an added negative aspect of going further down the banning path is:
it lessens the need (or signal) to improve education, or does it not?
Not talking about the theory part of education, more the parts that are not handled well in schools like e.g. (!) habits and understanding better what is behind your daily actions (often “Glaubenssätze” are the reason). Many important parts of education is assumed to happen at home, and only very much later I saw through close friendships to what and what extent (!) some people have to go through… not having grown up in a household permitting learning essentially important life skills (or usually worse… grew up with mindsets that make it very much harder to tackle problems in a helpful way).
TLDR: More banning can result in a weaker signal to improve aforementioned (!) classical education weaknesses, which can spiral into more problems, more need and calling for banning/micro-managing adults, more resistance, more damaging/self-damaging adult actions, … spiral (and bigger threatening fights over the different approaches and the very real felt need to restrict others to feel safe).
That is a topic that I think AND care a lot (!!) about, so very happy for comments pros and cons (but please in a constructive manner). Also very happy about private messages/new insights/blindspots/…
I thought about it for jokes, as the reaction is quick (just system 1 and very maybe for more complex jokes it’s system 2 understanding the joke and then system 1 laughing… but then it might not spontenous enough to lough out loud), didn’t though about that for “all funny things”.
- I agree that we shouldn‘t tell young people to aim for companies like Google / aim to get really really rich
- I agree that we should tell young children to aim for sustainable companies
- I at least partially disagree with warning against the unsustainable ruthless capitalism in case your sustainable ideas do get really big. Some companies would get really really big, and I would prefer to see those reaching there to be those who had a (comparatively) caring mind (the others would not listen anyway)
- but I would agree to explain young children that what and where they buy does impact climatic problems. And that supporting small-medium sized companies (or creating one) is the most beneficial for our future
If a good was regulated to have a stable price nobody would be incentivized to find a clever solution to solve a future crisis with high demand for that good
> At the moment, it's quite clear that current cryptocurrencies are solving problems nobody has (trustless transactions)
That’s an assumption, not a fact. And trustless transactions might not be the only problem that it tries to solve. What about predictable money supply. Trustless custody (instead of just “trustless transactions), …
All these will not appeal to a lot more people today (but nobody and not many is very different, and that ratio can change with future technologies being built)
> how to restore keys when they lose them or they are stolen, and related how to tie those keys to real-world identity in a meaningful way, how to rollback fraud and punish grifters, etc... for most of these you need a trusted central authority and also trusted, verified identity.
The first part (how to restore keys when they lose them or they are stolen) does not necessarily mean that there is no decentralized solution. Social recovery (Shamir Secret Sharing + social recovery; or safer some multisig + social recovery) is being worked on.
The second part “how to tie those keys to real-world identity ” is much harder (specially if one values anonimity to avoid 1984 scenarios).
in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses.
They were hard to start for example . You would get your hands dirty and needed some power to turn that hand crank.
When those problems got solved and more cars got on the road it would become dangerous with so many cars, and people suggested you need to learn it properly (and get a driver license). Some thought not many would get such a license to drive a still dangerous machine (no airbags or even ABS at that time).
In the end you are ready to do the work (learn) if it is worth it.
And if it is worth it… that nobody knows (in the western world the answer is mostly “no” right now, at least if one trusts the complex economic systems to work well for the next decades).
If it’s worth the hassle, more technologies will get built to help.
true, but what you then loose is “natural selection”.
Why?
Because either a new standard is not allowed. Or it is allowed, but then highly probably just one… and the central planning way. One standard/product is worked on, one is accepted as the successo.
No selection in the wild of the one that survives (depending of what we talk about, the survivor is sometimes the one that is technically better, sometimes it is the one that is cheaper, or faster in bandwith or latency or prettier, or …).
This sometimes work ok for 1-2 successors, but the more times pass by, the more central planing (or lack of free market) fails.
If one is very honest it has to see both sides of it.
Both has their pros and cons (not equally weighted though).
The regulated way has to be done as rarely as possible (very hard to decide when it is a good idea…)
my guess is that people can like () individual posts.
The positive of that is:
a) possibility to like () just one post, or 2, 3… depending of who good the thread is
b) the fine granular way to like () gives the algorithm way better possibilities to whom to show a thread and even better, to first show just one intereting post out of that thread (also people can mores easily quote or retweet individual parts of a thread)
For example the flash you have/had on standard camera (not smartphone who have LEDs, but the standard compact camera that is just a camera) is about 1kW!!
But this 1kW you have it for about 1ms (milisecond!!). It seems to last longer because the light gets “burned” into your eye.
kind of, but also not really, or at least not the same amount or type of regulation.
DeFi is like many new things, it is it’s own new category (a car is not just a fast horse or the internet was not just a better fax machine).
For example: in DeFi you can hold your own money (not just an IOU, but the real private keys). So it would make sense that things should be regulated differently, as often there is no custodial risk. So this set of regulation probably should be applied differently. Just an example. Other regualtion might make sense (depending of you ask), but the question arises what to do if they are not enforcable (just regulate with illegal spying tools, or let do and warn the public and maybe even stop thinking the state should protect everybody… these are only questions, I do not imply/recommend anything with these questions)
But there exist sooo many prototyping breaktroughs.
Those who follow press releases for many years know that just a tiny fraction can transfer this in real world products that actually work
(so many more challenges to overcome compared to prototype situations!! I don’t even know where to begin… every ground is different, average person doing the manual work is not as skilled and has less support engineers, the guys setting/defining the dimensions of various recipients/pumps/conduits are often undeskilled and the efficiency often lacks tremendously for that reason…)
With fiat money the cantillon effect [1] plays a big role.
In Bitcoin (fixed supply cap) that part is very very different.
One big difference is that fiat/political money (political because political decisions decide how money is created and spent first before it inflates and arrives to the rest of the population).
Like El Salvador: they use the Dollar.
But do they get some of the newly (for free) created trillions? Or do they only see the consequence of that money, meaning seeing their money inflated away… their part of the pie stays constant while the rest of the pie got inflated/bigger.
[1]: just google “cantillon effect”. It is interesting (the power is not only in the hands of the money holders but also in the political decision makers and those who have good relationships with them… a bit like it used to be with religion and the state… but now still with money and the state)
It is sometimes hard to see through the noise, but for those actually interested, here a VERY incomplete list, just to have an idea where to start:
- Pieter Wuille
- Matt Corallo
- Rusty Russell
- Olaoluwa Osuntokun
- Andrew Poelstra
- Wladimir van der Laan
- Surae and Sarang Noether
- Matthew Green
- Eli Ben-Sasson
- David Burkett
- ... ... (and many many (!) dozens more!)
It is because of so much noise [1], that some other involved sometimes find it hard to stay friendly for an extended period of time (friendliness in this area lead very fast to dubious marketers to abuse (!) that friendliness to market they ponzis. Open source without economic tokens attract less of these people. Some people think it makes open-source + economic tokens a bad idea. Some other disagree and just either avoid the front pages and noise and just code ("cypherpunks write code") and some other struggle to find a balance and communicate more but sometimes a bit rough because of so many scams out there).
In every big community (or country or any other group) you will find nice people and less nice/friendly people. People just see the latter one on twitter (because of how the algo works), and sadly think at all are like that. Sad :(
But happily people like skc ask the important questions loudly :)
[1]: new discoveries (like decentralize digiatal bearer assets) that involve money are bound to such frenzies and therefore noise
edit: just for formatting (the bulletpoints of the list)
[email protected]