So, next time you're thinking there is something like "decentralization" going on, remember: a small group of developers have the power to come together and change the thing. So, in other words, it is CENTRALIZED.
Yes, I know the argument of how changes and commits have to go through a rigorous process and all have to concur. But these are still humans living in a human world. As any software developer knows, there are always hidden bugs and there are always unknown effects when changing code. But that is not really the problem.
Anything created by humans is subject to a wider set of circumstances: call it the Human World.
In this world, almost every institution great or small is vulnerable to the threat of violence. Human institutions have evolved a variety of ways of dealing with these. Illiberal societies or organizations haven't a problem with sacrificing human beings to sustain their operation. The operation is paramount, not the humans.
As time goes on for any institution, large amounts of money and/or great wealth become more of a target and even a means to power. This then attracts those who are motivated to try to obtain or use these for their own purposes. One reason the western liberal democratic order and the financial system that underpins it has been so successful is it has been the means by which the world has been able to progress and massively raise standards of living and quality of life for giant masses of people. This has been premised on a set of principles and intended outcomes. This has occasionally functioned somewhat unevenly but has nevertheless succeeded so fabulously and survived is because of the corrective aspect of the principles: democratic government and a respect for and acknowledgement of human rights.
On the other hand, you have crypto and its attendant belief system. It presumes to make things better by taking away any notion of human governance. The execution of a transaction or a function in code is prized for having no other decision or context. Its virtue is its entire presumed absence of human intervention. Hence, any use of it is permitted. Good, bad, indifferent. Ultimately, since it is a value store, the beneficiaries are those who have the most. So, at a minimum, it does make a judgment of who the greatest beneficiaries are. Regardless of their ethical character.
The extreme case of this assumed pure neutrality is one I always posit as a test. The folks who are permitted to change and commit code are very essential and have absolute power as a group to determine what happens. So, what should happen if any of the following occur:
1. Some or all are captured and threatened with execution if they don't make code changes that would enrich the kidnappers by making changes that enable that?
2. What if just one of developers' mothers or sisters or parents or children were kidnapped and threatened with execution and asked to effect a similar changes as the one above? What would/should the others do?
Yes, I can probably hear the chortling and scoffing. But, as anyone who has paid attention to the behavior of individual humans and national and extra-national collections of these over the course of history, might well want to think about this. If not now, when?
It's good to know that even though we don't understand it, Bitcoin is evolving and improving. Looking forward to see all the new applications that will come from this update.
So, next time you're thinking there is something like "decentralization" going on, remember: a small group of developers have the power to come together and change the thing. So, in other words, it is CENTRALIZED.
Yes, I know the argument of how changes and commits have to go through a rigorous process and all have to concur. But these are still humans living in a human world. As any software developer knows, there are always hidden bugs and there are always unknown effects when changing code. But that is not really the problem.
Anything created by humans is subject to a wider set of circumstances: call it the Human World.
In this world, almost every institution great or small is vulnerable to the threat of violence. Human institutions have evolved a variety of ways of dealing with these. Illiberal societies or organizations haven't a problem with sacrificing human beings to sustain their operation. The operation is paramount, not the humans.
As time goes on for any institution, large amounts of money and/or great wealth become more of a target and even a means to power. This then attracts those who are motivated to try to obtain or use these for their own purposes. One reason the western liberal democratic order and the financial system that underpins it has been so successful is it has been the means by which the world has been able to progress and massively raise standards of living and quality of life for giant masses of people. This has been premised on a set of principles and intended outcomes. This has occasionally functioned somewhat unevenly but has nevertheless succeeded so fabulously and survived is because of the corrective aspect of the principles: democratic government and a respect for and acknowledgement of human rights.
On the other hand, you have crypto and its attendant belief system. It presumes to make things better by taking away any notion of human governance. The execution of a transaction or a function in code is prized for having no other decision or context. Its virtue is its entire presumed absence of human intervention. Hence, any use of it is permitted. Good, bad, indifferent. Ultimately, since it is a value store, the beneficiaries are those who have the most. So, at a minimum, it does make a judgment of who the greatest beneficiaries are. Regardless of their ethical character.
The extreme case of this assumed pure neutrality is one I always posit as a test. The folks who are permitted to change and commit code are very essential and have absolute power as a group to determine what happens. So, what should happen if any of the following occur:
1. Some or all are captured and threatened with execution if they don't make code changes that would enrich the kidnappers by making changes that enable that?
2. What if just one of developers' mothers or sisters or parents or children were kidnapped and threatened with execution and asked to effect a similar changes as the one above? What would/should the others do?
Yes, I can probably hear the chortling and scoffing. But, as anyone who has paid attention to the behavior of individual humans and national and extra-national collections of these over the course of history, might well want to think about this. If not now, when?
It's good to know that even though we don't understand it, Bitcoin is evolving and improving. Looking forward to see all the new applications that will come from this update.