Comments on: The Revolution will (not) be decentralised: Blockchains

By: Keith

Keith — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:33:10 +0000

Imogen Heap has suggested the blockchain for a global music database, Mycelia, that would connect artists with fans, cutting out the middle men (unless they added value). Within the blockchain would be held the music (it could be extended to any digital art form eg e-books), album cover, liner notes, any associated material (eg this article on blockchain for the global commons). She has released Tiny Human, as an experiment to explore this idea.

By: Cameron Gray

Cameron Gray — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 19:30:22 +0000

I think the blockchain with aid from other technology can do this. There’s a startup city in latin america that is building it’s entire communications and legal structure in a decentralized manner, reprogramming society from the bottom up, only time will tell if it works, until then, I am optimistic

By: Kim

Kim — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 18:25:47 +0000

I’m glad you raise the question of what kind of political subject is inscribed into blockchain technology (it’s often claimed to be “politically neutral”). I hear a lot about how revolutionary blockchain tech will be in freeing individuals from the tyranny of the state and central banks, but the questions that remain unanswered in my opinion are: 1) What will decentralization mean for the welfare state and income distribution? 2) Will it really fundamentally change capitalist property relations (and the social inequality this presumes)? 3) Can it help to reduce labor exploitation? (especially in developing countries).

By: Rachel O'Dwyer

Rachel O'Dwyer — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 10:01:16 +0000

I don’t think that the blockchain makes questions of subjectivity obsolete. I also wouldn’t go so far as to say that the blockchain is a new criterion of reality or source of ontological decision that trumps human systems (although it’s a really interesting discussion!). But I do think that a trustless architecture presumes and reproduces a neoliberal subject. By that I mean that it starts from the presumption that we are all individual competitive agents and builds from there. And if we’re speaking about the blockchain as a tool for commons-based peer production, I personally think this is problematic.

By: Cameron Gray

Cameron Gray — Fri, 27 Mar 2015 20:31:36 +0000

I don’t think blockchain enthusiasts think code is going to obsolete subjectivity, human arbitrators and wrestling of terms will fill in the gaps.

By: Bob Haugen

Bob Haugen — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:19:33 +0000

The bitcoin blockchain is a re-centralization tool (just re-centralizing in different hands): http://cryptomining-blog.com/680-list-of-the-largest-bitcoin-mining-pools/

Or, for example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/19/why-dark-web-drug-markets-will-keep-on-imploding/

The people who are working on Ethereum have been aware of this problem, but I am not sure they have solved it yet. I am glad that people are exploring alternatives.

By: Rachel O'Dwyer

Rachel O'Dwyer — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 20:06:39 +0000

Hi Darren, thanks for the update – they presented at a Bitcoin & Finance conference in the autumn at a time when they were still using the blockchain https://forum.safenetwork.io/t/maidsafecoins-dependence-on-the-bitcoin-blockchain/1466
I wasn’t aware of the shift to a new consensus system, but would like to learn more about it!

By: Darren

Darren — Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:29:35 +0000

I noticed you say Maidsafe uses the blockchain but they aren’t using the blockchain at all: check here: http://blog.maidsafe.net/2015/01/29/consensus-without-a-blockchain/