Re: Josh Hall: Blockchain could reshape our world – and the far right is one step ahead (Guardian)

2018-02-28 Thread Morlock Elloi
I have hard time understanding how is blockchain special, unique, and 
apart from other technologies, relative to dystopian outlook in the article.


The only difference between blockchain and prior technologies (public 
cryptography, including signatures and certificates, databases, etc.) is 
the verifiable permanence of the previously unknown commitment: once 
something is put there, it is hard to modify later. I want to be very 
specific here: if someone has committed something to blockchain in the 
past, and the verifier knew nothing about that commitment until the 
present, the verifier can verify the commitment once it gets interested 
in it.


This is the *only* difference. There is nothing else.

Blockchain is specifically redundant if:

a - the verifier knew about the commitment at the time of committing 
(just keep the hash);


b - the verifier wants to check authenticity of the commitment 
transported over untrusted channel, from a trusted authenticated 
committer (use committer's public key);


There are more, but these two are relevant.

While the article elaborates on real issues when computing machines 
start to mediate the totality of human interactions, these issues have 
nothing to do with blockchain, that's bs. Using popularity of the 
'blockchain' meme to prop them up is misleading and will fire back.


Every single of the enumerated mechanisms can be better executed without 
blockchain. Immutability of previously unknown commitments is not a 
factor in any of them. In each of them either (a), (b), or both, hold true.


This includes smart contracts, which are programs ran on distributed VM 
where the majority of identical results wins. The results mean 
something, but who cares? The only things the results affect are inside 
the VM itself (like transfer of funds of blockchain-based currency 
between accounts.) For anything outside VM we are back to (a) and (b).


For example, the smart contract stipulates that you must have sex with 
person X if account Z transfers specific amount to account Y. This 
happens, but you don't feel like it. So X sends the police to force you. 
This is much easier achieved by registering the contract on the sex 
police computer.


And so on.



#  distributed via : no commercial use without permission
#is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:


Re: Josh Hall: Blockchain could reshape our world – and the far right is one step ahead (Guardian)

2018-02-28 Thread oli
Alice Weidel is not listed on the site of the event. Nevertheless, she
was a trader or broker for some hedge fund or so, afair. Her 'expertise'
lies in finance, therefore the guardian article's claim is not totally
out of the blue. Since I am located in Hamburg, I will follow the news
on the event.

On a more general note around blockchains: I guess we all agree that
talking about "the internet" is not very informative, I hope we will
soon establish the same consensus on the topic of blockchains. There are
massive R efforts on the way, money flows in on a large scale and I
think it is okay to say that blockchains, open or closed, decentralized
or centralized, will help to further tighten the machine control
paradigm around our societies.

I recently made an effort to speculate a bit about the relation of
private property and the trajectories of blockchains, published on the
moneylab blog

http://networkcultures.org/moneylab/2018/02/07/the-blockchain-as-a-modulator-of-existence/
:


The Blockchain as a Modulator of Existence

By: Oliver Leistert

The advent of the blockchain as a protocological internet layer for
values corresponds to a continuing monetization pressure and ongoing
expansion of identification strategies. Notwithstanding these
trajectories, behind this prospected killer application resides first of
all a sovereign chronological regime that has the capacities to proof
and modulate the existence, identity and administration of data, assets,
goods and services from a distance on micrological scales.

“As far as agency is concerned, the law holds that things and media
are strictly passive.” Cornelia Vismann

Without doubt, one of the most common and important techniques since the
advent of massified networked computing has been the basic computational
operation to copy and paste. To copy the contents of an address space to
another in (networked) computers seems to be the one fundamental
operation a networked society is relying on – on the operational level
of computing itself and on the individual and societal level of swapping
clusters of large files. In the digital realm, scarcity up until today
proved too counter-intuitive and technically non-viable or too expensive
to implement on a general scope. This became manifest in fundamental
attacks endemic and systemic to digital cultures on property regimes,
whose operationability had formerly been intrinsically secured by the
simple fact that consumers did not have the means to copy goods as they
wished. If there is one single capturing method that blockchain
technologies are aiming at it is to limit ubiquitous copy and paste in a
broad sense, to migrate from copy to cut (if at all), to
insert a digital proof of identity for data that may then be linked with
appliances and other machines such as media player or access control via
interfaces. “The business of embedding artificial scarcity into the
digital asset is aligned with what appears to be an inevitable and
continued enclosure of the mythos of online commons within colonial
apparatus.”i The introduction of a time stamped proof of existence in a
presumably tamper-proof distributed ledger yields the late introduction
of scarcity on the protocol level, almost fifty years after the
introduction of TCP/IP.

In the blockchain era, prospected to be in full bloom in ten years,
goods and services – physical or digital, manual or automated – are
bound to a time stamp in the blockchain that is cryptographically
secured. This time stamp marks the beginning of what might be called the
post-digital, signified at its most basic function by remote,
blockchain-based controls of existence. Property regimes in a very
general sense then may be executed automatically by machines through
permissionless (open access), distributed, or permissioned, centralized
ledgers.

This text describes the very real possibility of this new kind of
sovereignty – the sovereignty of the post-digital that modulates
ownership and use of its commodities new from scratch, and as an
extension and update of the bourgeois operating system, designed by the
vectorialist class.ii At its most radical trajectory, control shifts
from external, non-digital, human-centered legal and administrative
procedures, such as contracts, to internal, machine centered and
executable qualities of the commodities, goods and services themselves.
Test cases and applications are already deployed in a variety of fields.
Even if they fail in their first testing phases, the stakes are too high
for fine grained monetization schemes and profits on new frontiers to
emerge to not continue intensive R

‘Smart’ ≈ blind, ‘Contract’ ≈ Code

The originality and limitation by design of blockchain-based distributed
databases is their append-only regime. All past elements are read-only
and only the current block is a write operation. And furthermore, since
the chain is secured in backward direction via hashes, its complete
verification (or falsification) is viable at any