Oct 9, 2022Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
If the goal is to "decentralize everything", then I think we should apply this principle to the resistance as well. Centralized political movements are easy to crush. But millions of people fighting back everyday *through lifestyle choices* presents a much tougher opponent for the state.
This is not to say that things can't eventually evolve into what you've outlined here. But that's far in the future, and I worry that we're putting the cart before the horse. Our immediate priority should be to fix ourselves and try to influence people close to us. If millions of people did this, then this would be a very different war.
I really like your way of thinking. This problem has bothered me too. But I have thought it through for maybe thousands of hours now. I believe we make a decentralized platform that the people control, then plug that in to the existing centralized system that they control. You are right, centralized political movements are easy to crush. And they are the ones currently vulnerable to that. They are the most centralized entity this earth has ever known, even if those truly in power hide in the shadows. It is still top down.
A transparency movement would no doubt be decentralized.
But in the mean time you end up with a hybrid system. A decentralized unit plugged into a centralized government. Like computer virus it will take over if done right.
I understand, and I want it to succeed. I'm just concerned with Step 1. Once we get going and have some momentum, the sky's the limit. The hard part is starting. People need a simple plan that they can begin implementing *today*. Otherwise, they won't do it. This is what I spend all my time thinking about.
Oct 9, 2022Liked by The Society of Problem Solvers
What then can we do, using blockchain etc? Join the working group at thinking slow? Any other ideas for anyone to share? We have many eager people, but we should work together as much as possible, yes?
Hi Sandra, please go through the transcript above. There are extra links provided that do some explaining in our previous articles. And there are many more too.
In summary, we need tech people to start a decentralized group and start working on this new open sourced governing platform that we use the same way body cams are used for policing, but for politicians.
We shackle them with digital shock collars. They won’t like that so we then nominate people who we trust to voluntarily use the tech and enter government positions to shine a spotlight on the corruption for all of us to see, then write laws to fix it.
I have offered to be involved, I am very skeptical of your claims but I would think you want people that understand the technical pitfalls and how to avoid them.
The blockchain is not a panacea for transparency. yes the ledger is mathematically immutable but sharing that ledger publicly is hackable. It is just as insecure as any other internet based technology.
How do you know when you access a public shared ledger that it is genuine ? Does the solution for providing trust in the ledger depend on multiple layers of the TCP stack ? Does it depend on public security certificates and public security infrastructure ?
If the answers to any of those questions is yes then it is not secure, it is particularly not secure from government. The government hates competition and will use any law, policy or strategy to eliminate its competition.
Do you honestly believe the government is not going to spoof the crypto world ?
Do you think that when CBDCs hit the market that all other coins will just be left alone ?
When the CBDCs are released the quiet war against existing coins will be ramped up. The US government could spoof the location of a public ledger causing transactions to go missing from that ledger, then when people start talking about it they point to the insecurity of private coins. There are myriad ways to destroy the crypto market and the groundwork has already been laid by the NSA, CIA,DOJ and the Treasury not to mention the fed.
Pinning all of your hopes on crypto as the technology enabling the escape path is foolish.
Are you only referring to old crypto technology? It’s not crypto that it is being pinned to. It’s a constantly evolving system that we build together, test together, and red team together to constantly make it impervious to corruption.
To think we couldn’t have a better system is about as nihilistic as my viewpoint is optimistic. Frankly it just sounds lazy.
We run a decentralized system to get control of their centralized one. Once we have control of their centralized one they won’t have the power to do all of the things you mentioned.
You seem to incorrectly think the problem is the government. It’s not. The problem is the corruption in government and the people who are controlling it as a result. End the corruption and we end the problem.
Also, we don’t need just one system. Each town, each district, each area can come up with their own systems to force transparency in government. And we can keep comparing notes and exchanging ideas until we find the ones that stop corruption the best.
it should be clear that I am not coming at this from a philosophical perspective, I don't care how you feel about it for that matter how I feel about it. I am speaking to the plans you have promoted from a network engineering perspective. I care enough about something like this that I am willing to try to help you resolve the technical security challenges but when I point out those weaknesses you get all defensive. yeah I am not a fan of the current architecture and I can tell you that the broad language used to discuss it doesn't alleviate my fears.
I would like to see a system fix our national corruption problem, the problem as I see it is that you want more government not less. There isn't a single government in the history of humanity that has not become corrupt. Government is the very embodiment of corruption. The USA was founded on the idea of distributed governments not a centralized federal state. I think its because the founders knew any federal centralized government would immediately become corrupt.
You are suggesting a solution to a systemic problem with localized fixes that depend upon the ethical and moral strength of humans, not really a solid foundation. Instead of treating the root of the tree of corruption which is the federal government you want to play with the leaves which are the politicians.
The nations corruption stems from a lack of enforceable laws that control politicians. You want them to voluntarily adopt a technology to reign in their power and control their behavior by surveillance and monitoring. This is a weak solution because it depends on those politicians to be honest with the people.
If we could trust politicians to be honest we wouldn't be in this mess.
As the ways to corrupt a system evolves, the ways to defend it must also evolve. But rather than evolve, ours has regressed. Applying that reason shouldn’t result in us throwing our hands up saying: ‘it’s impossible!’
If the goal is to "decentralize everything", then I think we should apply this principle to the resistance as well. Centralized political movements are easy to crush. But millions of people fighting back everyday *through lifestyle choices* presents a much tougher opponent for the state.
This is not to say that things can't eventually evolve into what you've outlined here. But that's far in the future, and I worry that we're putting the cart before the horse. Our immediate priority should be to fix ourselves and try to influence people close to us. If millions of people did this, then this would be a very different war.
I really like your way of thinking. This problem has bothered me too. But I have thought it through for maybe thousands of hours now. I believe we make a decentralized platform that the people control, then plug that in to the existing centralized system that they control. You are right, centralized political movements are easy to crush. And they are the ones currently vulnerable to that. They are the most centralized entity this earth has ever known, even if those truly in power hide in the shadows. It is still top down.
A transparency movement would no doubt be decentralized.
But in the mean time you end up with a hybrid system. A decentralized unit plugged into a centralized government. Like computer virus it will take over if done right.
Here is more on the transparency movement
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/what-we-need-is-a-transparency-movement
I understand, and I want it to succeed. I'm just concerned with Step 1. Once we get going and have some momentum, the sky's the limit. The hard part is starting. People need a simple plan that they can begin implementing *today*. Otherwise, they won't do it. This is what I spend all my time thinking about.
So what can the average 64 year old woman do other than live her life accordingly?
Be vocal. Be intellectually brave. Contribute any way you can.
Trying...
What then can we do, using blockchain etc? Join the working group at thinking slow? Any other ideas for anyone to share? We have many eager people, but we should work together as much as possible, yes?
Hi Sandra, please go through the transcript above. There are extra links provided that do some explaining in our previous articles. And there are many more too.
In summary, we need tech people to start a decentralized group and start working on this new open sourced governing platform that we use the same way body cams are used for policing, but for politicians.
We shackle them with digital shock collars. They won’t like that so we then nominate people who we trust to voluntarily use the tech and enter government positions to shine a spotlight on the corruption for all of us to see, then write laws to fix it.
I have offered to be involved, I am very skeptical of your claims but I would think you want people that understand the technical pitfalls and how to avoid them.
The blockchain is not a panacea for transparency. yes the ledger is mathematically immutable but sharing that ledger publicly is hackable. It is just as insecure as any other internet based technology.
How do you know when you access a public shared ledger that it is genuine ? Does the solution for providing trust in the ledger depend on multiple layers of the TCP stack ? Does it depend on public security certificates and public security infrastructure ?
If the answers to any of those questions is yes then it is not secure, it is particularly not secure from government. The government hates competition and will use any law, policy or strategy to eliminate its competition.
Do you honestly believe the government is not going to spoof the crypto world ?
Do you think that when CBDCs hit the market that all other coins will just be left alone ?
When the CBDCs are released the quiet war against existing coins will be ramped up. The US government could spoof the location of a public ledger causing transactions to go missing from that ledger, then when people start talking about it they point to the insecurity of private coins. There are myriad ways to destroy the crypto market and the groundwork has already been laid by the NSA, CIA,DOJ and the Treasury not to mention the fed.
Pinning all of your hopes on crypto as the technology enabling the escape path is foolish.
Are you only referring to old crypto technology? It’s not crypto that it is being pinned to. It’s a constantly evolving system that we build together, test together, and red team together to constantly make it impervious to corruption.
To think we couldn’t have a better system is about as nihilistic as my viewpoint is optimistic. Frankly it just sounds lazy.
We run a decentralized system to get control of their centralized one. Once we have control of their centralized one they won’t have the power to do all of the things you mentioned.
You seem to incorrectly think the problem is the government. It’s not. The problem is the corruption in government and the people who are controlling it as a result. End the corruption and we end the problem.
Also, we don’t need just one system. Each town, each district, each area can come up with their own systems to force transparency in government. And we can keep comparing notes and exchanging ideas until we find the ones that stop corruption the best.
it should be clear that I am not coming at this from a philosophical perspective, I don't care how you feel about it for that matter how I feel about it. I am speaking to the plans you have promoted from a network engineering perspective. I care enough about something like this that I am willing to try to help you resolve the technical security challenges but when I point out those weaknesses you get all defensive. yeah I am not a fan of the current architecture and I can tell you that the broad language used to discuss it doesn't alleviate my fears.
I would like to see a system fix our national corruption problem, the problem as I see it is that you want more government not less. There isn't a single government in the history of humanity that has not become corrupt. Government is the very embodiment of corruption. The USA was founded on the idea of distributed governments not a centralized federal state. I think its because the founders knew any federal centralized government would immediately become corrupt.
You are suggesting a solution to a systemic problem with localized fixes that depend upon the ethical and moral strength of humans, not really a solid foundation. Instead of treating the root of the tree of corruption which is the federal government you want to play with the leaves which are the politicians.
The nations corruption stems from a lack of enforceable laws that control politicians. You want them to voluntarily adopt a technology to reign in their power and control their behavior by surveillance and monitoring. This is a weak solution because it depends on those politicians to be honest with the people.
If we could trust politicians to be honest we wouldn't be in this mess.
@ notBob
I suspect the application of reason is a pertinent part of rationality, thanks 😊 not Bob.
As Usual,
Thom (notEA)
As the ways to corrupt a system evolves, the ways to defend it must also evolve. But rather than evolve, ours has regressed. Applying that reason shouldn’t result in us throwing our hands up saying: ‘it’s impossible!’
Because it’s not.