So Bitcoin was a failure, in your view, except that whoever designed it
didn't have goals or their goals were random, because $TECHNOLOGY? Or
something like that. It's hard to make sense of some of what you're
saying. I think I agree with some of your less grumpy points – for
example, I brought up the political beliefs that informed the design of
Bitcoin not to blame anyone (?!) but to explain why the avid-reader's
analysis (not as good as Visa, FDIC, NASDAQ, etc) are completely off the
mark. And *that* was incidental to my main point, that context-specific
*disposable* blockchain-type stuff will probably be the most durable
effect.
It seems like the argument that Bitcoin might as well have emerged fully
formed from the head of Zeus opens the door to the very things you've
lamented: the failure to understand in broad terms how and why PoW-based
projects are fatally flawed, or moral criticisms that they don't advance
parochial political agendas. You say that how we choose to use these
technologies matters more than their origins (who could disagree?), but
on what basis are people supposed to make those kinds of choices at any
scale? In your terms, what kinds of dice can be thrown and in what
direction? I don't think better STEM education is quite up to that task,
so the next best thing might be a slightly clearer understanding of the
social ideals that inform *some* aspects of new technologies. That's
pretty woolly, I know, but not as woolly as staging global magic-lantern
shows and asking everyone to cow-click on dis/like icons until the music
stops. And it's not even that woolly, really. Untangling blockchain-type
stuff from 'Bitcoin' (and in particular seeing how ISO 9000–level
*dull* blockchain stuff is) will be a necessary part of demystifying
what's going on.
You often argue for a certain kind of technological realism, but the
pace at which algorithmic tech is developing ensures that even
well-educated people will be left in the dust — and a lot of that dust
will be particulate bullshit. Maintaining detailed understanding across
fields will be out of the question. So what's left? A lot of the
technical literacy you advocate will be limited to schematic overviews;
and understanding who's claiming what will be essential to that. It's
not a simple past-vs-future problem.
Cheers,
Ted
On 29 Dec 2017, at 14:10, Morlock Elloi wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this 'goal' concept. Technology is just
tool. New tech is more or less randomly created, with randomly focused
goal by its designer, and then gets used for other random goals, more
often than not unrelated to the original one. Like hitting a particle
in the accelerator - you never know what will come out. That's the
beauty and the horror of tech. Efficient FFT library gets used to kill
thousands, weapons become cures, privacy systems enable tyrannies,
etc.
What was the original goal of Bitcoin (ie. PoW in chained hash +
algorithmic transitions) is less than irrelevant. What we choose to
use it for is more than relevant. It was a new metal from which to
forge stuff. What one forges out of it is a different story, but don't
blame the metal designer - that would be like blaming Victor d'Hupay
or Karl Marx for Stalin and Khmer Rouge. Assigning deep intentions to
Bitcoin designer, or implying that any thought was spent on
relationship of currency and payment system, makes no sense.
On the higher level, algorithms are like speech - anyone can create
whatever one wants. Fortunately trigger warnings and safe spaces were
not in vogue then, so we have some interesting stuff to play with. One
may argue, though, that shouting "Bitcoin!" in disintegrating
stratified society should be banned, and that algorithm designers have
moral responsibility for their effects, but that's a slippery slope.
Dice needs to be thrown now and then, even deities do that.
Cypherpunks were specific phenomenon riding on the wave of (then) new
tech industry, enabled by several people striking it rich on patent
royalties, high salaries in general, staffed by uprooted clever
newcomers with spare time (there was really nothing to do in the South
Bay after 6pm, just like now) and e-mail enabled echo chamber (spam
hardly existed, e-mail access was only for the elites.) The mix
produced many interesting concepts in a very short time, some of which
linger on now. Was it about class? Nothing was inherited, there was no
legacy 'wealth', it was a brutal meritocracy, thriving on income from
employers who were totally unaware of the whole thing. The ideology
was not a secret: https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.html .
Everything outside that was irrelevant, and no one gave a flying f*ck
for political correctness (like May's views on race & women, for
example.) The Cool-Aid was excellent, resulting in near-comical
clashes with reality (HavenCo), but without it there would be no Deep
Crack, SSLeay, PGP, crypto would still be under ITAR, Assange would be
a farmer.
I find it ominous that technology creation is getting subjected to
social justice correctness and intents are getting scrutinized. What
is needed is more technical literacy and more dice throwing, not
suspecting the literate ones or requiring registering of typewriters.
# 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:
