You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: People Are People: A Logical Roast of Naive Blockchain Governance
People are corrupted by power. People act to push their interest forward and sabotage competition. People also cooperate when it serves their interest. They defect from cooperating when they benefit from it.
If we are to succeed in gaining individual freedom we must learn to work together. We do this because divided we fall when up against a competitor that is better at cooperation.
Therefore I submit that as flawed as blockchain governance is, it is preferable to prior systems if only because it brings transparency and automation while being free from violence.
No blockchain is currently immutable, all are governed as demonstrated by their ability to make group decisions.
The pendulum has swung toward extreme distrust of authority since the bank bailouts, so now many want to put the machine in charge of natural law using mathematical governance (code as law). I understand you oppose this view. We are fortunate to have EOS for the time being at least and since corruption takes time (the USA has had a good run for a couple of centuries before becoming mostly corrupt), hopefully the community can solve any problems that come up.
You say that most people are good which is true, but I worry that the psychopaths which are a minority always seem to rise to the top. Is it impossible that 15 BP's wouldn't eventually become compromised by shadow authority, either by outsiders sponsored by governments to remake EOS in their own image? I note that Gavin Andresen and Craig Wright are now on the outside of a system they helped create in the beginning. Did Blockstream push them out? Is the means of central control one of attrition and funding alignment of shadow principles? The fact that Blockstream seems to be in lockstep with everyone on the same page throws red flags for me. I'm hoping that heavily funded government sponsored BP's obedient to shadow authority never show up or get exposed for doing so.
I think we have plenty of time before we have to worry about real corruption in this space though. By then, maybe the technology can scale in a lazy manner (without LN similar to BCH). Had the hardware been about 20 years more advanced, we might not now be having this scaling debate, but it has created an opportunity for EOS to step in. I don't see ETH solving the scaling issue any time soon enough to matter, but if EOS becomes centralized enough, the world may yet revisit ETH or a different black swan.
yes for transparency and forkability
Sure having competing voluntary governances with interchanging bases of support is not a bad idea and one might find good governance through such an evolutionary approach, but truly sound money doesn't work in such a way. All communities will eventually crater due to corruption or the erosion of support which makes the underlying currency they are build on top of vulnerable. While governance should be flexible and open to change, currency should be resistant to change as change introduces potential corrupting factors.
If currency is open to change under such a model, it really is no better than traditional models of currency created by governments. Sure there is more transparency, but user apathy always leads to the downfall of such models of flexible governance by the people. Most people don't trust the governments that rule them but do little to actually change them once under the control of people who care more and wield more power.
My issue isn't with governance on a blockchain. My issue is governance on a blockchain that is also trying to be a currency / resource at the same time.
This is why I love the view and road map of Musicoinwith a mix between :