Bitcoin is an Extrapolation of the History of Money
Much of the community seems almost traumatized from the whole story of Satoshi and the disconnection of bitcoin from the history of money (and therefore the future also of it). To me this is quite damaging in trying to convince the less knowledgeable about the role of logic and deduction (extrapolation) in what should be the future of “this technology”.
We are certainly entering a new age and arguing about the timeline of it. Can we understand the role of bitcoin in our society without understanding the Keynesian banking era that we are leaving for it? Can we understand the Keynesian era without understanding how we have entered and left different types of gold (or other metal) standards? Nick Szabo shows us the perfectly comparable relation of Adam Smith’s observations in relation to “software”, can we not see how this relates to the future of mankind in relation to “economics”?
We are creating AI, and debating how it will come about and how long it will take, but we should all admit this direction and extrapolate our direction in relation to this obvious fact.
First of all we clearly need to stop the madness of such a primitive level of forum use, and move on to something akin to forum 2.0. Without reading the document you should know that forum 2.0 sees multidimensional conversations taking place, even upon multiple layers, with multiple user accounts, and a monetary system with gates. We have this today of course all across the internet, but it cannot be said at all that for example, the average forum is a 2.0 version.
We are missing software implementations of some of the important mechanisms of ancient forums that helped humanity flourish:
In new Roman towns the Forum was usually located at, or just off, the intersection of the main north-south and east-west streets (the Cardo and Decumanus). All forums would have a Temple of Jupiter at the north end, and would also contain other temples, as well as the Basilica; a public weights and measures table, so customers at the market could ensure they were not being sold short measures; and would often have the baths nearby. At election times, candidates would use the steps of the temples in the forum to make their election speeches, and would expect their clients to come to support them.
Arguing and debating subjects in this linear form is to me not only unnecessary but near shameful. We must stop, and add to our standard forums the software versions of the critical parts they have been missing like the market place (and measurement/scales). We are close, but archaic still, and relatively quite behind.
Understanding the History and Future of “Smarter” Contracts
In relation to AI we must understand the importance of smart contracts and their relation to emerging technology. Smart Contracts, in the author’s view, are simply transactions over time. Here we digress to thoughts on the Indus Valley, because there is a script from “seals” from the past that we cannot decipher. What seems obvious, hearing that the Indus Valley mysteriously had no defensive walls, is that this civilization had a technological break through in the form of “smarter contracts”. The significance is there was probably, for one reason or another, a form of decentralization in the area, coupled with the simultaneous explosion of a new system for representing these contracts. (All this possibly relateable to the Kula Ring!)
Probably the complex transactions they centered around were of this type:
The type of transaction that’s most tricky to secure are kind of middle of the road transactions – not billion dollar business deals, not micro payments but the ones where some real value is moving and it’s not worth enough to sue the other side if something goes wrong. If there is enough mining to secure this kind of transaction, then there’s enough for the other kinds too. There should be a lot of these, and there should also be a lot of participants.
So then we should pay careful attention to the implementations of smart contracts in relation to social and technology evolution that we might finally learn about and understand this part of humanities past, and perhaps avert some certain disaster we cannot for see because of our inability to recognize the importance of emerging contract languages.
This brings us to games, which to this author, are complex smart contracts, which is something that might not be so immediately observable on the surface, but the author believes it can be shown quite mathematically. And so the important of games takes on a whole new purpose, as does our economic relation with the “internet”. Games will help us solve complex transaction problems by the evolution of them and our understand of them. We seem to fail to understand the most powerful computer we will ever have access to is the brute force of our markets.
Nash says we fail to view money like a telecommunications. The author adds we fail to realize that money was simply a decentralized transportable ledger.
It seems not many of us can understand the special relation of those two points.
Cliffs: Some people think that forum 2.0 does not solve the block size problem, but the author is convinced it does.