I'm still hoping a new cryptocoin/fork implements a client-determined miner selection capability similar to what we suggested in that 2013 paper I've mentioned here. Heartening, Garzik & Company's decision their upcoming Bitcoin United fork appears to implement some form of our suggested block escheat.
On Dec 30, 2017 3:28 PM, "John Newman" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* byfield <[email protected]> > *Date:* December 29, 2017 at 12:05:02 PM EST > *To:* "Florian Cramer" <[email protected]>, "Morlock Elloi" < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* *Re: <nettime> Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for > blockchain* > > On 29 Dec 2017, at 10:01, Florian Cramer wrote: > > The *goal* of the Bitcoin proof of concept was 'an electronic payment > > system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two > > willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a > > trusted third party.' So when the author of this avid-reader essay > > complains 'but Visa... but FDIC... but NASDAQ,' one reasonable response is: > > ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The point of Bitcoin wasn't to succeed to the degree that it > > has, or in the way that it has. > > > Hi Ted, > > > If that had been Bitcoin's only goal, then it would have sufficed to create > > a crypographic peer-to-peer payment system based on/supporting existing > > currencies and their exchange rates. > > > Things got politically murky with the introduction of Bitcoin as its own > > currency based on Hayek's and Mises' economic theory, i.e. with built-in > > deflation and absence of political control except through owners. > > > Well, the difference is your addition of 'only,' as in it's 'only goal.' > If I say I love you, Florian, that would be special, wouldn't it? But if I > say I love *only* you, Florian, that's a different kettle of fish. 'Only' > is one of those tricky words that serves as a mule for smuggling entire > ideological apparatuses. 'Still' is another one: 'You *still* believe that? > > As someone who's thought a lot about design, you probably understand > better than many what a proof of concept is: an implementation — or we'd > maybe we should think of it in more anthropological terms, as an *artifact* > — that, more or less, tests a specific proposal. How that test is > constructed, and the context in which it's conducted, involve a lot of > artifice. Many of the assumptions that shape that artifice go unstated. The > questions we're left with, in the case of Bitcoin, are what those > assumptions were, and what they might mean. > > If I'd said that goal was Bitcoin's *only* goal, then I'd agree with your > objection, but I didn't: instead, I talked about the explicit ideological > beliefs that dominated the cypherpunks milieu, including their implacable > hostility to the state, their all but explicit aim of attacking models of > trust anchored in ~public institutions, the ambiguity of their use of the > idea of honesty, and — crucially — their interest in Vernor Vinge's novella > _True Names_. It didn't seem worth the effort to say they were libertarian > free-market extremists, because that's widely discussed. So your point is > right on, but it seems like more of an elaboration ('and') than an > objection ('but'). They didn't think talking about Hayek or Mises in the > original Bitcoin paper, but as you say those ideas were baked into it from > the beginning. > > Whoever designed Bitcoin assumed that 'currency' and 'an electronic > payment system' were interchangeable or even identical. They (and I'm > pretty sure it was a group, not an individual) didn't set out to design > better banknotes *or* to develop a better PayPal, they set out to create > something entirely new that could function as either/both but wasn't *only* > limited to meeting those specifications. > > That brings us to Morlock's point about whether Bitcoin succeeded or > failed. Two responses, one good, one bad. \_(ツ)_/¯. > > This reminds me of discourses on theory and practice of communism. One > good, the other bad. > > > Bitcoin failed for practical/mundane reason: it ceased to be distributed > long time ago (today 4 Chinese mints control 50+% of hash power), while > talking heads deceivingly ignored this, and continued to proselytize the > initial but long extinct 'distributed' meme. It's more centralized than US > dollar. > > > PoW concentration is mandated by its technological nature and there are no > signs that anything will change any time soon. Every other 'proof' > introduces either benevolent coordinating authority (which is utter bs), or > switches CPU for something that has not been demonstrated as > concentrate-able yet because no one bothered (such as proof of space - big > disks are naturally distributed ... right.) > > > There is little more to say. Bitcoin is a big lie, for many too big to be > acknowledged. > > > Possible futures and promises will continue to be built on the miserably > failed premise, with non-working workarounds (But maybe the next workaround > will work? ... Bitcoin is just the first try, the concept is good? ... It's > such great idea and must be revisited? ... etc.) > > > Morlock, your point about its concentration nails it, and in that sense, > yes, Bitcoin was a miserable failure. That structural tendency toward > concentration was obvious in many of the experiments that contributed to > Bitcoin, like the distributed cracks of RC5, which were dominated by actors > with immense computing power at their disposal. Cypherpunk-types loved > heartwarming talk about how Zapatistas and victims of sexual abuse would > use PGP etc, but that was just playing to the crowd: they were much more > concerned with systemic architectures and their baked-in biases because > they knew cryptography was and would remain inevitably *politically* > asymmetric. > > But as you may remember (if you're the same Morlock Elloi who was kicking > around in those circles), all that talk about crypto-anarchy was, at its > heart, about class. Much of what normal people think about 'class' depends > on the state: if there's no state, there are no classes, there are just > arbitrary individuals and groups who are more or less adept at navigating > and negotiating whatever resources are available to them. Whatever human > potential gets lost in the fray is just the cost of doing business — and > 'twas ever thus. > > So...if Bitcoin has made some people fabulously wealthy, enabled new 'free > markets' (including dark commerce, a growing parade of ICO cons, etc), and > generally moved a bunch of Overton windows, do you really think some of > them — Tim May, for example — would be upset that it was eventually > dominated by a few Chinese mints rather than being equitably accessible for > sheeple-to-sheeple use? If all of history a single catastrophe that keeps > piling wreckage upon wreckage, what's a few more as long as they make you > and yours rich? > > What engineer ever objected if his/her/their proof of concept failed on a > specified front but succeeded in creating a dozen new ones? It's as if the > Wright Brothers' plane crashed — on the moon. > > Cheers, > Ted > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > >
