In fact, going back Leibniz, there's a whole way of thinking about the world in which the only things that are even "real" in a physical sense, are the interactions, themselves.
There's just no such thing as a "solid foundation" in complex systems. Even trying to reason ontologically and create a cardinality of concepts in that way, when you're dealing with non-reducible emergent properties within that system interacting, is a much harder problem than people intuit. In fact, there's a whole field of study on this problem, around complexity and emergence. Santa Fe Institute specializes in this research.
How does this chargeback provider function without holding provenance information on identity and reputation?
You don't win popularity contests by insisting things are hard. You win popularity contests by insisting things are easy, even when they're hard. This dynamic tends to lead to bad outcomes.
"Attempting to patch holes in a leaky system" is literally how all adaptive complex systems work. Including our bodies, themselves.
Would you buy a diamond ring from an anonymous merchant, in a no-recourse economic transaction, where you and the seller did not reveal personal identifying information about each other? I think such a transaction would be extremely risky.
Not sure we're in disagreement, here?
But there are practical, epistemic limits on some of these things that need to be considered. Not to mention the positive economic incentives that can emanate from time arbitrage markets, that savings & loans schemes provide for.
Humans are titled very heavily towards low time preference behaviors. And I don't think you breed that out of people simply by dreaming up normative ethical systems, and selling them as moral truths.
I just don't think there's going to be a great awakening, here, where everyone's priority becomes to be as self-sovereign as possible. Back in my AnCap days, I convinced myself that people would all reach this conclusion once the contradictions of the system played out. I no longer think that. I think the modern state can exist in a state of contradictions, adapting to shocks and cultural changes, in perpetuity. It doesn't ever have to reconcile down to a self-consistent model. It just has to maintain an ability to adapt.
It's weird to me that people think the average person is going to demand anonymity from first-principles. What about the behavior of the average person leads people to think that incentives tilt so heavily in that direction?
You're right, it sort of is YCC. Not sure they've left themselves with any choice, either.
Correct. At TBD, we are prioritizing self-custody solutions.
Also, the mere existence of easily accessible self-custody, changes the incentive structures of custodial solutions pretty dramatically, and makes breaches of trust, existential reputational risks.
Yeah. I think my brain auto-corrected and got the point.
Security is always going to be inversely proportional to convenience. The need for security is proportional to social trust. In low stakes, high trust environments, low friction solutions will flourish. In high stakes, low trust environments, self-custody will be the default.
I say this all the time. But I think one of the problems is a lot of bitcoiners are in a low trust, high stakes mindset at all times, and believe everyone else should be to. This leads to a bit of confusion to how things are going to play out, in aggregate.
I find it amusing that people think FRB is merely a creature of the state, and that a stateless market maximalist society would collective come to understand it is fraud through universally accepted ethics, in the vein of Rothbard or Hoppe. I think FRB would not only exist, but there'd be even more extreme versions of it.