Well sure, TANSTAAFL. But, especially given Owen's (and apparently Stephen's) loaded question "What is complexity?", to write it all off as "tools don't imply political motives" is, itself, a loaded answer. We have overwhelming evidence that complexity is bound up with robustness through mechanisms for phenomena like scale-free, fractal, far from equilibrium, etc. And that clearly implies that an earnest application of a tool (from hammers to blockchains), one that actually tries to solve problems rather than extract wealth for a sub-group, should make an attempt to reify those phenomena.
So, as I suggested in the exploit post: "get ready for blockchain" also means "get ready for exploitative tactics with and around blockchain tech." That article Tom posted focused exclusively on the happy-go-lucky, hyperbolic, utopian dream, ignoring the nightmare that lurks beneath. On 05/23/2017 02:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > The concept of a secure distributed ledger (e.g. blockchain) doesn't itself > really imply a political motive. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
