Topic: Blockchain and the world of the future (Star Trek society, anybody?) (Read 199 times)

Blockchain is a continuously growing list of records, called blocks, which are linked and secured using cryptography.
Using this technology everything is going to be decentralized which will increase transparency and solve many issues of future.

Thank you for the contribution Hydrogen.

Being a Christian, I reserve the right to criticize without being called for it, so I would like to correct you on this one. Christianity spread throughout the world mainly through sheer force. Particular deeds done "in the name of the holy" are too gruesome to be even mentioned, just take a look at what happened to native Americans, especially in South America, remember the Crusade, or Spanish Inquisition.... That is why I will never come to terms with being a fully committed Christian. I also acknowledge any other religion out there as having the equal right to be right.

Regarding the welfare ideas - they are all flawed on the human nature level, if not on fundamental. However, I strongly believe that more and more changes towards a better society will be accepted as the time passes, it's simply inevitable. Even self-interests have to abide by the critical mass demands. Yes, they will get the most of it "for them", but at least strategies will change. We saw it in the past..... if that weren't true we would still have monarchies all around the world, for example...... It is a shame though that we have to spend much more time, and money as you noted, then actually needed to get there.

I also sincerely believe that technology can help in defeating the bad side of the human nature. Soon enough we will have quantum computers. Combine that with the potential of the blockchain, smart contracts, robotics, and you will find out that much can be done to improve things while keeping them objective...

You mentioned that a private competition is important as well. That is exactly what is happening with blockchain - private competition and critical mass rule are making it impossible for Governments and private bankers to end the project..... Private competition is also showing up in all the big human projects, like astrophysics which you mentioned, and it is improving the progress.

It is probably also a matter of time when we will have such tools available at every hand to easily measure what is needed - like for example Basic income economic repercussions, and the people will be able to decide, or at least Governments will not be able to ignore the evidence.

Back to economics - it is obvious that neither the free market or fully centralized one cannot function, there are numerous historical pieces of evidence proving it. However, the combination of the two is just what is needed, it is just a matter of finding the right balance.

Constructive proposals on topics like basic income are a topic interesting to me.  

As I understand it, one of the reasons christianity was able to spread throughout the entire world was due to its integrated welfare programs which benefited the poor. In past eras of history, welfare programs might have functioned fairly, effectively and efficiently. The success of christianity on a historical basis, where it was able to spread and become popular across near to the entire world may be evidence of this.

Based on these precedents, it might be said that concepts like basic income are not flawed on a fundamental level. Welfare too, is not something I'm against.

I think there are reasons why social programs like welfare are prone towards failure. Today a large percentage of welfare programs benefit the wealthy. Large corporations receive unfair tax cuts. Enterprises undertaken by the wealthy are covered by taxpayers footing a large fraction of the costs necessary to construct facilities or fund other other liabilities. An example of this is NASA devoting taxpayer funds towards researching the viability of asteroid mining, a topic which has zero scientific value, but plenty of value to corporations which can funnel taxpayer funding towards things which serve their own self interests.

Centralization is another major issue. When states have no competition for providing services towards people in the form of pensions, unemployment, welfare it leads to waste, inefficiency and fraud.

In terms of real world application, there are public schools in the united states which boast per student costs rivaling the cost of harvard tuition. NASA regularly spends $60 billion dollars on rocket programs like the Ares which are vastly inferior to what private sector corporations like Space X are able to develop with more than 100 times a smaller budget. The same precedent could apply to state run economic simulus plans which create 1 minimum wage job at a cost of $300,000 to taxpayers. It could also apply to attempts @ healthcare reform, bank bailouts which the federal reserve may have profited more than $40 billion from running(if I'm remembering right). In the united states, it could apply to everything except maybe the postal service, which might be the only efficient and cost effective program the government runs.

I think for programs like basic income to be successful, there needs to be some systemic incentive or new metrics which measure the efficiency of state run social programs. The trend is entirely towards redefining topics like unemployment and inflation to give people a false idea of what reality looks like. Some type of massive paradigm shift could be the only way programs like basic income will ever function effectively or efficiently and with information being so rare and difficult to come by, that may never happen.

1.I agree with you. My current intention is to discuss economic systems only, not how to enforce them.
2. Well, actually - bonuses and profits work that way. But let's keep it at salaries - not all people get salaries for their work and far too many are underpaid.
3. Yet they don't succeed. Inflation should be a few percents under the percentage of GDP growth, However, it is mostly a few, or quite a few percents over. That is because of the current system of money creation. Do you know how that works? Do you know what banking multiplication is?
Fiat money in most cases doesn't have its market value. It is usually fixed or they are using a floating fixation.
The last sentence is true. However, trying something old to bring something new - like temporary hyperinflation for burning credits, or blockchain, although risky, is actually better than this. This is called a slow dying.

1. To make it work you need to fight one of the greatest enemies of the humanity. For example this is the main enemy of the United States. Sometimes they are trying to fight it but they are constantly loosing. This is not Russia, this is not terrorists but this is welfare.  It is not only the unemployment benefits. The subsidies spent on public primary schools are also a welfare. Each day spendings grow while the quality of the service is at the same bad level. None of the politicians can ever stop most of this welfare. Basic  income only make sense if the current welfare will be removed. And even then there are still a lot of doubts on this point.
2. This is how salaries usually work.
3. Inflation should be kept in chains by the financial policy of the government. Money should have its market value. Sometimes they should be inflated during the financial crisis. If you measure the inflation with something that can't be changed (like blockchain) then it can make the situation only worse.  Those guys that inflate the money are not always the greatest villains.

Your opinion is valid, especially it may be valid about the taxing issue. But what you are clearly lacking is constructive criticism. This topic isn't about crushing the ongoing ideas, but rather about making strategy proposals.

Here is an example (with it's pluses and minuses, obviously).

1. Divide equal amount of money over blockchain to all the people. Keep a basic income the same every month.
2. Allow extra money for individuals bringing extra added value.
3. Keep the theoretical maximum of how much one individual can possess - to keep inflation and centralization "in chains". The surplus has to be spent - either by spending in economy thus keeping the cash flow or by giving it to charity

Now, the first, maybe not so obvious at first sight, but obvious problem with this, is that nobody would want to work if they would be just given money. Hence this has to be connected to the labour market and the education system, and the demand and supply of job positions. Than we also have the challenges specific for individual countries and those specific for world market......

Basic income is obviously a bad idea. It may only work in countries with huge amount of government spendings compared to GDP (that's why such experiments are held in scandinavian countries). In this case you are choosing a better of two evils. it is obviously better to spend money as you want instead of wasting it into some unknown gov project. The bad thing is that it will still remain high taxes to support this thing. It have nothing in common with freedom. But blockchain tbh may help with the distribution process but nothing more.
Demcracy in most cases is the same thing as making someone drive a car while this person have no idea about how to drive. The beginning of the example on the provided wiki link is pretty funny. Someone picked the most democratical country:
The information from empcapitalism sometimes is just hillarious. The subtitle of the board says: "In this board we will rehabilitate Capitalism to an economic solution that works for ALL on Earth. This is the road to happiness, Freedom, Peace and Harmoney on Earth. This board will challenge your Common Sense and Integrity." And then you are scrolling down and see a video with a title "Why Isn't it a Crime to Starve a Child to Death?".
And finaly the land value tax is nothing more then attempt to rob people.

I'm not sure about liquid democracies, Star Track and other Sci-fis, but Atstage Inc.  Itadaki Dungeon has already announced bitcoin as a prize for successful game. It means digital world is all for cryptocurrencies and people are interested in tokens.

It's surely not easy to get there, and it won't happen tomorrow, but eventually, we will get there. The human race, despite it's nature and greed, has a constant strive towards a better world. Just compare the world 1000 years ago and now. Surely the world is not ideal - we have starving people, wars for oil and gas, wars for freedom, 1% of wealthy etc...... But 1000 years ago we had ruthless anarchists, we had a constant fear of uncertainty, it was not easy to shower, to get the proper medical treatment it was not easy to travel as you could easily die along the way due to cold weather, it was normal for a powerful force to raid a town or a village, destroy everything, kill people, rape women. 50 years ago it was impossible for people with darker skin to get proper recognition (which puts a constant feeling of shame towards my "race" deep inside me) ....... Whether you want to admit it or not, the world is constantly moving forward.

Now, dealing with 1% is the trickiest thing, but Blockchain can actually help. I already discussed something calling embedded or built-in interventionism (in the best tradition of John Maynard Keynes John Maynard Keynes). While decentralization and the free market is important, everything built upon blockchain so far was centralized as the free market is unfortunately always driving towards the greater social inequality, survival of the fittest. Hence interventionism is needed and blockchain and smart contracts can help in making a system which nobody will be able to manipulate.

Furthermore, if you implement for example a basic income in the way a currency built on the blockchain is distributed, you will have a more powerful tool towards social prosperity. That is what we should be discussing here - valid strategies.

Before someone calls me a communist, or socialists - or those tools were not invented by me - they are all already there, discussed around the world by much smarter and powerful people then I am. It is just a matter of building a right strategy now as we could be very much at a turning point in history. I also don't have anything against some people being richer. I just hold something against greed, system manipulations and people starving while there is actually enough food and money for everybody. 

About Gene Roddenberry, it's not really that important. I just used it as a fun reference. We are not discussing his system here (and we surely cannot as we don't know how does it exactly work), we should be discussing any system.

Its been said that Gene Roddenberry, the creator of star trek, identifies as a communist in terms of his political leanings. That might explain why the star trek universe is centralized within an organization known as the federation which has abolished poverty, war and other negatives of the human condition. Incidentally, the federation never abolished money. The existence of currency is never acknowledged but it is known that some of the readouts on the sickbay monitors list "medical credits per patient" which would seem to indicate that not even in the 24th century is healthcare free!

Anyways I'm not certain if centralization and lack of competition as illustrated by Gene Roddenberry's vision is the best model for advancing civilization or society. Decentralized statehood could be a better model. Competing states appear to be a main impetus behind many of the more progressive and effective laws being passed.

This is correct, while I agree that everyone should have equal rights, not everyone has the same capabilities and characteristics, so an equal society is impossible there is always going to be someone that is faster, that is stronger, that is smarter and that can use those gifts to obtain a better life for himself, a better partner, a better house, more money, what we should strive is to reduce some of the inequality but it's going to be possible to eliminate it.

I hate to have to say it but its not going to happen, the equal society theory.

Two factors which will prevent it from happening, Human Nature and Greed.

Humans in general terms will always want to evolve, to make progress, to
expand their holdings and wealth.

We can see it from the inequality which exists currently the statistics are here
to read > https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality
we all want to progress forward financially at the end of the week or month
when we manage to have saved $50 or $100 we dont give it away to the
nearest person who is struggling financially.

Its the same with crypto, generally people are scrambling to get as much as
they can now at the early stages for a better life for themselves and their family.
I dont think I have read once where anyone has stated they want to help
their local homeless community.

Ending world poverty is a great idea but unfortunately there is no point preaching
to the ones who are powerless to change it we need to target the 1%

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse

I believe we all caught at least a glimpse of some of the episodes of the popular series Star Trek. You haven't? Then what are you waiting for?
Kidding aside, all of us that actually watched it have surely noticed the fact that the so-called Federation, originating from Earth, comes from a society that has solved all the poverty issues, there are no wars, you can basically achieve your goals by just pursuing them etc......

Star Trek always took it for granted and never showed us how they got there. Probably because they would not have a valid explanation. It's called utopia, but is it really something left just to be desired for (or despised, depending on how much one's soul has traveled down the dark path).

We are now living in a new era, 52 years after the first episode of the popular series. In the meantime, new economic theories and many practical trials and mistakes have occurred. We have seen a fall of the socialism, a nice idea with a historic example of a bad implementation, a rise of the capitalism, fortification of democracy, rise of the internet, electronic money, .dot com bubble, big world cash flow of 2008.... The heck, we have even seen a Star Trek series without the "First command"

And although politicians and most influential economists (usually those with the strongest political connections, not the ones with the greatest ideas) keep repeating the same old stuff, playing that old same "divide and rule" game made in ancient Rome, there is indeed a plethora of new ideas available. Not to mention that besides econometry now we also have system dynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics that can be used to test strategies on models as closest as possible to the real thing.

In this topic, we discussed how Blockchain could help decentralization and what would be the real social benefits: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/centralization-vs-decentralization-in-society-and-the-role-of-the-blockchain-2863445, some interesting thoughts were shared there, although I had wished more people would have joined the discussion.

Now I would like to start a new topic where we could share our ideas and strategies on how to use blockchain in correlation with economic theories and make strategies that could lead us towards a better society, however far in the future it might seem.

Some of the more popular theories that are trying to pave a road to the better future:
Basic income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income;
Liquid democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy;
Proposals for politicians: limiting the number of terms, working with just a minimum salary with possible bonuses based on the results etc.
There was a theory that, now when I search for it, seems to have been just an interface for a scam with selling product...... but the ideas were interesting - all people in the world would receive an equal amount of money, jobs that nobody would otherwise do (waste treatment, cleaning) would be done by everybody for one year after finishing school etc......
I found this, but I think it's not the same: Equal money capitalism https://emcapitalism.quora.com/;
Land value tax - an example of theory to improve the efficiency of current fiscal tools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax.

Please feel free to comment, add your examples, and even make strategies if you feel up to it.