You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Crypto crackdown in progress
You may a sound hypothesis. If your prediction is fully - or even partially - true then I see the most feasible solution being to focus more on building our network and social capital on a forum like Steemit, where we have more direct control over our activity and the results of such activity. This is my strategy for the long term at this point. I don't have the time/energy to watch prices go up and down. I want to build something more sustainable - both online and offline - in the LONG-TERM scale.
I really like the it's over, a good time before they know it's too late strategy. I agree @transcript-junky it'a about keeping the social hub alive. The fact that Facebook is going through the turmoil of conflict with public interest is a sign of their fake weakness, hey? The world is playing the game so we can get to say, pay me! too
Yup! I propelling my "Steemit -Twitter Promo Campaign" on the JUICY downfall of twitter right now. #DeleteFacebook is music to my ears. We need to get the folks coming off "the Facebook rebound" over here to Steemit : https://steemit.com/promo-steem/@transcript-junky/steemit-twitter-marketing-campaign-update-8
The problem is this, if Bitcoin is designed for global adoption then it must evolve according to global sentiment. Bitcoin developers ignore global sentiment and are motivated for their own personal or political reasons. These political reasons are very narrow and so the potential for growth is very limited.
It is true Bitcoin threatens the banks but not every potential user of Bitcoin is going to be libertarian, or anarchist, or anti-government, or against their local fiat. If these become requirements for use of cryptocurrency then the growth of cryptocurrency is limited by the growth of the sentiment backing the movers and shakers. That sentiment does not appear to be capable of spreading around the world and the evidence is in the fact that Bitcoin is being banned.
Obvious to me, predictable to me, but what I see isn't necessary what the more ideologically driven members of the community see.
Agreed, and of course there is the whole issue of human nature TENDING towards conformity and/or conservatism. I remember Dr. Michael Crichton (author of "Jurassic Park") talking (in an interview) about how humans have an innate desire for tyranny. I think it was this interview on C-span : https://www.c-span.org/video/?195629-1/next He also talks about using genomics to eradicate "bad behavior", which is a subject you recently wrote about @dana-edwards (if my memory serves me correctly). I think you will enjoy this...
I disagreed with @dan on precisely this point. Transparency does encourage a trend toward conformity. This is problematic if you are trying to build a global platform where it's all different cultures, different history, different views, I just don't see how you can force everyone into a small digital village scenario because not everyone comes from small town culture.
What I do suggest is to have multiple communities. Let everyone find their own place. On the topic of privacy, I don't think absolute secrecy is necessary. There are levels and it is a spectrum. I think Steemit is too far on the transparent side of the spectrum so I consider it "dangerously transparent". I do think you can find a balance though where you can make a platform just transparent enough to keep everyone safe but not so transparent that it encourages persecution, possible genocide, etc.
In other words, I fall on the side of human rights. Transparency which leads to abuse in my opinion is the dangerous kind. Just as secrecy which leads to abuse is the dangerous kind. The example being, do I need to know what is in your wallet to know which of us is richer? No, I actually do not.
I never need to know exactly how much you have to know you have more than me. This is Yao's millionaires problem and it was solved already. So you can use mathematics to determine who between two parties has the bigger number. Because of that you can maintain the necessary privacy of both parties while also having enough practical transparency.
Just as people don't put their money into a bank in hopes that the banks will sell their spending habits to anyone who is willing to pay, it is also the case that people probably will not want to put their money into the Steem bank or crypto bank which is wide open.
"On the topic of privacy, I don't think absolute secrecy is necessary. There are levels and it is a spectrum. I think Steemit is too far on the transparent side of the spectrum so I consider it "dangerously transparent". I do think you can find a balance though where you can make a platform just transparent enough to keep everyone safe but not so transparent that it encourages persecution, possible genocide, etc."...
This is something which has been bothering me since I shortly after I got onto the platform last year. I totally agree. The number of times I have wished I could click my heels and make one (or more) people on the platform just "go away" has been significant. Then you look at the new revelations about DiscraceBook, and so many "icky" aspects of that platform (ex. being able to add "friends"/people to groups without their permission, etc.) and I think we all have a BASELINE sense of your "ideal" sweet spot on the transparency/privacy continuum. So, another great point. ...
"Transparency does encourage a trend toward conformity. This is problematic if you are trying to build a global platform where it's all different cultures, different history, different views, I just don't see how you can force everyone into a small digital village scenario because not everyone comes from small town culture. What I do suggest is to have multiple communities. Let everyone find their own place."
Yup! This is one of the PRIMARY premises of our entire global community of @mixedmentalarts (sorry for the shameless plug, but it IS relevant, and I AM trying to build momentum of the recent migration of this community onto Steemit ;-> Hunter Maats, one of the founders/cohosts (and a buddy) gives the anecdote that the global community is like a family holiday get-together with all of those relatives who disagree with each other.
I always enjoy your analysis (and generally agree with you on ~ 85% of your thoughts. We think similarly on many issues...
Humans have an innate design to be authoritarian and control other humans. I do agree with this. I think humans will use both secrecy and transparency to consume power and take authoritarian control. It is actually possible to control people with information in a transparent society. Yes it is possible in a society with secrecy as well but the approaches change.
When there are secrets then people have to worry about being coerced, blackmailed, extorted, exposed, etc. In a society with total transparency then people have to worry about people who will abuse the information and knowledge, bullying, persecution, possible genocide.
So yes it is not the case that extreme secrecy or extreme transparency are ideal. I just don't think a culture of exposing (or trying to expose everyone) is any better than what we have now and I see more transparency as only fueling that culture. It's not like if we make little transparent glass houses that people who don't have homes will not throw stones.
Totally concur. Trust me, I have lived (and/or deeply traveled) in five (and counting) Asian countries (two full-on communist, and one post-autogenocidal). In fact, I just spent a LOVELY 72+ hours in a Laos "jail" (Oops! I mean, torture chamber) where I witnessed FIRST-HAND the reason why we fought MORE THAN ONE war to prevent communism from spreading - and that's not considering the current process of attempting to thwart "the Chinese" (commies), which those of us smart people know has been the REAL war all along, AND which may NOT succeed in the grand scheme of things. You raise a very PROFOUND subject here, and one which has hit VERY close to home for me for a while now. Thanks for your insight on this. I have been in a real RUT lately (trust me, I mean a "REAL" real rut), and knowing that there are people "out there" who are SERIOUSLY deliberating these important issue provides me with a reason to even bother waking up in the morning ;-> ...