Well, looks like Mr. Trump will be the next US president. This will be positive for crypto.
Impressive brave face you are putting on there
So the USA will have a new president who would like to be able to tell people what to do, how to live, and how to think. Governments tend to attract these sorts of folks. My "operating assumption" or what I hold "sacred" is that we each need to be able decide what to do for ourselves. HUMAN AGENCY, not anyone's vision of a NATION'S DESTINY must be the anchor for a JUST SOCIETY.
The project of building the infrastructure which could possibly enable a just society seems to be what the crypto community is doing -- whether intentionally or unintentionally. I believe the infrastructure this community is building will be essential at some point - I just don't know when.
Crown's goal is to be a part of this and to add a few of it's own innovations along the way. One of those innovations, might be a SOCIAL CONTRACT of sorts -- instead of a terms of service. It would state the values and beliefs which inform action on the crown network. I would argue that a social contract declaring that HUMAN AGENCY is sacred in some way is essential -- not just for confronting other people who will tell us what to do, but also the increasingly sophisticated machine intelligences which seek to nudge and manage us. If we game things out, the issue in the future will be both bossy and controlling machines as well as bossy and controlling people.
If the project sounds interesting, get in touch with the guys who are developing it. I'm just throwing in my 2 cents on some of the big picture stuff...
Fair human interaction is moving to the blockchain...
Don't think at the end of the day that I disagree with CCK's point here - but I would frame it more, well more carefully...
So two elements to discuss:
1. What is fairness?
2. How do we logically "seed" a system?
1. On fairness -- I don't know what fairness is. My experience of it is that whenever I have an advantage -- an adversary will try to get me to give up my advantage (whether it was earned or unearned) and justify this position in terms of fairness. But when I would ask that same adversary to reciprocate on the grounds of fairness -- they would tend not to. So in my experience, fairness is a sort of Trojan horse negotiating concept. The other issue with fairness is that it tends to be judged by outcomes. But if we really live in a quantum universe as science implies, then the outcomes have a random element and one cannot control for outcome. So fairness also tends to be anchored and evaluated based on the independent not the dependent variables in a situation. So for these reasons, I tend to avoid fairness and focus instead on the dependent variables.
2. This is what gets one to the idea of human agency -- which is another way of saying freedom but more specific -- it specifies the importance of a persons ability to act. This is an dependent variable -- so the control to enforce it would need to be on the means, not the ends of a process. And the other unique property of using human agency as the "logical seed" of a distributed social system which includes governance, and other elements -- is that the human is the seed then for the actions and the motivating force for the system.
Now -- ideally this sort of system seeded by human agency and executed in code would tend toward what we might describe as fairness over time if it works as intended. Fairness might be the logical tendency, not the literal goal or purpose.
I would also point out that the key mechanism here isn't literally the blockchain -- but the code & community surrounding it -- the on ramps and off ramps. So it is a combination of encryption, private-public keys, cloud computing resource and masternodes, mobile wallets, distributed databases/blockchains, tokens, api's and the developers and users. The blockchain is just a placeholder term for this combination of technologies and the other future technologies which will get added to the integrated systems and ecosystems which are developing.
Good points here.
1. Fairness or Truth, which is maybe a better word is simple to me: it is something that really happened - something that can be verified (on a blockchain), a contract between two parties, an exchange of any sort, simply whatever relationship between two parties, which can be timestamped in the blockchain. If the blockchain existed 1000 years ago - historians would be out of the job because the Truth would be known. Of course its completely another discussion wheather it is good or bad for one person or country - truth is not good or bad its just a fact...and we should use it this way: always below any human, a servant to any human being
2. It would be great if the best minds in the world (philosophers, economists, businessmen, workers, lawyers, etc) could come up with basic set of rules which would govern the blockchain, these rules will not be fixed, but can be changed by voting, can be extended or can be abolished by democratic principles which are developing in the crypto community: these developing new crypto communities would then assure a fair exchange in values between its members and users so they feel free and safe when they trade, enter in a contract, or whatever - if someone misuses the system - the blockchain will beep them out. You know my idea where this all should start - it should start with the exchange of ideas (since they are the ones most threatened by theft). Well working on that
3. Your point about the whole ecosystem surrounding the blockchain is of course right, I would maybe emphasize one thing: there are only two things in the world that still uses paper: toilet paper and money
so the exchange value itself is key for me although secondary now. Historically, the mean of exchange was iron, salt, silver, gold and in the future it will be a internet token, which has to prove the value behind - this value you have mentioned: the value surrounding the whole ecosystem
I think we understand each other