providing tools for regulators to restrict free trade based on their legislative whims is a type of acquiescence to implied threats. Sure, you can spin it as "giving people a choice", but I don't think helping regulators is to gain market share is a good trade off. I see it as helping the enemy, an "ends justifies the means" position. "Would you kill 3 people to save 6?" a lifeboat scenario. That's why I said before I can't see coexistence working out, tho I doubt the coercion would be done in such a direct manor.

How well can the community possibly "vet" every new developer that Cryptonomex hires to make sure they're not a government infiltrator that sabotages the code or adds back doors. There are many possible attack vectors. Having separate chains is not a garantee of security but it would at least provide a clean dividing line and ability to separate issues that affect personal freedom.

Coexistence in our case simply means that we can, with some restrictions, trade against assets that otherwise would never be issued on our chain.

"I'd love to issue my ACME-IOU-USD on BitShares, but our compliance officer says we can't."

We say, give them the tools that they need to play in our sandbox.  Then, anyone who wants to use that asset can decide if meeting its regulatory requirements is worth it.

The same options are out there right now - BitShares just connects them on one interoperable backbone.
I see BitShares as the mycelium (mushrooms) spreading throughout the financial-earth, connecting ecosystems together and exchanging resources and information.
You get to choose which fruit you pick, and it's up to the humans roaming this financial-earth to point out and shame the bad-apples growing from a poisonous tree.
Except this blockchain-realestate cannot be fenced or enclosed to exclude or imprison any other party. Those who use the blockchain resources most efficiently to profit from meeting the needs of the market will "win", not those who can claim ownership and demand rent most effectively.
I believe this analogy holds true if the core values of freedom of choice cannot be suppressed by anyone.
The health (integrity of core principals) of our Bitshares constitution by code is contingent upon several factors;
The code being open
New code being continually peer reviewed
The implementation of changes being approved by majority consensus
Effective means of education & communication with the electorate
The composition of the electorate - knowledge, activity
Effective reputation system
Suitable means for delegation of responsibilities along with accountability
The ability to fork the code & sharedrop
Other factors...

We rely upon the assumption that individuals in a free system will act in their own interest and those interests will generally align with the interests of others. This represents the power of the people, the power of direct consensus. Everyone who participates within the Bitshares network knows the rules and that everyone must adhere to the same rules. Changing the rules is where the most risk to integrity comes so we must do everything we can to ensure those changes continue to be vetted at every level.

Riders are only possible currently because there is a lack of transparency and no direct accountability. Choice is again the most important factor. If the government is capable of compelling code changes, then we've failed at being decentralized. Having workers from multiple jurisdictions will help. The adoption of regulation compliance features is a choice, using those features is a choice, removal of those features would continue to be a choice.

You can't stop nature and you can't stop market forces either.
Removing the ability to provide compliance features would be an attempt to control market forces, IMO.


« Last Edit: July 03, 2015, 01:48:30 pm by Permie »
JonnyBitcoin votes for liquidity and simplicity. Make him your proxy?
BTSDEX.COM

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan

Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.

I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).

A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.

People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?

If the "fork to the left" chain were totally separate from the "fork to the right" chain then it significantly reduces the opportunity for a rider to affect both chains. The communities each have their own values and their own delegates and any changes proposed must be acceptable to the delegates and shareholders to be adopted. All proposals of a "general applicability" should be met with a higher degree of scrutiny to to avoid any unwanted impact. Having separate chains provides protection from "riders" that way. That's not what is happening tho. I seriously doubt there are enough funds to support 2 completely separate chains right now.

However, if the regulators seriously threaten Cryptonomex with "implement this quietly or get locked in a cage" the community would be fucked, IF Cryptonomex acquiesced and "did as they're told".  If the regulators want to force their will upon either chain they have the power to make it happen, IF people give them that power and buckle under their threats. And although it's much milder, I can see the point of view that providing tools for regulators to restrict free trade based on their legislative whims is a type of acquiescence to implied threats. Sure, you can spin it as "giving people a choice", but I don't think helping regulators is to gain market share is a good trade off. I see it as helping the enemy, an "ends justifies the means" position. "Would you kill 3 people to save 6?" a lifeboat scenario. That's why I said before I can't see coexistence working out, tho I doubt the coercion would be done in such a direct manor.

How well can the community possibly "vet" every new developer that Cryptonomex hires to make sure they're not a government infiltrator that sabotages the code or adds back doors. There are many possible attack vectors. Having separate chains is not a garantee of security but it would at least provide a clean dividing line and ability to separate issues that affect personal freedom.

Coexistence in our case simply means that we can, with some restrictions, trade against assets that otherwise would never be issued on our chain.

"I'd love to issue my ACME-IOU-USD on BitShares, but our compliance officer says we can't."

We say, give them the tools that they need to play in our sandbox.  Then, anyone who wants to use that asset can decide if meeting its regulatory requirements is worth it.

The same options are out there right now - BitShares just connects them on one interoperable backbone.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 12:02:18 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
We also all need to remember that we could sell all our bitshares, delete all wallets from our systems, and the chance of either Dan or Stan kicking in our doors in the middle of the night and throwing us in a cage is effectively zero.  The chance of them contracting this door kicking out, while perhaps larger Is also very small. 

Ultimately this is a voluntary relationship on all sides. 

I am not saying don't be concerned.  I'm not even saying don't speak out.  I'm just bringing up the big picture viewpoint I use when I feel that this community has made a mistake.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo

Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.

I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).

A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.

People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?

The health (integrity of core principals) of our Bitshares constitution by code is contingent upon several factors;
The code being open
New code being continually peer reviewed
The implementation of changes being approved by majority consensus
Effective means of education & communication with the electorate
The composition of the electorate - knowledge, activity
Effective reputation system
Suitable means for delegation of responsibilities along with accountability
The ability to fork the code & sharedrop
Other factors...

We rely upon the assumption that individuals in a free system will act in their own interest and those interests will generally align with the interests of others. This represents the power of the people, the power of direct consensus. Everyone who participates within the Bitshares network knows the rules and that everyone must adhere to the same rules. Changing the rules is where the most risk to integrity comes so we must do everything we can to ensure those changes continue to be vetted at every level.

Riders are only possible currently because there is a lack of transparency and no direct accountability. Choice is again the most important factor. If the government is capable of compelling code changes, then we've failed at being decentralized. Having workers from multiple jurisdictions will help. The adoption of regulation compliance features is a choice, using those features is a choice, removal of those features would continue to be a choice.

Offline Thom


Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.

I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).

A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.

People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?

If the "fork to the left" chain were totally separate from the "fork to the right" chain then it significantly reduces the opportunity for a rider to affect both chains. The communities each have their own values and their own delegates and any changes proposed must be acceptable to the delegates and shareholders to be adopted. All proposals of a "general applicability" should be met with a higher degree of scrutiny to to avoid any unwanted impact. Having separate chains provides protection from "riders" that way. That's not what is happening tho. I seriously doubt there are enough funds to support 2 completely separate chains right now.

However, if the regulators seriously threaten Cryptonomex with "implement this quietly or get locked in a cage" the community would be fucked, IF Cryptonomex acquiesced and "did as they're told".  If the regulators want to force their will upon either chain they have the power to make it happen, IF people give them that power and buckle under their threats. And although it's much milder, I can see the point of view that providing tools for regulators to restrict free trade based on their legislative whims is a type of acquiescence to implied threats. Sure, you can spin it as "giving people a choice", but I don't think helping regulators is to gain market share is a good trade off. I see it as helping the enemy, an "ends justifies the means" position. "Would you kill 3 people to save 6?" a lifeboat scenario. That's why I said before I can't see coexistence working out, tho I doubt the coercion would be done in such a direct manor.

How well can the community possibly "vet" every new developer that Cryptonomex hires to make sure they're not a government infiltrator that sabotages the code or adds back doors. There are many possible attack vectors. Having separate chains is not a garantee of security but it would at least provide a clean dividing line and ability to separate issues that affect personal freedom.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Ben Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
  • Integrity & Innovation, powered by Bitshares
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: benjojo
The issue is power.  It's ok to have the bitshares network support regulatory compliance as long as those using the network have a choice and the principal of choice is unassailable.

What individuals value changes over time depending on experience, incentive, education, propaganda, culture.  Those who understand the need to decentralize the power of money naturally do not want to contaminate Bitshares by incorporating regulatory compliance functionality based on falsehoods and fear.  However, whilst so many minds are captured, whilst the lie of security remains highly pervasive, we may deflect scrutiny and increase network effect in the short term by camouflaging the true power of our constitution by code.  Hundreds of millions of people will soon wake up to the reality that you cannot trust any organisation that grants itself legitimacy through force.  They may take an interest then in the solutions we are building and demand adherence to principals many of us hold dear.

I gain more respect for you every time you post Ben. Haven't seen a single post I'd take issue with.

Thank you Thom. That means a great deal to me. I feel the same for you.  To be connected here, sharing common ideals is an enormous privilege and immeasurable source of hope to me.

Offline Riverhead


Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.

I can see this actually happening in the form of riders. Currently in US politics, and I'm sure many other places, you package a change everyone wants with a smaller one that nobody asked for. Like a bill to fund education will get a rider that gives a tax credit to oil refineries (a horrible example, but it does happen).

A fork could implement a very much needed/wanted change and the government compels the developers to include the feature they want. If the primary feature is sufficiently good/profitable/needed it'll get voted in even with the rider.

People are people regardless of the medium. So if it happens in government it'll happen in blockchains. Any ideas how to prevent this?

Offline Thom

The issue is power.  It's ok to have the bitshares network support regulatory compliance as long as those using the network have a choice and the principal of choice is unassailable.

What individuals value changes over time depending on experience, incentive, education, propaganda, culture.  Those who understand the need to decentralize the power of money naturally do not want to contaminate Bitshares by incorporating regulatory compliance functionality based on falsehoods and fear.  However, whilst so many minds are captured, whilst the lie of security remains highly pervasive, we may deflect scrutiny and increase network effect in the short term by camouflaging the true power of our constitution by code.  Hundreds of millions of people will soon wake up to the reality that you cannot trust any organisation that grants itself legitimacy through force.  They may take an interest then in the solutions we are building and demand adherence to principals many of us hold dear.

I gain more respect for you every time you post Ben. Haven't seen a single post I'd take issue with.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline hadrian

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: hadrian
Is that a "slippery slope" fallacy? It would be if I were not talking about historical fact, but since our "leaders" show they repeat this pattern it's not a fallacy but a warning, and I fear it will not be heeded.

We have one weapon you are not considering:  the ability to adapt!  We can fork and clone and sharedrop.

This is an arms race, with miles to go before we sleep.  (Apologies to Robert Frost.)

We need to consider what stepping stones may be needed to achieve freedom.

Fork to the left:  Provide a chain that banks and government lovers are more comfortable adopting.  Net result is more people get trained in the advantages of crypto.  But would any of us use it?  Really?  Not even to pay your cable bill?

Fork to the right: Provide a chain that has impregnable privacy to the point of total anonymity and ignores the current world order.  But how will value trickle into such a chain?

BitShares 2.0: Run the play right up the middle where left and right can trade with each other.  Government lovers (a pox be upon them) can first learn about crypto, then learn about freedom. 

Keep in mind that voluntary identity is a powerful force for civilization.  Why do you think small towns are more civilized than big cities?  Because reputation is an unbelievably important asset that you city-slickers can only dream about.

"I didn't see that, I only heard
But just to be sociable, I'll take your word" 
When I See an Elephant Fly
From "Dumbo"
Music and lyrics by Oliver Wallace and Ned Washington

Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name.

Could governments impose regulations whereby stocks and such can only be 'legally' issued on the "Fork to the left"? I'm thinking of legal restrictions leading to the creation of a chain which only operates in a compliant manner. What an ugly creature this would be... the "BitShares 2.0" chain is much prettier.
Has Cryptonomex scrapped the idea of the 'true' Bitshares 2.0 chain being the one with the highest market capitalization? I thought there used to be a statement about judging by market cap in this post.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads