BLOCKCHAIN I am not wrong very often. I wasn’t wrong on this subject either. Blockchain is an inadequate solution, and frankly I haven’t been able to understand how anyone could think otherwise except for having been stunned by the shiny object of the gold rush. IMHO, all we are doing is conducting R&D for post-money fiat money. Why? Because it eliminates the middle-man between the treasury and the people AND it eliminates the state’s ability to *DEFINE PROPERTY RIGHTS*. Even better it eliminates the ability for originators to package and sell loans and then evade responsibility for them. Moreover, it eliminates the problem of check cashing services, and the hard-money-economy of the ‘bottom’. All these things are profoundly important. But the libertarian fantasy that somehow an independent banking system will emerge is as absurd as it always has been. In the end, we have physical actors transferring physical assets, or all we are doing is playing a simulation. And the government can always and everywhere intercede in the physical world – simply because it is so profitable to do so. They have both every incentive and every resource as well as the public good at their disposal. So, while I appreciate that the nerd community wants to obtain sovereignty – all we are doing is devoting our free time and energy to funding the replacement for current absurdly antiquated, third party driven, financial system. This is to say that Holochain is a good step forward. It is also to say that blockchain was … childish… in my opinion as a technologist and political economist. Fun but childish. (And yes I lost I think something under 20K on a blockchain tech investment – but I knew I would. I was helping a friend. ) I can’t quite see a fully operational holochain platform, and the language used in the space is profoundly obscurant, so I have to reserve advocacy until I am capale of doing it honestly. That said it’s much closer to the result. On the other hand a monolithic and redundant system run by the private sector under state contract directly for the treasury is how I expect the solution to roll out. And it is the people who sell the government on that solution that will make all the money. I’d do it but I’m too busy trying to make a revolution ….
Theme: AI
-
BLOCKCHAIN I am not wrong very often. I wasn’t wrong on this subject either. Blo
BLOCKCHAIN
I am not wrong very often. I wasn’t wrong on this subject either. Blockchain is an inadequate solution, and frankly I haven’t been able to understand how anyone could think otherwise except for having been stunned by the shiny object of the gold rush.
IMHO, all we are doing is conducting R&D for post-money fiat money. Why? Because it eliminates the middle-man between the treasury and the people AND it eliminates the state’s ability to *DEFINE PROPERTY RIGHTS*. Even better it eliminates the ability for originators to package and sell loans and then evade responsibility for them. Moreover, it eliminates the problem of check cashing services, and the hard-money-economy of the ‘bottom’.
All these things are profoundly important.
But the libertarian fantasy that somehow an independent banking system will emerge is as absurd as it always has been. In the end, we have physical actors transferring physical assets, or all we are doing is playing a simulation.
And the government can always and everywhere intercede in the physical world – simply because it is so profitable to do so. They have both every incentive and every resource as well as the public good at their disposal.
So, while I appreciate that the nerd community wants to obtain sovereignty – all we are doing is devoting our free time and energy to funding the replacement for current absurdly antiquated, third party driven, financial system.
This is to say that Holochain is a good step forward. It is also to say that blockchain was … childish… in my opinion as a technologist and political economist. Fun but childish. (And yes I lost I think something under 20K on a blockchain tech investment – but I knew I would. I was helping a friend. )
I can’t quite see a fully operational holochain platform, and the language used in the space is profoundly obscurant, so I have to reserve advocacy until I am capale of doing it honestly. That said it’s much closer to the result.
On the other hand a monolithic and redundant system run by the private sector under state contract directly for the treasury is how I expect the solution to roll out.
And it is the people who sell the government on that solution that will make all the money.
I’d do it but I’m too busy trying to make a revolution ….
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-12 18:50:00 UTC
-
#DeleteFacebookNow THE SOLUTION: Sometimes the only way to win, is not to play t
#DeleteFacebookNow THE SOLUTION: Sometimes the only way to win, is not to play the game. FB and Google made a mistake, by trying to maximize ad revenue as ad platforms, rather than running their business as modern infrastructure, just like the ISP’s, and letting govt’s police it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-24 20:55:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977650244858142720
-
#DeleteFacebook THE SOLUTION: Sometimes the only way to win, is not to play the
#DeleteFacebook THE SOLUTION: Sometimes the only way to win, is not to play the game. FB and Google made a mistake, by trying to maximize ad revenue, as ad platforms, rather than running their business as modern infrastructure, just like the ISP’s, and letting govt’s police it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-24 20:54:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/977649966297600000
-
(Experimenting the past few days, and I think I am over my fall burnout on philo
(Experimenting the past few days, and I think I am over my fall burnout on philosophy because of how hard grammar was. That said, I’m sticking with my tech work for now. And I might work on strength a bit. )
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 13:25:00 UTC
-
4) My work mirrors yours except that I started with artificial intelligence (cal
4) My work mirrors yours except that I started with artificial intelligence (calculability) and you started with literary analogy, both of us with economic, cognitive, and physical science between. Hence I ended up like Hayek with Law, and you with Jung’s Wisdom Lit.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 13:51:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975368995930083328
-
Hayek started with a theory of cognition and revolutionized thought. Peterson st
Hayek started with a theory of cognition and revolutionized thought. Peterson started in psychology with libertarian sentiments. I started in Artificial intelligence. I dont know hicks’ original line of thought but he has been libertarian. i wouldnt call taleb libertarian, but possibly a sovereigntarian but he came to his conclusions using computer models also. we all started with libertarian sentiments. -
Hayek started with a theory of cognition and revolutionized thought. Peterson st
Hayek started with a theory of cognition and revolutionized thought. Peterson started in psychology with libertarian sentiments. I started in Artificial intelligence. I dont know hicks’ original line of thought but he has been libertarian. i wouldnt call taleb libertarian, but possibly a sovereigntarian but he came to his conclusions using computer models also. we all started with libertarian sentiments. -
Hayek started with a theory of cognition and revolutionized thought. Peterson st
Hayek started with a theory of cognition and revolutionized thought. Peterson started in psychology with libertarian sentiments. I started in Artificial intelligence. I dont know hicks’ original line of thought but he has been libertarian. i wouldnt call taleb libertarian, but possibly a sovereigntarian but he came to his conclusions using computer models also. we all started with libertarian sentiments.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 04:08:00 UTC
-
“The future is here. It’s just unevenly distributed.” – William Gibson (south af
“The future is here. It’s just unevenly distributed.” – William Gibson (south africa) (via James Santagata)