I'll revisit the cyberspace/meatspace/finspace distinction in 21 Ways. (Work in progress...)

https://21-ways.com/

Your Texts are mindblowing⚡

#[1]​

Hi Gigi,

in your article you mention following:

“While Bitcoin has various self-regulatory mechanisms to react to the environment […]”.

Which self-regulation mechanisms are you referring to except the “difficulty adjustment” mechanism?

Also, could you go deeply into following statement:

“Living things have an interest in staying alive, and the Bitcoin organism is no exception. Bitcoin found an ingenious way to ensure that it stays alive: it pays people, as Ralph Merkle pointed out. People — and increasingly, organizations — are incentivized to keep it alive. They shape the physical world to Bitcoin’s liking, feed it energy, renew its hardware, and update its software to keep it alive.”

This is not always true. Cancer, for example, is a phenomenon, in which the units (cells) of the “living organism” pursuing its own interest and not been able to be neutralized by other units of the organism threat the existence of the “whole organism” driving it into death i.e. into a state in which the organism can not function as a whole anymore.

And this statement assumes all the Bitcoin participants acts proactive for the Bitcoin’s well-being; which in reality is not true. It is evident that some (maybe an increasing group) of Bitcoin’s participants are acting for their own benefits regardless the benefits for the Bitcoin (with upper B; for the network).

#[1]​

Hi Gigi,

in your article you mention following:

“While Bitcoin has various self-regulatory mechanisms to react to the environment […]”.

Which self-regulation mechanisms are you referring to except the “difficulty adjustment” mechanism?

Also, could you go deeply into following statement:

“Living things have an interest in staying alive, and the Bitcoin organism is no exception. Bitcoin found an ingenious way to ensure that it stays alive: it pays people, as Ralph Merkle pointed out. People — and increasingly, organizations — are incentivized to keep it alive. They shape the physical world to Bitcoin’s liking, feed it energy, renew its hardware, and update its software to keep it alive.”

This is not always true. Cancer, for example, is a phenomenon, in which the units (cells) of the “living organism” pursuing its own interest and not been able to be neutralized by other units of the organism threat the existence of the “whole organism” driving it into death i.e. into a state in which the organism can not function as a whole anymore.

And this statement assumes all the Bitcoin participants acts proactive for the Bitcoin’s well-being; which in reality is not true. It is evident that some (maybe an increasing group) of Bitcoin’s participants are acting for their own benefits regardless the benefits for the Bitcoin (with upper B; for the network).

#[1]​

Hi Gigi,

in your article you mention following:

“While Bitcoin has various self-regulatory mechanisms to react to the environment […]”.

Which self-regulation mechanisms are you referring to except the “difficulty adjustment” mechanism?

Also, could you go deeply into following statement:

“Living things have an interest in staying alive, and the Bitcoin organism is no exception. Bitcoin found an ingenious way to ensure that it stays alive: it pays people, as Ralph Merkle pointed out. People — and increasingly, organizations — are incentivized to keep it alive. They shape the physical world to Bitcoin’s liking, feed it energy, renew its hardware, and update its software to keep it alive.”

This is not always true. Cancer, for example, is a phenomenon, in which the units (cells) of the “living organism” pursuing its own interest and not been able to be neutralized by other units of the organism threat the existence of the “whole organism” driving it into death i.e. into a state in which the organism can not function as a whole anymore.

And this statement assumes all the Bitcoin participants acts proactive for the Bitcoin’s well-being; which in reality is not true. It is evident that some (maybe an increasing group) of Bitcoin’s participants are acting for their own benefits regardless the benefits for the Bitcoin (with upper B; for the network).

#[1]​

Hi Gigi,

in your article you mention following:

“While Bitcoin has various self-regulatory mechanisms to react to the environment […]”.

Which self-regulation mechanisms are you referring to except the “difficulty adjustment” mechanism?

Also, could you go deeply into following statement:

“Living things have an interest in staying alive, and the Bitcoin organism is no exception. Bitcoin found an ingenious way to ensure that it stays alive: it pays people, as Ralph Merkle pointed out. People — and increasingly, organizations — are incentivized to keep it alive. They shape the physical world to Bitcoin’s liking, feed it energy, renew its hardware, and update its software to keep it alive.”

This is not always true. Cancer, for example, is a phenomenon, in which the units (cells) of the “living organism” pursuing its own interest and not been able to be neutralized by other units of the organism threat the existence of the “whole organism” driving it into death i.e. into a state in which the organism can not function as a whole anymore.

And this statement assumes all the Bitcoin participants acts proactive for the Bitcoin’s well-being; which in reality is not true. It is evident that some (maybe an increasing group) of Bitcoin’s participants are acting for their own benefits regardless the benefits for the Bitcoin (with upper B; for the network).