A Cypherpunk Disagreement That Lives On \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

1953 sats \ 17 comments \ @siggy47 15h Politics_And_Law

I first discovered this exchange between Tim May and Hal Finney when it was mentioned in The Genesis Book by Aaron Van Wirdum.

https://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1994/08/msg00239.html

Tim May is solman

solman @MIT.EDU writes:

In cyberspace, the default condition is that there is no interaction. Communication requires agreement by both parties. During this agreement, the laws (contracts, whatever) that the two parties follow can be communicated by each party to the other, and if party A does not feel that party B's laws provide him with enough protection from B, he can refuse contact until B agrees at least for the duration of the communication) to more constraining laws. The cost of such a transaction will likely be negligible in cyberspace.

Finney's reply:

The problem I have with this is that there is no such place as cyberspace. I am not in cyberspace now; I am in California. I am governed by the laws of California and the United States even though I am communicating with another person, whether by postal mail or electronic mail, by telephone or TCP/IP connection. What does it mean to speak of a govern- ment in cyberspace? It is the government in physical space I fear. Its agents carry physical guns which shoot real bullets. Until I am able to live in my computer and eat electrons, I don't see the relevance of cyberspace.

Hal

When I was a kid I remember watching those old Kung Fu comedy movies. There was always a scene where the Kung Fu master is fighting with his adversary. The expert makes slow, graceful moves, accompanied by high pitched sounds we all loved to imitate. Then, the less athletic other guy pulls out a gun and shoots him dead.

Many old school martial arts guys suffered this same fate in real life when MMA fighting began. Theory took a back seat to real world violence.

The discussion between May and Finney is still relevant. Most recently this post and its discussion reminded me of the tension:

#873682

My question is this:

Will hyperbitcoinization end this argument?

view all related items

62 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheMorningStar 2h

Until I am able to live in my computer and eat electrons, I don't see the relevance of cyberspace.

This is a myth breaker.

201 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined 15h

Theory took a back seat to real world violence.

That's a great line and we have to stay cognizant of it.

This is why I really think we have to embrace Hoppe's description of non-peaceful people (anyone willing to initiate violence to resolve a dispute) as a technical problem. Our systems have to be just as robust to them as they are to floods, fires, power outages, etc.

95 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 11h

edit: oh, wanted to reply to #873693 actually

69 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 13h

Exactly.

My favorite response to people complaining about "corporate greed" as an explanation of our problems is, "when have corporations not been greedy?"

Good policy revolves around recognizing the incentives that exist and working around them, not wishful thinking about what incentives people actually do or don't have.

71 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 13h

My favorite response is "Blaming greed is like blaming gravity for plane crashes."

79 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 13h

I might steal that line in the context of climate change... coz I'm sick of people blaming climate change for natural disasters as if it absolves anyone of the responsibility to prepare.

71 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 13h

Good luck

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 11h

I'm sick of climate change deniers blaming initiatives to limit its severity for short term economic malaise, when they ignore the longer term consequences of not recognising, addressing, preparing and mitigating our contributions to climate change.

They are seeking to ignore scientific consensus for short term economic advantage at the longer term and much greater cost of future generations. They are seeking to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own actions which market forces will not address and which only regulation and collective action can.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 11h

Will hyperbitcoinization end this argument?

No. It's simple because Bitcoin doesn't replace guns.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @Butterfinger 11h

With hiperbitcoinization there will probably be tiny wars between families and whale hodlers, so people may get super paranoid about privacy and security. But as bitcoin is pure laissez-faire, the free market will offer great solutions for those problems.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 11h

Contracts and cooperation between people is fundamental to human nature and economic activity. Combined with communication which enables them it is what drives progress and the economy. Governments provide the rule of law, power projection and self proclaimed monopoly on use of force which enforces these contracts and protocols. Hyperbitcoinisation might (or might not) reduce the power of governments and financial intermediaries but unless or until we can eat elections it cannot eliminate the crucial role of governments in determining the wealth and security of nations and their citizens.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 13h

I'm not sure I follow the contours of the argument. Are they arguing about the relevance of governance in "cyberspace"?

I think I'm in both camps. Any so-called governance in cyberspace will be backed up at the point of a gun in meatspace. Thus, all cyberspace laws will be subsidiaries of meatspace laws. That doesn't mean we won't have governance in cyberspace.

130 sats \ 0 replies \ @fiatbad 14h

This reminds me of when people talk about tokenizing real estate (or other physical property) on a block chain. Or those idiots who talk about "gold backed cryptocurrencies". It sounds feasible at first.... it sounds more efficient and more decentralized. Until you realize the obvious truth....

... physical property always requires a centralized physical institution with a monopoly on violence. Without the U.S.'s military to enforce property rights, Russia would just come take your house and they wouldn't give a shit whether it's on a blockchain or not. Which means, they'll continue using their centralized databases to maintain "ownership" because they are cheaper and easier than a decentralized token.

55 sats \ 2 replies \ @Aardvark 15h

I would love if hyperbitcoinization ended this argument, but I suspect that the cycle will continue. Fiat collapses. Government adopts bitcoin standard. Government prints paper backed by bitcoin. Banks use fractional reserve with bitcoin as the reserve. Government leaves the bitcoin standard to print more of the the new paper. New paper collapses.

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @Artilektt 13h

True, the thing that could keep this in check compared to the past though is the ease of assaying and proving availability of bitcoin reserves. Not at all as easy to do with gold or other backings.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 11h

The ability to print the global reserve currency currently derives from the US control over the MoE used for most global trade- SWIFT. China is already using alternative MoE for trade payments outside of any US controlled institutional oversight and control. It is the enabling of global trade that SWIFT once had hegemony over, but is losing, that gave the US the ability to print money at a rate roughly equal to growth in global GDP.

Historically and empirically monetary hegemony rests upon trade domination- and today China already enjoys that. The transition to Chinese monetary hegemony has begun and is unlikely to use Bitcoin for backing. Bitcoin based money might, at best, be a refuge for otherwise stranded capital still circulating outside the ever growing Chinese hegemony.

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 15h

Haha this reminded me of indiana jones movie. Raiders of the lost ark? He just shoots a guy instead of fighting with him.