UraniumBlazer

joined 2 years ago
[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

You said you could democratically manage git, hence bypassing blockchains. Democracy means elections (unless you mean some exotic form of democracy like Athenian democracy). But elections need to be conducted.

I said you would need a central authority (like an election commission) to conduct elections. You said that there was no need for that. So I asked for your method of conducting elections.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hehe yea spring onion is magical. Uk, if u like a lot of spring onion, u could mix it and then serve nicely, no? I dunno, for me the visual aspect is also very important when I eat.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So who conducts elections then?

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Funnier than the 10 year old girls locked up in my basement for sure. They truly have no sense of humor.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

I like my women like I like pussy. I don't.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah I guess u'r right. Fractional lending rn is very important for monetary policy. And monetary policy is VERY IMPORTANT. But I could see a completely digital currency having good monetary policies without interest rates and fractional reserves. Perhaps, a simple gas fee increase/decrease could work. I dunno, I'm too tired rn lol

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Tasty though.

Ooo I bet it must be tasty!!! Uggh I was already hungry, now I'm even hungrier lmao

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

The integrity of blockchains isn't immune from malicious activity. It is just way way harder to be manipulated. No blockchain means 1 server needs to be manipulated. Blockchain means more than 1 servers need to be manipulated.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

How so? AI is not smarter than people.

Even when it becomes smarter than humans in the future, I would still oppose this idea. We humans have seemingly benevolent leaders who become malevolent. At least we can replace them as they are around as smart as us. A malevolent creature that is waaay smarter than us that rules over us? No thanks.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well technically you could also have crypto banks which pull the same shit. The advantage of blockchains is better security and integrity.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I'm not entirely sure what your getting at here, but git can be run as democratically as a crypto currency where the canonical version of the project is the one with the longest chain.

Which means elections. Which means a dude/committee in charge of a server. See the problem?

I'll believe it when I see a real implementation. I think the problem is anonymity, I don't see how we can set a system up such that the results are auditable but also impossible for anyone to tie a specific vote to a specific person.

This is a very very interesting topic that I've spent a rlly long time thinking about. I wish I had more energy to go in depth for this. The gist is this:

There will be a tradeoff between anonymity and "vote buying".

You can have absolute anonymity by implementing a monero like blockchain. Each registered voter address gets one token. The thing that you can cast a vote for is also an address. The voter sends this token to an unknown address (that theoretically belongs to the voter themselves). Then, the voter votes from this address. This way, absolute anonymity is maintained as noone knows who sent the token to the address in the middle. BUT. I could buy votes like this too. I could bribe a voter to send their token to the middle address, which I control.

To prevent voter buying, you can have an open blockchain where all transactions are visible to everyone. However, you get pseudo anonymity here. Every registered voter address gets one token like above. No one except for the election commission knows which address belongs to whom. So while the election commission cannot manipulate votes, it can leak who voted for whom.

Now that being said, normal elections aren't as theoretically anonymous as well. For ballots, your name is on the envelope. A compromised election commission could leak this info as well. For EVMs, one line of code could leak who you are. The person granting you entry can note down your information. The EVM can ping this person as to which vote was cast while you were in there.

Hence, in my opinion, the second option of the open blockchain is the best one provided that the election commission is under strict regulation (which it generally is in any case).

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Agreed completely. Usage of AI is a political issue. The tech can be used both for the good and bad. However, just because it can be used for the bad doesn't make the tech bad.

Development in nuclear science made a bomb that could end civilisation. It also gave us a pathway to solve climate change. How we use the tech should be an issue. The tech itself shouldn't be.

view more: ‹ prev next ›