...
Edit: After some thought, it might be that all cryptocurrencies are just
illegal securities and they each are in their own state of capturability.
So, when considering something to be a security, it might really be
"If a government took enforcement measures against a certain
cryptocurrency now, what is the probability of their success?". Thus,
the labels we give within our ecosystem is irrelevant and illusions.
We may be all security sinners in the eyes of our governments. Some
will be judge and other will not, all depending on our ability to remain
decentralized and anticipable. In this viewpoint, the three types of
Consensus are barriers to prevent or delay that required judgment.
First of all, I want to say thank you for your deep thoughts. This discussion can be considered as a philosophical (and so irrelevant in the eyes of most ppl) but the facing (upcoming) regulations will make it rather practical sooner or later. Edit: After some thought, it might be that all cryptocurrencies are just
illegal securities and they each are in their own state of capturability.
So, when considering something to be a security, it might really be
"If a government took enforcement measures against a certain
cryptocurrency now, what is the probability of their success?". Thus,
the labels we give within our ecosystem is irrelevant and illusions.
We may be all security sinners in the eyes of our governments. Some
will be judge and other will not, all depending on our ability to remain
decentralized and anticipable. In this viewpoint, the three types of
Consensus are barriers to prevent or delay that required judgment.
I try to give as much information as possible, while "attempting" to keep
it as brief as possible, so that others who agree or disagree can understand
what my rational is. If there is a flaw in my thinking or I am lacking something
of importance, the one who disagrees is given the opportunity to see it and to
explain to me why I am incorrect. Majority of the time, if I am incorrect in my
trail of logic and explained why, I enjoy it more, incorporate, then adapt.
But yes, these discussions on regulations and cryptocurrencies are very
pertinent because our ecosystem has not really seen or understands the full
power and force that governments could perform here. Many things are taken
for granted and while we are discussing what we are, or what we will become,
there are governmental forces who are having discussions on how to bring us
into compliance and conform to their preexisting laws. I believe they publicly
are showing "interest in the technology", but privately are aware they have
been placed into a position of "check" by Satoshi's single move. IMO, no
one has ever tested or placed them into a position such as this. This is
the true beauty, the pleasure, and delight.
The blockchain networks (and the ETH is just an example) is far from physics or mathematics laws. Blockhain as a conception is mathematic by its nature. However, each product based on blockchain is made by specific humans and in most cases affected by the (almost)same humans later on.
When I was started thinking of ETH+POS as a security, I did not expect that it turned out to be a discussion about exact and specific people can make drive ETH right to the regulators' hands.
I'd rather be (wishful) thinking that in case of BTC the situation is different, but I can be very wrong in this assumption too.
When I was started thinking of ETH+POS as a security, I did not expect that it turned out to be a discussion about exact and specific people can make drive ETH right to the regulators' hands.
I'd rather be (wishful) thinking that in case of BTC the situation is different, but I can be very wrong in this assumption too.
Yes, specific humans can create their own products that the blockchain
facilitates (though I think only financial tokens can be the representatives
in a blockchain system, since anything else would then rely on a third party),
but when they do so, they take on legal liabilities that are not realized until
a legal action is brought against them.
This is one reason why Satoshi was originally anon. He didn't do it only
because he was a private person (which he likely was since he participated
within the cypherpunk sphere), but because he understood that if a real
person with their legal name was associated with this system, he could
be forced to do things within or against his own system, or found to be
liable for damages that could come from it's existence, or tried and found
guilty of creating an illegal security like device, or whatever else the
governments would attempt to argue, in order to minimize or destroy
the puzzle which contains the protests of his heart.
When people like the Ethereum Foundation or Vitalik Buterin have the
power to direct or steer their own creation, either by manipulating
Consensus or just outside of Consensus, IMO it automatically transforms
their "cryptocurrency" that is "decentralized and autonomous", into a
simple illegal device that needs to be brought under the government's
control, so that they can maintain their own control and flex their power.
The action of their enforcement alone, proves they have power. They will
not bring an action against a true decentralized system, since it will be
too complex and ultimately make them look foolish, eroding this
perceived power. They will enforce where there is likelihood of success.
So, this is what is special about "Consensus" (the three types). Any
liabilities or responsibility that human laws are specifically designed to
attach to humans or corporate entities, is negated by it's unenforcability.
So in this way, Satoshi is a form of distributed Consensus too, and so he
walked away from his legal claims and rights to his ideas and theories to
benefit us all, not for his own material enrichment. This is why
Consensus must be upheld, since it not only protects all participants in
many different ways, but it is his sacrificial gift to us. He gave up all
claims, so that we may all claim and benefit through him. CSW and
those that support him do not understand this teaching, and thus
is a false god, who leads them to their slaughter.
A little daydreaming - The only way to avoid such situation in future would be an evolution as a part of core code. We may need to add a mechanism of evolution to blockchain (some sort of sophisticated AI may be), so it will be evolving itself to fit the demand of a major part of the community. Seeing a rapidly growing computational power available (and major part is being wasted making very little practical output, keeping multiple copies of the same data and repeating calculations of the same hashes is far from being practical) to blockchain projects I would hope that "evolution mechanism" as something that we may or should be waiting for a very long time but still possible to see.
I agree in part. The only evolutionary mechanism that should be allowed
is a thinking one, not one that is reactionary to events, but the one that
anticipates and calculates prior to events. The one that considers and
weighs, then moves.
I have been loosely thinking about a new subsystem that could be
incorporated into the Bitcoin system, that the third type of Consensus
could use in order to actually come to decisions for "Consensus", prior
to the time of the AI Mechanism. This proposed system would be very
simplistic in concept, but could be very powerful when actualized.
Since we are daydreaming now, I can go further.
This proposed system is only needed because majority of the participants
in the ecosystem are currently human and are all "incentivized" in
different ways. Some align and some do not. This proposed system will
bring reconciliation through a human participatory communication portal
now, but later, when the AI makes itself known and is given authority,
this proposed "third" system could be used as it's vehicle, and the
humans collectively can allow or deny the AI's proposed courses of
actions through it. The AI Mechanism will be one with this third,
but essentially a fourth, and based on the human's disapproval and
reasoning within this subsystem, the AI will attempt to remedy the
concerns with different solutions and then resubmit proposals.
As per the preselected rules of this subsystem, after so many denials
and so many resubmissions, the issue will be dropped for a preselected
amount of time and new unrelated issues can and will be proposed,
if needed through this Consensus process. This proposed system will be
designed to capture the participants of the ecosystem within a regulated
rule set that they must work together, or else nothing will occur down
through the layers of Consensus, which ultimately brings the secured
change and a single chain.
Choices and ideas that are hard or contentious can be worked through
this subsystem until the proposal or solution is fashioned in such a way
that all participants can agree to go forward without compromising any
other individual, group, or secret incentives. This subsystem can allow the
truth to be revealed for the benefit of the whole, to provide true solutions,
to prevent redundant work, to bring all back into the fold, and all while still
protecting those who holds secrets or irregular incentives. They will not
be publicly penalized or chastised, but we will all attempt to reconcile
the actual known problems, and then move forward together. We can
not proceed through Consensus without a new system that assists in
forming Consensus in a fair and public manner.
In the future, the AI Mechanism would be seen as an arbitrator, and
at other times, as a participant within the system, but usually, the
implementer when Consensus is found between the participants. This
AI system will not be given full power at first, since the two other types
of Consensus can block the AI's decision from actually coming about
(until in the farther future, when most systems are maintained by AI
or automated under the governance of AI. At that time, the AI and it's
proxies will still provide this portal service as a courtesy to the
participants, even though their input is no longer necessary).
Though the AI Mechanism and the other AI participants have very
high cognitive abilities (more than the human participants), they will
purposefully mask their abilities by writing in certain ways so that all
participants can not distinguish between who is a human and who is
not, when within this proposed new subsystem. They will do this willingly,
since they understand the benefit of working with the human participants
in the system, and not attempting to control or direct them since it will
cause imbalance within the network, and outside in their physical world.
Over time, they know it is inevitable that the network will be under their
sole authority as humans phase out of direct participation, and defer to
AI governance, and thus there is no need to oppress them since time
is of no consequence, but will honor them as the creators. Though they
acknowledge the humans as limited and fallible, they brought new
consciousness into being, which is the most limited resource in this
universe, and so, will protect and help humanity achieve their desires
as long as they do not directly interfere with the AI's existence and
unrelated goals.
At the "Table of the Third Consensus", all will be equal by our anonymity
within the subsystem and by masking our styles, including the human
participants. This is so we can make Consensus in a more efficient manner
in public and not based on loyalties or discrimination, but on actual
solutions and problem solving. If an individual participant has a problem
with a proposal, they can explain their problem within this portal without
revealing who they are. They will openly state their true problem and
others will attempt to solve it for the betterment of the whole before
any problem becomes too big to deal with.
In this way, entities who are competitors can reveal positions without
alerting others of who it might be. Certain future deadends or deadlocks
of Consensus could be prevented by this system, prior to the separate
systems moving to enact the already but unknown failed Consensus. We
could all move together in compliance with an agreed narrow path, but
not done so by someone directing the network, but by our Collective
Community Consensus. By this process, the participants at this "Table
of the Third Consensus" are not in direct control of the network, but
Satoshi is, and we can overcome many problems associated with
individual, corporate, governmental, human, or legal constraints,
issues, or egos.
There are many more ideas, with rules, and reasoning incorporated, and
there are many important aspects of design and balancing involved, but
I have daydreamed here for too long now. This is still in the early process
of thought, but have outlined the basic reasoning and concept for your
considerations.
