►
Description
Blockchain promises to dis-intermediate and disrupt governance by offering an incentive system for decentralised coordination of a disparate group of people who do not know and trust each other. We don’t have to trust people anymore, we only have to trust the code. So the theory goes. In reality, formalised and codified governance rulesets can only depict known knowns and known unknowns, but have very limited capabilities to properly deal with unknown unknowns — aka all those events, that cannot be anticipated, or have not been considered at the time of writing/agreeing on the code. Recent events in the Bitcoin & Ethereum community (ie. Bitcoins Blocksize debate & post TheDAO hard fork) are a testament of these limitations. Based on discussions in this post, Shermin would present and discuss different aspects of these limitations and outline potential solutions.
A
Yeah
thanks
also
for
inviting
me
to
speak.
We
have
some
discussions
around
lunchtime
for
those
who
don't
know
me
and
I'm.
German
I
started
the
blockchain
up
here
in
Berlin
and
share
the
co-working
space,
and
so
what
we
do
basically
is
blockchain
advocacy
and
sometime
early
bath
summer.
I
got
caught
up
in
the
doubt
and
was
one
of
the
curators
together
with
you
and
Fabian,
and
a
few
other
people
and
I
guess.
A
That
is
the
reason
why
I
started
thinking
about
all
the
problems
around
the
unknown
unknowns
and
block
J's,
and
this
is
why
we're
here
today
because
well
most
of
you
are
aware
what
happened,
and
we
will
talk
about
to
talk
about
it
today.
We're
also
seeing
what's
happening
in
Bitcoin
right
now,
when
the
block
size
debate
and
so
I'm,
hoping
that
we
can
have
a
joint
discussion
around
those
thoughts
that
I
had
and
yeah.
So
it's
the
first
time
I'm
talking
about
this
I
hope
it's
not
too
incoherent.
So
basically,
what
are
the
thoughts.
A
It's
a
it's
a
bank
without
central
banks
and
bank
managers,
there
is
no
central
entity
that
controls
it,
and
that
is
impressive.
We've
never
had
such
a
thing
in
this
shape
and
form.
So
why
can't
love
changes
like
governance
because
of
the
the
fact
that
machine
consensus
on
the
peer-to-peer
network
can
radically
reduce
the
transaction
costs
of
of
corporation
and
by
that
also
it
Medicaid's.
A
huge
dilemma
that
we've
always
had
and
who
still
have
in
this
world
is
what
we
call
the
principal-agent
dilemma
that
you
have
in
companies
as
well
as
in
government.
A
Where,
for
those
who
don't
know
the
term,
then
the
agent,
for
example,
the
manager
is
representing
the
interests
of
the
shareholder
or
the
or
other
stakeholders,
the
principle,
and
if
there
are
informational
symmetries,
there
is
a
potential
of
moral
hazard
on
purpose
or
not
on
purpose.
So,
there's
time
lag
information
lag
in
decision
making
in
traditionally
top-down
organized
companies
and
will
be
very
often
have
these
principal
agent
problems,
and
we
have
the
same
problems
in
in
in
politics
and
in
representative
democracy
and
with
bureaucracy.
So
when
blockchain
came
around
that,
that
really
gave
the
potential.
A
Because
everything
you
have
the
rules
in
the
code,
but
only
until
something
goes
wrong,
or
only
until
we
need
a
system
of
great,
so
I
guess.
Blockchain
is
really
really
good
to
reduce
bureaucracy
radically,
but
only
in
the
cases
of
no
notice
and
known
unknowns,
but
never
in
the
case
of
unknown
tunnels.
So
one
of
the
use
cases,
of
course,
was
a
very
good
example
last
year
with
what
happened
with
the
Dow.
A
So
machine
consensus
is
great,
but
it
has
limitations
and
three
instances
and
I
welcome
you
to
to
criticize
this
or
to
enhance
this
list
so
conditions
that
change
over
time.
We're
seeing
that,
for
example,
a
very
good
example
is
what
is
happening
in
the
Bitcoin
community
when
it
comes
to
the
block
size
debate,
for
example,
or
what
happened
also
with
a
advent
of
mining
pools.
We
were
talk
about
this
later
human
error.
That
was
something
that
happened
with
the
Dow.
It
was
human
error.
A
So
in
complex
multi-stakeholder
environments
like
the
etherium
network
or
the
Bitcoin
network,
where
mining
miners
or
mining
pools
have
very
very
different
interests
than,
for
example,
a
company
like
consensus
building.
On
top
of
it,
they
have
different
economic
interests.
One
one's
transaction
cost
costs
to
go
up
and
another
one.
One's
transaction
costs
to
go
down.
A
Okay,
so
the
question
I
guess
the
question
is
always
hard
fork:
soft
pork
or
no
pork.
So
many
people
say
you
know
pork
in
many
ways,
but
in
many
cases,
so
in
the
case
of
the
Dow
and
post
daletech
aetherium
hard
work.
My
question
to
you
how
many
people
did
really
understand
the
ins
and
outs
of
what
was
discussed,
whether
not
for
well,
that
was
quite
easy,
but
soft
work
or
too
hard
work
and
how
to
hard
fork.
It
was
that
five
people
really
understood
all
the
details.
Was
it
maybe
30
people
I.
B
C
A
Yes,
but
the
question
is
like
there
was
this
huge
discussion
around
to
fork
or
not
to
fork
and
if
you
were
counted
for
so
how
many
people
would
you
be
comfortable
to
say,
really
understood
the
ins
and
outs
of
the
whole
debate
over
this
35
days
that
we
have
until
the
community
had
to
come
to
a
conclusion?
We
had
to
decide
whether
to
be
on
the
side
of
the
chain
or
the
other
side
of
the
chip.
So
that
really
is
a
question.
So
probably
we
cannot
actually
conclusively.
A
D
A
A
C
A
The
question
here,
of
course,
is
having
the
promise
of
the
blockchain
being
a
trustless
trust,
and
a
decentralized,
of
course,
is
how
how
decentralized
is
assist
if
currently,
and
that
might
change
in
the
future.
Only
five
to
30
people
in
this
whole
network
really
understand
the
ins
and
outs
of
such
a
brief
discussion
and
which
is
fine
and
which
is
fair
enough
and
which
is
part
of
the
process.
Probably
because
blockchain
is
dealing,
is
very
early
stages,
but
the
term
trustless
trust.
A
We
have
to
be
very
careful
when
we
use
it,
because
it's
true
until
as
long
as
everything
is
okay-
it's
not
true
anymore,
as
as
soon
as
we
need
the
system
upgrade
or
there
is
an
edge
case
where
we
need
to
take
action,
because
in
this
moment
we
need
to
trust
the
experts
same
as
for
the
Bitcoin
block
size
debates.
Yes,
you
are
here.
What
do
you
think?
How
many
people
really
can
follow
this
whole
debate?
B
A
So,
in
the
end,
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
in
the
beginning,
we
didn't
need
consensus
in
the
beginning
when
Satoshi
defined
the
white
paper
and
then
it
was
implemented.
There
was
very
little
need
for
consensus,
as
the
system
is
growing
and
the
stakeholders
are
becoming
more
and
when
you
over
time
see
that
you
need
to
change
the
protocol.
You
need
consensus,
but
this
consensus
finding
process,
not
everyone
is
an
expert,
so
we
still
need
to
trust
real
people.
A
The
next
question
is
I'm,
sorry,
so
the
myth
of
trust,
less
trust.
We
will
still
need
to
trust
experts.
Then
there
is
always
the
debate,
whether
blockchains
or
public,
blockchains
they're,
open-source,
so
based
on
meritocracy.
If
you
put
enough
time
and
effort
to
understand
the
code,
you
can
understand
or
learn
coding
or
learn
the
blockchain
protocol
and
the
languages
building
on
top
of
it.
A
You
can
understand
it,
but
there
is
a
limitations
to
meritocracy,
because
as
long
as
we
don't
start
teaching
in
coding
and
in
kindergarten,
there
is
only
a
limited
amount
of
people
who
really
have
the
skills
or
the
talent
to
understand
what
is
happening
in
this
field.
And
so
yes,
in
theory,
the
code
is
open
source.
Yes,
in
theory,
there
is
such
a
as
meritocracy
buzz
about.
A
In
reality,
you
need
to
spend
most
people
would
need
to
spend
an
enormous
amount
of
time
and
effort
and
maybe
lack
the
talent
to
really
be
able
to
do
that,
especially
based
on
our
current
education
system.
So
all
I
know
is
logic,
I
think.
That's
why
we're
building
block
chains,
because
they're
very,
very
powerful,
why
you
define
a
bull
set
and
because
it
is
Auto
enforceable,
it
is
very
powerful.
It
reduces
a
lot
of
transaction
costs,
but.
A
It
reduces
those
transactional
costs
because
we
have
the
transaction
layer,
we
have
the
peer-to-peer
network
and,
on
top
of
this,
the
transaction
layer.
This
is
where
we
define
the
rules
to
the
game
in
the
economic
models
based
on
game
theory,
we
define
which
actor
gets,
which
incentive
to
do
what
in
the
network
in
order
to
model
this
consensus
layer,
we
need
to
make
certain
assumptions
about
the
behavior
of
the
network
participants
and
these
assumptions
can
be
true
or
not,
and
mostly
they're,
probably
some
standardized
assumptions
and
you
need
some
fault.
Tolerance
tie
to
it.
A
What
if
these
assumptions
are
not
true?
What?
If
what
happens
in
the
case
of
unknown,
unanticipated
or
irrational
network
behavior
of
the
network,
participants
and
basically
and
I,
have
a
lot
of
discussions
also
with
black,
about
like
the
homo
economicus
like
him,
you
need
to
make
some
standardized
assumptions
and
the
assumptions
are
made
mainly
based
on
the
idea
that
network
participants
will
make
a
rational
decisions
based
on
profit,
maximizing
their
own
interests
as
a
network
participant,
for
example,
the
miners.
A
And
but
if
we,
for
example,
look
what
happened
with
Bitcoin
bitcoins
consensus
layer
was
originally
designed
by
satoshi,
based
on
the
notion
of
simple
game
theory.
The
idea
was
that
every
miner
running
a
computer
would
brought
maximum
profit
maximize
his
own
interest
based
on
running
one
or
two
computers.
A
The
consensus
layer,
bitcoins
consensus
layer
does
not
account
for
cooperative
game
theory.
What
happened
after
a
few
years
of
the
existence
of
the
network
that
we
now
have
my
ankles
so
the
reality
or
what
bitcoin
was
designed
to
be
much
more
decentralized
than
it
is
now,
because
the
assumptions
that
were
made
on
the
consensus
layer
turned
out
not
to
be
true,
because
now
we
have
mining
pools
and
a
handful
of
them
are
concentrating
almost
half
of
the
network.
A
So
the
term
should
pop
up
the
policy
and
consensus
I
see
like
one
of
the
biggest
dangers.
In
my
opinion,
around
a
blockchain
state-of-the-art,
the
mob
chains
as
they
are
designed
today
is
everything
is
okay
as
long
as
the
protocol
runs,
but
the
moment
we
need
to
modify
the
consensus
layer.
The
moment
we
need
to
upgrade
the
system.
The
question
is,
who
gets
to
vote
and
who
has
a
stake?
Who
has
the
power
to
to
vote
for
an
upgrade?
Now?
That's
very
different
in
Bitcoin
and,
in
theory,
is
very
different.
A
It
depends
on
whether
we're
talking
about
the
software
or
a
hard
work,
and
it's
also
very
different
in
the
etherium
ecosystem.
When
we
look
at
decentralized
autonomous
vote
for
organizations
and
the
token
governance
rules,
they
are
very
independent
from
each
other
and
particularly
for
the
most
cases.
More
money
in
the
fiat
world
buys
more
voting
power
in
the
Bitcoin
world,
and
it
might
be
indirectly
well
through
through
through
hashing
power,
the
more
money
you
have,
the
more.
A
Power
you
can
buy
and
the
more
boaty
have
enough
work
discussion.
So
in
the
case
of
unknown
unknowns,
and
given
the
fact
that
we
come
from
a
world
from
extreme
wealth
inequality,
what
does
it
mean
from
the
decision-making
process
in
such
pieces?
And
it
means
that
certain
people
have
more
impact
than
other
people?
Is
this
the
kind
of
how
do
we
do
want
to
deal
with
those
situations.
A
And
the
last
thing
that
probably
we
saw
that
decentralization
or
trustless
trust
in
is
a
myth
to
a
certain
extent,
if
we
don't
have
necessarily
centralized
information,
communication
and
transparency
tools,
and
we
saw,
for
example,
during
the
Dow
hack
in
a
very
short
period
of
time,
decisions
have
to
be
made.
We
were
communicating
on
social
media
networks
like
Twitter,
like.
A
Reddit,
etc,
etc,
and
a
lot
of
discussions
were
happening
in
parallel,
some
different
networks.
Very
often,
it
was
hard
to
distinguish
the
troll
from
the
expert
and
we
were
using
social
media
tools
from
the
web
to
to
make
decisions
in
the
web
3.
So
it
would
so
one
of
the
biggest
problems
was
to
decide
who
was
an
expert
who's,
a
troll
and
the
next
friend.
So
for
for
many
of
us
for
insiders,
it
was
a
bit
easier.
A
Certain
people
who
you
might
call
Bitcoin
maximalist
or
who
have
certain
stakes
in
other
systems-
you
might
understand
that,
but
an
average
token
holder
may
might
not
know
that
so
it's
really
hard
to
distinguish
and
in
the
decision-maker
making
process
in
the
discussions
happening
on
the
difference
of
human
channels,
who's
an
expert
who's
at
all
information
aggregation
is
a
huge
problem.
Very
often
I.
Remember.
A
You
would
know
that
50%
of
the
experts
said
no
horik
30%
said
softcore
than
20%
of
hard
work,
and
then
you
could
keep
diet,
maybe
into
their
blog
posts
and
read
up
on
why
they
said
what
they
said.
We
don't
have
those
tools
yet
and
it's
the
Wild
West
of
information
and
it's
hard
to
make
an
educated
decision,
especially
when
you're
not
an
expert.
A
So
why
am
I
doing
all
saying
all
these
things
I
think
botanic
wrote
this
excellent
blog
post
on
the
meaning
of
decentralization
and
what
he
wrote
was
he
tried
to
break
down
the
different
levels
of
decentralization?
So
the
question
is
how
politically
decentralize
is
a
network,
meaning
that
no
single
entity
controls
it?
How
is
it
architectural,
a
decentralized
meaning
that?
A
No,
if
there
is
no
infrastructure
or
central
point
of
failure
and
basically
block
chains
are
politically
decentralized,
more
or
less
and
depending
and
and
I
didn't
actually
be
centralized
but
block
chains,
and
this
is
why
they
are
so
powerful
in
reality,
a
logically
very
centralized,
because
code
is
centralized
and
it's
deterministic
and
and
has
really
no.
It
is
really
hard
to
to
write
code
for
unknown
unknowns.
A
On
around
expert
opinion,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
visualize
power
structures
in
these
distributed
networks,
that
we
have
mechanisms
for
governance
beyond
code
and
possibly
also
governance
mechanisms
on
the
blockchain
level,
and
we
need
better
information
and
communication
tools
and
we
need
the
centralized
arbitration
systems
and
I
think
this
is
very
important,
because
if
we
don't
have
these
things,
the
coders
of
today
will
be
kind
of
the
trust
of
third
parties
in
the
decentralized
network
that
we
have
to
trust.
So
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
make
these
decision.
A
Yeah
I
would
like
to
conclude
that
if
we
assume-
and
this
is
a
bit
what
I'm
saying
that
seeing
that
blockchains
are-
might
be
the
future
constitutions
of
our
future
societies
as
citizens
and
as
consumers
alike,
the
more
services
will
start
building
on
block
chains,
the
more
the
block
chain
protocols
will
become
our
constitutional
foundation.
So
we
have
to
make
sure
that
they're
flexible
enough
and
and
stable
enough,
but
also
inclusive
enough.
So
we
can
really
talk
about
it.
He
centralized
and
trustless
yeah
decentralized.
A
A
I
guess
both
so
having
better
human
readable
code
would
be
great
or
discussing
this
at
lunch
time.
I,
don't
know
how
possible
it
would
be
great
to
have
human
readable
code,
but
the
problem
also
with
these
huge
networks,
is
that
the
code
is
very
complex.
Even
if
you
can't
read
it,
there
is
a
limitation
to
fully
understanding
all
the
implications
of
all
the
different
modules
and
aspects
of
the
code.
A
B
A
A
F
F
Things
because
now,
but
nowadays
you
can
be
your
name
and
probably
even
in
50
years,
but
everyone
is
using
what
chance
that
everyone
will.
You
would
be
its
own
bank,
because
people
would
choose
to
trust,
centralized
services,
but
if
you
really
want
to
you
can
be
your
SmartWatch,
it
is
the
same.
If
you
really
want
to,
you
can
read
the
whole
contract
it
you
can
understand
it
and
you
can
and
maybe
program
you.
A
What
he
said
before,
like
in
many
cases,
for
example,
in
a
new
contract
you're
talking
about
the
bank
now,
but
the
legal
contract,
I
read
it
I
think
I
understand
it,
but
it's
it's
code,
it's
just
fuzzy
semantics,
where
other
people
study
seven
years
and
became
lawyers,
and
then
they
had
to
practice
another
a
lot
of
years.
So
right
now
in
theory,
I
also
have
the
possibility.
In
theory,
I
should
understand
what
a
contract
says,
but
in
practice
or
I
could
write
my
own,
let's
say,
contract
if
I
want
to
buy
or
sell
a
house.
A
A
If
there
are
certain
instances
where
blockchain
really
intermediates
it
gets
rid
of
certain
I
would
say
agency
problems
principal
agent
problems,
but
it
creates
new
principal
agent
problems
and
I
guess
this
is
what
I
was
trying
to
say.
We
shouldn't
be
so
naive
as
to
think
that
we
are.
This
is
the
the
tool
to
solve
all
problems
that
we
have
around
human
conflict.
We
will
be
able
to
radically
reduce
many
many
many
transaction
costs,
but
we're
creating
other
principal
agent
problems
that
were
very
often
probably
not
even
aware
of
yep.
B
F
A
A
So
I
guess
this
is
what
partially,
the
the
blockchain
ecosystem
a
consistent
resolved,
trying
to
make
the
simple
laws
on
this
more
concrete
layer
and
the
the
code.
The
I
am
the
consensus
layer
of
the
globe.
The
ethereal
protocol
is
kind
of
the
Constitution.
The
question
is
maglev
expert
enough.
Whether
the
protocol
could
be
even
regulating
even
less
because
every
time
we
need
to
make
a
system
upgrade,
we
need
super
majority
consensus,
which
is
really
hard,
and
some
people
say
that
we
should
yeah.
A
Forks
are
good.
So
the
minority
protection
happens
by
by
for
the
people
who
don't
want
you
to
to
upgrade
they
stay
on
the
old
chain,
but
in
reality
that
is
not
an
option
when
you
have
vested
economic
interests
on
one
side
of
the
chain,
so
a
lot
of
people
will
go
on
the
other
side
of
the
chain,
in
spite
of
the
fact
that
they're
against
maybe
the
decision
because
they
have
vested
economic
interest,
they
would
not
stay
on
the
other
side
of
the
chain
and
I.
A
Wonder
how
like
in
mind:
where
do
we
protect
minorities
on
the
blockchain
I?
Don't
see
that
yet
liquid
democracy
is
the
thing
that
you
were
referring
to.
I
think
we
need
to
have
more
liquid
democracy
tools,
even
on
top
on
top
of
not
changes,
I
yeah,
we
will
see
that
happening,
I
mean
for
the
now.
There
was
a
liquid
democracy
proposal.
A
A
B
E
A
A
First
I
was
Satoshi,
he
wrote
the
white
paper
and
for
many
really
for
many
reasons,
many
people
thought
that
was
a
cool
thing
and
they
opted
into
the
system
and
it
was
better
because
it
was
money
without
banks,
without
bank
managers
without
central
banks,
etc,
etc,
etc.
But
as
the
community
is
growing
in
the
Bitcoin
network,
in
the
hiriam
network
and
many
other
block
chains,
you
have
more
and
more
people
who
are
not
part
of
the
system,
they're
stakeholders
and
they
opted
into
a
net
into
a
certain
code.
A
But
when
we're
talking
about
protocol
upgrade
because
time
changes
and
there
are
conditions,
changes
or
all
of
a
sudden,
there
is
a
buck.
Now
you
have
to
come
to
a
consensus.
It's
not
an
opt-in
process,
anymore,
you're
already
there,
and
how
do
you
reach
consensus?
And
how
do
you
make
a
decision
in
a
system
where
you're
already
you're
already
in
the
system
on
the
airplane?
You?
Just
if
you
don't
trust
the
airplane
or
the
technology
behind
it?
A
F
Then
I
put
a
question
because
you
said
we
clearly
need
them,
then
assistance,
and
so
my
question
would
be
and
looking
back
at
the
tower
and
the
postal
box.
Do
you
really
think
that
that
how
the
events
unfold
was
such
such
a
bad
system
because
and
in
mind
you
we
get
quite
a
bit
constructive
discussion
whatever
and
then,
after
that
we
had
convergence.
F
A
It
such
a
bad
system
right
now,
no
I'm,
not
saying
that's
a
bad
system,
I'm,
not
saying
it's
a
bad
system
at
all,
I
mean
I.
Think
it's!
It's
we're
experimenting
with
a
great
tool
that
has
a
lot
of
merits,
but
it
also
has
limitations.
So
what
I
would
like
to
discuss
more
as
an
actual
limitation
system
has
in
order
to
be
yes
in
order
to
also
build
good
workarounds
or
improve
the
system
and
recognizing
the
limitations
that
it
has
and
having
better
governance
tools
and
information
aggregation
tools
around
it?
A
So
when
we
need
to
make
decisions
about
protocol
change,
we
can
actually
make
a
decentralized
system,
because
the
promise
of
the
blockchain
was
to
create
a
decentralized
world.
Yes,
we're
seeing
that
it
is
much
less
centralized
that
then
we
initially
would
have
liked
it
to
be
it's
true
for
Bitcoin
and
for
other
reasons,
then
it's
true
or
aetherium
aetherium
many
people
would
criticize
or
have
criticized
the
etherium
foundation
to
make
unilateral
decision
and
that
decision
making
was
entrance
and
it
was
done
behind
closed
doors
and
I.
A
Think
no
I,
don't
think
that
it's
true
but
I,
think
because
of
in
transparency,
an
average
token
holder
or
an
average
user
or
an
outsider
could
have
this
impression.
So
we
need
to
make
a
better
job
on
making
these
decision-making
processes
more
transparent,
more
inclusive,
and
then
it's
really
also
more
decentralized,
and
we
really
need
to
rethink
the
token
governance
rule
says
if
we
want
to
create
them:
identity
based
or
token
based,
because
if
we
create
them
token
based
we're
creating
a
world
where
more
money
buys
more
influence.
So
this
is
definitely
a
discussion.
A
A
I'm
not
saying
it's
good
or
bad,
but
it's
the
claim
of
blockchain
trap
and
unstoppable
machine
that
no
single
entity
or
no
small
group
of
people
can
take
down
or
manipulate
I
mean
this
is
what
I
understood
was
the
claim
I'm
not
saying
it's
good
or
it's
bad
I'm,
just
questioning
whether
the
reality
of
data
of
the
artwork
chains
is
true
to
its
promise,
which
was
actually
to
be
very
decentralized.
That's
it.
The
realities
are
saying
these
people
using.
B
B
B
A
Is
what
I'm
trying
I
need?
This
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
I'm
writing
this,
because
I
feel
that
we
are
creating
this
very
powerful
tool
which
can
be
used
for
good,
as
Sinha
has
been
just
stating.
It
could
also
be
the
ultimate
controller
and
I
feel
that
we
are
not
and
there's
already
so
much
economic
interest
building
on
top
of
it
right
currently
we're
everywhere
in
Google
concert
stage,
there
is
no
really
running
applications
that
are.
E
A
A
Possibility
so
I
guess
nobody
knows
what
will
happen,
but
the
way
I'm
seeing
it
unfold
is
that
we
will
probably
live
in
an
Internet
of
different
blockchains
and
there
are
already
some
startups
building
some
blockchain
interoperability,
cosmos,
polka
dots.
So
we'll
see
that
probably
it's
going
to
go
into
that
direction,
but.
B
Doesn't
need
to
be
instructions
is
I
can't
believe
you
mentioned
anything
about
when
I
buy,
to
organize
science
or
watching
over
us
in
currency.
I
am
agreeing
to
a
consensus,
but
this
raising
about
options
is
very
easy
to
convert.
To
know
more
about
currencies
know
so
the
whole
pervades
approaches
that
I
can
easily
find
it
like.
Well,
the
consensus
is
really
changing.
I
can
easily
go
change
if.
A
A
Of
consensus,
one
of
the
biggest
players
in
the
area
micro
system-
they
have
a
lot
of
startups
building
on
top
of
etherium,
so
I
would
I
would
think
that
when
a
card
for
it
happens
and
the
more
critical
those
startups
or
the
more
advanced
those
startups
become
and
the
more
critical
the
services
are,
that
they're
building
on
top
of
it
I
think
they
won't
be
as
flexible
as
a
simple
token
holder
who
can
opt-in
and
opt-out
by
simply
selling
the
currencies.
So
there
are
different
Network
participants
with
different
vested
interests.
B
B
B
D
In
general,
I
think
what
you're
saying
is
you
have
to
be
question
one
our
decisions
made
in
groups
of
people.
This
is
an
age
little
2000
euro
question
right,
I
think
we're
still
figuring
that
out.
The
other
thing
is
what
you
can
do
about
that
decision.
If
you
said
that
right,
so
is
gentleman
up
here
brought
here
brought
up,
not
choice,
this
system,
so,
for
example,
if
you
know
the
devil,
feasts
or
love,
which
can
be
looking
as
it
hats
on
your
transaction
right
when
that
task
goes
up
to
another
network.
A
Now,
if
your
task
was
up
on
your
property
and
you
live
there,
you
can
ride
up
to
another
country,
much
harder
to
do
yeah.
So
if
we
had
dropped
these
systems
in
your
local
choice
and
competition
against
the
world,
coming
from
your
vast
experience,
that's
why
we
see
continual
growth
and,
of
course,
the
decision-making
aspects
still
need
to
be
some
level
of
improvement,
but
with
natural
ease,
you
can
do
what
he
said
now.
A
D
A
A
All
this
debate
around
fake
news
is
because
we
don't
have
a
reliable
reputation
system,
so
we
need
to
really
start
building
them.
I
mean
the
internet
already
promised
decentralization
and
it
did,
to
a
certain
extent
the
centralized
information.
But
now
we
need
to
start
building
this
other
layer
and
a
reputation
is
key
to
that.
Are
there
any
ideas
of
how
Oh
consensus
like
lighter.
A
Reputation
systems-
and
you
often
write
in
here
you
look
home
I,
see
like
yeah.
Okay,
you
should
talk,
maybe
to
create
open
later
they're.
Also
building
it's
it's
not
pure
blockchain
based
it's
linked
data
and
blockchain,
but
reputation
is
probably
also
something
yeah
you
should
you
guys
should
talk.
E
Reputation
and
Bowie,
obviously
just
people
look
at
sort
of
hedge
fund
fall.
Bridgewater
associates
is
a
long
attention
on
the
world.
They
have
a
great
system
where
they
have
a
matrix
of
believability
based
on
track
record.
Obviously
that
requires
you
have
identity
so
over
time
as
people
make
decisions
or
make
statements,
their
believability
is
increased
or
decreased,
and
that
comes
with
weighting
factor
on
it.
So.
A
It's
essentially
so,
if
you
figure
it
out,
we
have
to
have
both
centers
on
one
side
to
make
decisions
about
governments,
and
we
have
tools
on
the
other
which
are
essentially
people.
Don't
know
nothing
on
internet,
don't
know
anything
about.
What's
going
on,
they
have
a
very
good
system
with
yourself
and
become
the
largest
hedge
funds
in
the
world.
A
C
C
B
Well,
it's
simply
making
a
decision
right.
So
if
you're
a
hedge
fund,
you
say
you
know,
do
I
definitely
euros
gonna
go
up
and
unless
they
come
together
before
this
decision
is
made-
and
they
say,
I
believe
that
the
hero's
gonna
go
up,
that's
my
boat.
They
record
that
boat
and
then,
as
time,
pass.
The.
D
C
A
system
where
you
can
determine
what
that
person
makes
completions
in
that
case
with
financial
markets,
yes
prediction,
but
he
didn't
hear
an
inventor
or
a
software
engineer,
have
a
design
decision
right.
You
have
a
conversation
that
goes
on
with
other
engineers
being
able
to
get
this
feature.
Did
we
do
this
I
believe
we
should
do
this
because
of
this
I
believe
we
should
do
this
because
of
this
and
over
time,
people
Google's.