You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Brainstorming possible changes to blockchain economics — on the dawn of a new chain's birth

in OCDlast year

@d-pend,

Dan, great article.

Every one of your ideas are well thought out and well articulated. Now I need to spend some time thinking about them deeply.

Off the top of my head though, I can say I completely agree with you concerning upvoting comments. Encouraging engagement between authors and audiences ought to be one of the blockchain's highest priorities.

How about "Proof of Sentience?" You hit a nail on the head: Algorithms CANNOT replicate that which is performed by the human mind ... and that is important because our "moral judgments" about what is "good and bad" and "fair and unfair" are "emergent," not "reductionist," in nature. It's not about computer code, it's about genetic code.

As an aside, it is precisely these kinds of articles that have been missing from the conversation for too long. Highly articulate contemplations, expressed in plain English, respecting strategic level issues. It's why we need something other than "coders" in the Top 20 Witnesses.

Quill