My opinion on all things blockchain is that code should be law, is that not the whole point of decentralisation and making there be no human central authority. @Ctime has absolutely full right to do whatever the code allows him to imo. If it creates issues for the platform then consensus could change the code to make it fairer for everyone or make it better for the platform. If code isn’t law we start making decisions based on opinion. Oh it’s ok if I do ‘x y and z’ but not when someone else does it. Or that offends me so I’m going to silence that person but not someone else who uses the same words but talks about something that offends me less. The beautiful thing about code being the law is it doesn’t have opinions/ preferences or triggers it just is. It treats everyone fairly. Code can be changed to continually improve a platform but it can’t become the thought police. Don’t like that one person can decide who has most control over blurt with money alone... change the code. You can’t just say well ctime has too much money so just for him we will target him and make it so the rules apply to everyone but him. Lol
I love this video @northern-Tracy shared :
On another note I think blurt should have a get together. Would there be any funding for a kind of blurtopia meetup in the country with the most people ? Maybe it’s not popular enough yet but I think we would have a great laugh and encourage the platform to grow.
I disagree.
The person with the most money $$ should control everything.
This is just how the world works.
Also, I will eventually hold a Blurtfest for all the Canadians living here in Canada 🇨🇦….
Hopefully next August.
Haha isn’t blockchain meant to give power to the ppl tho 😅
Not really. It’s all about the money money money.
must be funny, in a rich mans world
Beautiful mate! 👍🏆
That is awesome. I think that is a great idea, and @ultravioletmag idea too. Yes, that is how the world works...the golden rule, he who has the gold makes rules.
Even if Code is the Law… the guy with all the gold can buy the best coders. It’s just the way it works. People need money for food. So everything is controlled by money. I know people like to think it’s something else, but people need to eat. Or they die…. Period.
Sort of but if there are more people that oppose you with some guts they over run all the money in the world look at the cavaliers and the round heads. Monarchy has been kicked out by the people multiple times even now they don’t have any rights here rly.
Funnily enough someone in my distant family was the executioner for Charles I st or something lol
Personal opinions are important and appropriate. It is the diversity of personalities, their own incomparable life stories that are unchangeable in the past, that benefits everyone in the group and that allows conflicts to arise through which everyone can learn something. Opinion and counter-opinion are needed and there can be no unity of opinion, because where there is one, you have a dictate (dictatorship). Groups live on differences of opinion. There is no end to these differences of opinion (attitudes, world views etc.) and therefore never a "now everything is settled." Such things are always only of a temporary nature. The idea of a " now everything is good and equal in the world", is rather a theory or an idea that can only be had because a peace has been established between people for a short time. "One has got along". Until it starts fighting again.
Laws are only ever fair to those who get their damages compensated in court or who don't have to pay a fine even though they have been charged. For everyone else, the law is harsh, expensive and not at all fair.
It is in the nature of human beings to favour others, it is in their nature to treat everyone unequally and not equally. There is no other way. The belief that you can treat all schoolchildren in a class equally, for example, is just as much nonsense as that all adults treat each other equally. One treats everyone as one thinks fit, according to what the other person can or cannot tolerate and according to how much one is in control of oneself.
Philosophers and cyberneticists have cut their teeth on the question of whether morality could be coded.
Morality, ethics, all that can be lived and experienced spontaneously, but if you want to make a law fair for everyone, you won't be able to.
In the past people would be exiled from the community, catch the clue @ctime..
Code , it's the script running the system , and yes it dictates the boundaries of the system . Blurt run's on code , But in no way can you compare it to law like used by courts and judges .
The code can set it's rules on spamming , milking the system and financial abuse . And yes the code could even set rules on political and/or cultural opinions , a step to far crushing free speech under the foot . Let's not go there .
Consensus is law, all else are guidelines.
Nature is bound by law ,.. social society is bound by rules .
Birds can fly and cat's can't , by the law of nature .
The cat can enjoy the bird singing in the tree , or try catch it and eat it ,
by the rules of social construct ( society ) . And rules can be ignored .
It's not law that i have to wait for a red light to turn green before i cross the street .
It's a rule i can ignore , i can use my own judgement on it ,
like a red light and no traffic on the road makes it still save to cross .
People don't make laws ,.. they make rules .
;-)
Look up maxims of laws.
This is a variation on the theme of rule of law.
I agree that rules (in the case of blockchain, that is the code) should be set and obeyed. If the rules are wrong/bad/unjust/etc, then there must be a way to have them changed. If there is no such way, or if the powers that be refuse to change the unjust rules/laws/code, then those rules/laws/code should be peacefully broken (civil disobedience). But good rules should be observed and should apply to everyone equally.
I guess who decides what is bad unjust etc.... I think this is where it is better to have mass consensus to change laws over one person with a lot of money. Which, is where I blame the platform not ctime if he can come in and buy up enough power to change the rules single handedly that’s a fault with the platform not ctime he is doing what it’s totally legally and acceptable to do on the chain imo
That is impossible to regulate. Or ... there would be two possibilities, but then you would have a completely different system (structure/offer of participation) or no system at all.
You can buy tokens (currency). That is so far a matter of fact.
if you couldn't do that, then the whole system of buying, selling, voting etc. wouldn't exist anymore. You wouldn't have a so-called marketplace.
now you could claim that it would be fair to introduce a maximum limit for the purchase of tokens. How do you want to determine this maximum limit?
If you want to find it by consensus, you would probably have a debate on your hands that would immediately bring those on the scene who have so far acquired unlimited tokens or still want to acquire them, or those who affirm the prospect of doing so. They would definitely not agree.
These debates have been going on in many places about whether there should be a cap on income for individuals or even on financial transactions on the stock market. Personally, I can relate to this idea because it's obvious that too much money gives people strange and out of touch ideas, they can really become megalomaniacs. But the megalomania can only exist because others feed it. A rich man would be nothing without his sycophants, hangers-on and power-hungry upstarts.
So if you don't want ctime to do what he wants with his money, then you make yourself independent of him, you no longer pay attention to him, you no longer vote for him, you no longer talk to him.
You don't let yourself be impressed by the fact that he votes for your posts or favours you in any other way. You do the same with anyone who obviously uses their stake to gain power over a group of people.
The problem, though, is that you often can't see the motives crystal clear because the other person doesn't tell you openly or is silent in response to questions. In my eyes, this is probably the best indication that someone is not interested in exchange and debate, but only in being obeyed. The community is not stupid. It sees and hears exactly who is answering questions, who is engaging in the discussion or who is not.
It is impossible to decentralise something that has to do with people and their relationships with each other. Take a family. You have the parents, they have the responsibility for the children. They are the centre, so they are the decision-makers for themselves and the children. Enlarge this group and add grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, who are all neighbours and live together in three houses. Each house is governed centrally because each house has to run its own household, organisationally (finances, tasks of the individuals) and emotionally (relationship level). House 1 cannot govern house 2 if those in house 2 have different water, food and electricity consumption, for example.
Why do you think the witnesses are there? If only one would have a computer running all transactions, then you would have a central bank, for example. It has sovereignty over its loans and customers' accounts (well, theoretically anyway). The witnesses represent numerous nodes that are all networked with each other - peer-to-peer - and make the transactions possible because they run computers that bundle them and pack them into blocks. But this is purely technical data, such as from your wallet and all the buttons (commands) you press that represent a transaction. The immutability of the data stored in this way makes the whole thing secure (an accounting system where you can't change anything, it's called). Because it's done from different computers, no one can say: "I'll change the code", because there are others who have to say yes to that.
But you can't code fairness in terms of ethics, relationships, morality, and especially paradoxes (although some claim such a thing would work. I think it's impossible). Majority voting is not fairness. It is the unfortunate instrument we know and grow up with, creates a lot of frustration for the losers of majority voting (the minorities go down the tubes). I had introduced in several places during the last voting debate the systemic consensus process, which works differently from the majority process. Interested?
Then I'll look for the links again.
I get your points but personally I prefer majority voting over a circle of rich peoples votings because you at least represent the bigger majority. As much as possible tho there should be freedom and lowest control possible of the population for people to make their own decisions. The covid vaccine was sucha. Good example. Some ppl would say that ppl not getting vaccinated were directly harming them and expecting people to possibly harm themselves to possibly not harm someone else lol. Both sides actually felt the others laws harmed each other. In most situations I think both should be allowed to live their free choice and make their own decisions. I guess in situations like not speeding people don’t mind as much as no one can actually get harmed from not speeding. The only possible exception to that is someone speeding to get to a hospital etc which, I think should be let off. A few ambulances have hit pedestrians and caused accidents speeding I doubt they went to jail.
A dining table is a place where the family can sit down and eat. The table itself has no morals or ethics, no worldview and no concept of faith. It is neither fair nor unfair, it is simply a table. In the same way, blockchain technology is simply a technology, it is neither good nor evil, nor does it know any "treatment" of its beings who interact with it. But there is no code that can initiate this treatment. There is only the function of dining table and seats. One can perhaps programme the table at a certain (standardised) height just as one can make the chairs with or without armrests. This is then considered "fair for all" because it conforms to a certain (customary) norm.
Now one could say that it would be fair if the chairs were all painted green or if they were all made of wood. That is then the social thing. Some would shout "Oh my goodness! Green! That's a horrible colour!" And others would say "Wood! Trees have to die for that!" And consider it harmful to the environment. And so on. You could say as a coder: I think green is fair and harmless, after all you can still sit on the chairs, but many people will disagree. So you collect votes and when they agree on green or yellow, it stays that way for a while. Until the whole thing starts all over again and someone has the idea that the chairs could be equipped with a console that connects you to the internet ;-)
Well like you said how the table is ‘coded’ can be made more fair. If it’s done by consensus then it’s more along the lines of oh everyone on the most part would rly like comfy chairs so let’s make everyone’s chairs confide. Bias is well let’s make half the table comfier but let’s not bother with the kids and let’s also not bother with the dad cause he’s too rich to give a comfy chair to and let’s not give one to the uncle cause the uncle swore one time so I don’t like him.
No, I didn't say that. All I said is that there is no fairness for everybody. What is fair for one is unfair for another. Maybe I like the uncle and would find it very inappropriate not to give him a chair. I could say that the uncle has always given me the biggest piece of the schnitzel and because I want him to continue to do so, I choose him to sit in the chair. But that doesn't mean that the others think so too. It's an everlasting argument. That's all I said. :) I am the only one who can be fair, but only to those who directly feel my fairness, but that includes others finding me unfair. I could now try to have the uncle and everyone else sit at the same table. But life teaches me that the others want to decide for themselves with whom they want to sit at the table and with whom they do not. I can never please everyone. The true fair person is the one who renounces any privilege, any preferential treatment, who does not need or want to be liked by anyone. This will make that person poor in money if he does not play by the rules of being liked. Because he is not out to make friends. Such a person might be called a saint. LOL
You do not have to denounce any privilege to be fair, you just have to be willing to not control of wish to control others. You can even dislike them or their choices but choose not to control them or force them to do things you would like. The main thing about fair is the lack of control. I guess a handful of things we can decide are better for society to control like I guess keeping serial killers off the street but other than that there is very little that really needs controlling
True, giving up control is something I also count as fairness. The consequence of giving up control may have to do with giving up privileges. I think it is one of the hardest things in life not to want to take control and we are confronted daily with situations where we can choose to let it go or defend it. It becomes difficult when others want to control you.
Absolutely on of my favourite spiritual texts on twin flames considers this the main issue stopping us from asenscion and heaven on Earth is the need to be in control and we don’t just do it by pushing our energy forwards we also do it by pulling our energy away from people. Very few ppl are in actual balance not controlling through pushing their energy forwards or backwards. Even being aware and consciously trying its very difficult
But if we didn’t use personal opinion and consensus wanted comfier chairs he would get a comfy chair irrespective of if he swore or not. If someone didn’t like the comfier chair they could decline it and keep the basic one
In systemic consensus-building, where it is a matter of the least perceived resistance on certain issues, it is like in life among friends or family, for example. If through consensus it is achieved that one may not get the favourite out of a series of proposals as a result, but just a proposal is adopted that one can live with second or third best, satisfaction is also then possible. Instead of just coming out the loser of an election - the famous "either, or", "yes or no". That is a big difference, I think.
Let's say you choose between the following options according to the two principles, systemic consensus and the majority principle:
The highest resistance is the climbing the glacier wall with a total of 43 resistance points from the whole group. The lowest resistance gets the proposal "mountain hiking" with a total of 30. No one feels here as a loser.
Majority principle in the lower table:
There you choose your favourite according to the majority voting principle. You have to choose one thing, you make an X for your choice. The venture wins, for which the majority decides. In this case here, you even have to vote again because there is a tie-breaker.
Systemic consensus voting works differently (upper table).
You assign your inner resistance to each proposal on a scale of 0-10, independent of the others (where 0 = no resistance to the proposal and 10 = absolute resistance).
The average values in between you assign according to your feeling.
If you look closely at the two tables, I tried to put an X on whichever option of each participant had the least resistance as a favourite, and there were duplications, so it's not entirely accurate. Nevertheless, something completely different comes out of it. That's very interesting, I think.
For chairs you could do the same thing :)
I don't think that ever works. The people basically split into at least two or more camps. Seen in this way, it does not represent the majority vis-à-vis the rich and powerful, because there is never unanimity among the masses (people). Maybe only, when all have the clear impression that they are living under strict draconic dictators.
I see that the same way. Moreover, local groups are more likely and more flexible to respond to current circumstances appropriately to their locality and particularities. No world government.
With a majority vote, where the larger group decides over the smaller group, you don't have fairness for everybody. You can't do that because of the very nature of it. If you're in favour of majority rule, then you're just upset that you weren't on the winning side on Covid. If you were on the winning side, then you needn't really care about the others because you would have had all the law and therefore all the apparatus on your side, hypothetically speaking. Being part of a minority, you have tasted what it feels like to be one.
For the reason that it should have not been decided by parliament and this issue should never have been on the agenda. That is the real scandal, I think.
But as soon as something is formulated by law and then voted on, there is no justice for all. That's what I was trying to say. As long as we call for laws, we will (unfortunately) be heard. One should be very careful with all manifestos and drafts that "apply to everyone", because they simply cannot do justice to everyone.
So, no code can create fairness.
I'll try an example in the next comment.
I agree that code is law. If a user is permitted to take any action by the code of the platform then that user can and will.
I would.
It is the way of things. 👍
Very recently Hive organised HiveFest if you're not aware of it. As far as I know, at least 30% devs are from India. If Blurt plans to organise a meet up, I would recommend India 🎉
Hahaha I didn’t feel drawn to hive fest even when I was on hive and Steemit it just always seems dull as dishwater to me. Even less likely to go now 🤣 I would prefer something actually fun and less nerdy like rather than boring talks all day the content creators having their art work in a gallery, the djs spinning the decks for a party etc and a drinks sponsor. devs don’t make a meetup it’s more where the actual users are from who will make the meetup not a handful of devs boring everyone to death about tech all night.. no offence haha I’m sure some ppl love those kinds of things but I think lots of ppl just want to socialise and have a good time and maybe sell some of their work or blurt T shirts etc
here's the real problem that in my opinion is blocking Blurt's development and is scary for investors
https://blurtlatam.com/blurt/@mariuszkarowski/riziy2
@world-travel-pro / @megadrive would like to hear your sides to this comment by Marius.
@megadrive adressed this several times in the past. Printing and controlling 10% of total blurt in circulation is totaly normal or even "light" in the blockchain industry. It allows them to get the project offf the ground, as they do major work (time and effort) and investment, without someone else swooping in to buy the blockchain with a controlling stake basicallg taking over and taking advantage of all that free start up work. It allows the the core team to have contoll during the start up years to foster growth in their image, and not be taken over for pennies on the dollar. It ensures they dont create something with big time money and expense, and then it gets taken over right out of the gate. Blurt was created by @megadrive and company first and formost for @megadrive and company, 2nd everyone else logically speaking. So for them to NOT to give themselves at least 10% stake, they may as well been employees of ctime and MK, from day one, which is obviosly a wet dream for said parties. Again this is so normal in the industry mk even states that it was done with bitcoin...the original blockchain. As far as legal ramifications, everyone speaks like the US goverment law encompassed the entire planet....blockchain in general is untouchable....how many times now did China ban crytpo? @megadrive can add a lot here, in terms of why 10% of blurt was printed and put into the founders controll, but he already explained more than once that I alone can just recall and it made plenty of sense to me. But if @megadrive wants to leave some quick bullet points below to again explain the need and resononing behind the printed stake he is more than welcome to do so.
Im sure im officially on the ctime and mk shitlist now, not because of who I am personally, but my opinions just no longer line up perfectly with theirs and that clearly means that Im of no use to them anymore and most likely a sellout mega bitch piece of shit in their view, which is totally fine. Nor do I want to take a "war" posture that they have so enthusiastically embraced for so long. It really is a shame that our top investors are glass half empty kind of thinkers, who have helped sew intense devision between themselves and the founders. A real quagmire to say the least. But it will be worked out or worked around one way or another, that I can guarantee....the average user has nothing to worry about in that regard.
Yeah I juSt wasn’t sure if there were any legal ramifications. I’m not an expert there when I was working for a blockchain company in 2017 they were always rly nervous about regulations to the point even me just being a worker got told by a few people to be rly careful of anything you say etc. It’s defo not outside of the law if they want to swoop in. Obviously they don’t in most cases but I guess ripple took one for the team.
It is out of my expertise. But based off what I know and heard I just thought I d share my opinions on the matter. Im not gonna sit around and worry about legal stuff. Blurt is just one of over 1,000 blockchains and cryptos. I honestly have faith that @megadrive @rycharde @saboin and some others have a great deal of knoweledge and expertise to avoid any legal landmines. After following the witness chat, did you know megadrive was one of the original developers working on steemit? I mean he s like orignal graphine blockchain expert, he knows all the little details that most never even knew existed. Heck he even coded the original delegation feature that was added to steemit back in 2016/17.
He s like the real deal expert on this blockchain stuff on a level many here have no clue about. Having followed his demonstration of expert knowlege in the witness chat for over a month now, he alone has been a huge confidence builder for me. In plain English...he really knows his shit. He just needs some help running this place from the social media/PR side.
Hi I just want to clarify, I am not a developer and didn’t work for Steemit, I was an early adopter of Steem since June 2016 before it went live on 4th July, as top20 witness I had however been on the inside Steem slack channels with direct communication to the Steemit devs and Ned and Dan.
I launched several projects on Steem and provided ideas, like for example I invented (but didn’t code) the concept of delegation upon discussion with Steemit dev Jamesc.
Ugh, so you're the one who let the genie out of the bottle! ;)
What are your thoughts on hive forking out Justin Sun?
Yeah sorry man, I rubbed the lamp. I would say you can't fork his stake out on Steem otherwise you are stealing his funds on the native chain, you can do with a fork of Steem no problem and leave him out, infact it was already done, it's called Blurt, the Steem community should just sell their Steem and come here.
Thanks @megadrive....that is what I meant to say...hahaha sorry for not explaining it correctly. But you are a true expert in this field.
Code is not law. What society deems respectable is law.
Not really true in the real world it’s what one person or group in charge deem to be law and that changes around the world. At best you could say at any one time the leader represents about 60 percent of what society wants but they only get two vote choices most of the time so may not like either much. Law is definitely not what society deems respectable though. Law is set by a small handful of rich officials. I’m sure most ppl don’t want to pay huge energy bills or people without kids don’t want to pay for schools or Christians don’t want to pay for mosques etc the government is supposed to act in ones best interest but it mostly doesn’t, did we all want to pay billions for a track and trace system that most people probably didn’t want, does China and Russia in the most part want to have no free speech and not be able to express their opinion on social media... probably not.
Blockchain was supposed to be different in that it actually took the opinion of the majority etc and made that law through code so it couldn’t bring in personal opinion. Even vitalik gets that cause he gave his opinion on the Ukraine war but said ethereum has no opinions... Ie ethereum can be used by any side. If we equate it to punishment for a crime it would put everyone who committed the same crime in the same punishment after looking at the distinguishing factors. Right now no one rich has ever got the death penalty, it’s heavily stacked against black people too when it comes to death penalty. This is an example of how the law can be sort of bent a little on specific situations and is not really fair just because one person can afford a much better lawyer than the next man.
Actually Blockchain could make it so the law is what society deems acceptable, people will never do that cause they have opinions, triggers, personally favour people, have fears etc. A blockchain set with certain parameters that are most in line with the majority of people is probably the fairest system and the only way you could uphold mass opinion.
Most law is debated at length and not simply "set by a handful of officials, rich or meager", but by the representatives who are beholden to their constituency. So yes, law is society's consensus, which is predicated on whatever the society deems respectable, even the rich officials are operating from society and by society.
I am fully your opinion... Still, it isn't getting him anywhere, because there are also other people here on the blockchain. At this point at the latest, you have to start cooperating and looking for friends...
Every code has an end. This is the place, where humans begin...
Estranged, Guns N' Roses
Code is guidelines. Law is consensus. Ethereum hack proved that, in spite of code, the consensus forked and reduced ETC to a vermin haven, all real value went to consensus.
Steem also proved again that Consensus is law, when the largest stake was DELETED from the fork, and where all real value went to as well.
This will only continue to be demonstrated.