| >Aren’t we sort of codifying malicious intent, instead of trying to remove it from the equation? Whom would this serve? Define malicious intent. What and whome one person is willing to trust will always be different than another person. This is a hard truth that we will never work around. Culture vs Culture, family vs family, idea vs idea. We can't get rid of conflict or therefore 'malicious intent' and by extension we can't (or shouldn't) bank on trust. I think the better way to deal with our very real human differences is to look past them in the spirit that all of us are creations of a higher power, and thus working together is in everyone's greatest interest. Money as a medium of exchange is a very powerful concept It holds the idea of an IOU that can transcend our differences in the spirit of building a better world. But in order for that to happen money needs to be fungible, else our differences will enviably tear it apart. Perhaps when the dollar was backed by gold this concept was more or less true, but central banks undermined that, hense the pull towards extreme decentralization. >There is place for verification in the interim, such as maintaining security of your home, but if we are looking ahead (as blockchain enthusiasts do) we should strive for a future where humans are not motivated to hurt other humans. NOT TREATING IT AS SOME SORT OF DEFAULT IS A GOOD START. I must disagree with this concept. To treat it in a trusted manner is to ignore the fact that we have insurmountable differences and therefore those differences will raise their ugly heads elsewhere and tear our hopes for peace apart. Rather to start with the presupposition that these differences exist, but that we will create a form that transcends them for the better of all is imo the ideal. |