83,357
edits
Bitcoin is Venice: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
''Everything''? Well, according to the authors, bitcoin does the following: | ''Everything''? Well, according to the authors, bitcoin does the following: | ||
* | * Resists and disincentivises violence | ||
* | * Remediates our criminally oppressive, unsustainable and unjust social order | ||
* | * Cures the slow-motion collapse of “[[degenerate fiat capitalism]]” | ||
* | * Prevents markets degenerating into oligopolies | ||
* | * Optimises the transmission and clearing costs of energy generation | ||
* | * Fixes the internet’s fundamental architecture | ||
* Forces long-term over short-term thinking | * Forces long-term over short-term thinking | ||
* | * Obviates regulatory incompetence | ||
This is wishful, to say the least, but Farrington seems to realise this, and offers it up as rhetorical flourish, somewhere between punctuation, irony and gallows humour. | |||
==== Financial services as a paradigm, and critiques from without ==== | ==== Financial services as a paradigm, and critiques from without ==== | ||
{{Drop|L|ike any communal}} activity in which there are things to be gained and lost — i.e., ''any'' communal activity — “[[financial services]]” is what [[Thomas Kuhn]] called a “[[paradigm]]”:<ref>{{Br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} (1962).</ref> a community intellectual structure which develops its own rules, language, hierarchies, defeat devices, articles of faith, and credentialisation process, usually encrusted in so much obscurant flummery that it is impossible for non-initiates to get near it without being swatted away on ground of ''detail'' — insufficient grasp of buried, esoteric intellectual constructs that only the truly learned can understand. And understanding is your ticket to the club. | {{Drop|L|ike any communal}} activity in which there are things to be gained and lost — i.e., ''any'' communal activity — “[[financial services]]” is what [[Thomas Kuhn]] called a “[[paradigm]]”:<ref>{{Br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} (1962).</ref> a community intellectual structure which develops its own rules, language, hierarchies, defeat devices, articles of faith, and credentialisation process, usually encrusted in so much obscurant flummery that it is impossible for non-initiates to get near it without being swatted away on ground of ''detail'' — insufficient grasp of buried, esoteric intellectual constructs that only the truly learned can understand. And understanding is your ticket to the club. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Power structures are in equal parts benign and malign: without ''some'' commitment to the cause — some unconditional trust and faith in the wisdom of elders — no community consensus can take wing in the first place. But once it does, the higher it flies and the more it ''[[scale|scales]]'' — the more entrenched those elders become. The harder it is to assail them; the more there is for those with [[skin in the game]] to ''lose'' — the more ossified and moribund the research programme must become. We see this time and again, with [[Power structure|power structures]] of all kinds, but financial services and law in very specific particular. | Power structures are in equal parts benign and malign: without ''some'' commitment to the cause — some unconditional trust and faith in the wisdom of elders — no community consensus can take wing in the first place. But once it does, the higher it flies and the more it ''[[scale|scales]]'' — the more entrenched those elders become. The harder it is to assail them; the more there is for those with [[skin in the game]] to ''lose'' — the more ossified and moribund the research programme must become. We see this time and again, with [[Power structure|power structures]] of all kinds, but financial services and law in very specific particular. | ||
A common | A common complaint about Kuhn’s [[paradigm]] is its liminal vagueness: where does it start and stop? At what level of abstraction does it operate? How local is it? The best answer is that paradigms are sort of fractal — they operate at ''every'' level of abstraction. Just as an ecosystem is a complex metasystem of interacting subsystems and components so is a market — however you define it — a complex metasystem of inchoate, indeterminate, undescribable subsystems, all of whom interact with and react to each other. It is necessarily non-linear and, literally, ineffable, which is why no supervising power can tame or even predict it, and all those who try eventually fail. | ||
So nebulous, but requiring of education, indoctrination, credentialisation, so that those who enter either get so close to the [[weeds]] as to be quite unable to see beyond them, let alone ''[[inclined]]'' to — those weeds being nourishing as they are, there is little incentive to ''look'' beyond them — or they won’t, in which case they never earn the intellectual credibility needed to be taken seriously by the elders within. | So nebulous, but requiring of education, indoctrination, credentialisation, so that those who enter either get so close to the [[weeds]] as to be quite unable to see beyond them, let alone ''[[inclined]]'' to — those weeds being nourishing as they are, there is little incentive to ''look'' beyond them — or they won’t, in which case they never earn the intellectual credibility needed to be taken seriously by the elders within. | ||