yup ive recently realized that it IS the answer also... let's stop trying to fix their broken systems and instead build our own parallel advanced societies that renders their insanity obsolete

I'm not convinced decentralization is the answer to everything.Some things need to be centralized or nationalized such as the NHS or the Railways social housing etc .As private decentralized companies may have different policies that infringe human rights where there is no ability for local decision making within that private decentralized corporation.

​@@EIKLURAMI don't see the problem. Let the marginized people create their own decentralized groups as well. That's the whole point of decentralization. If I don't want to to work with certain individuals than I shouldn't have to, and no one should tell me or force me to. And so too, people who feel like their "human rights" are infringed upon can also form their own decentralized organizations.

💯 write my manager regarding making millions in B..T..C.+1...2...3....1...4...0...3...4...1...4...5

Thanks - much appreciated!

Decentralisation is a system of advancing humanity and valued all human knowledge with out discrimination....

Decentralization of communication is the master key and foundation for all the others pillars to work effectively.

Yeah as long as you pay taxes on cashing it in. That means the government and the fed still control it.

@jesseparker85 Ahem, dont forget the actuals accomplishments inspired by Africans to the greeks, especially Egypt

💯 write my manager regarding making millions in B..T..C.+1...2...3....1...4...0...3...4...1...4...5

Yessir, yes ma'am!

this just describes a different pyramid. the value system is ultimately centralized when accruing wealth/excess is still the central purpose. Why should everyone live the same or value the same things? shallow thinking

💯 write my manager regarding making millions in B..T..C.+1...2...3....1...4...0...3...4...1...4...5

@@Jonny_Noname Because having wealth enabled us to have access to basically anything the world has to offer? And to fullfil the basic needs for us to survive in the modern world. As humans we have to strive for something that keep us moving so that we don't fall into existential crisis. So it's pretty much one of the best value system you can get. Without it you'll just be a nihilist and live a life full of pain and suffering and I can guarantee that you don't want that. But, it doesn't mean that you can't get fullfiled by other things, If you have a better value system that suits yourself then go ahead, no one stopping you.

@@Jonny_Noname I wanna hear your take on this though. I'm interested, what sort of a future do you want? What do you propose?

@@ranguy1379 Eh... that's difficult to summarize since there is no one size fits all solution... ultimately a world where power isn't totally centralized in such a way where individuals are required to appeal to a central power before an individual may meet one's individual needs... a world in which we make social/economic choices voluntarily without coercion... a complex multiplicity of diverse competing systems which we are able to opt-in or out if we want to... a world which preserves free-will... which allows people to make either bad or good decisions with the opportunity to live and learn from those choices... I'm for open source solutions... open boarders... medical freedom... and ultimately the dissolution of governments and any other highly centralized power structures such as central banks, central power grids, and centralized inform systems (big tech, big media, big acedemia)

Blockcain can only enforce integrity of digital information - that can be tested and validated by an algorithm, though.

The bypass of human trust requirement as enabled by blockchain and other digital systems are only for financial transactions. It doesn't say anything for instance about the genuine value of the product you are buying or the service you are ordering.

I wish to contribute

I have agreed with this statement since this video was published.

💯 write my manager regarding making millions in B..T..C.+1...2...3....1...4...0...3...4...1...4...5

The biggest thing we can do as individuals is to begin the mindset shift away from "how can I get the government to solve my problems" to "how can I (or we) solve the problems ourselves?"

Gary Lachance people don't like their fat cash cows being taken away from them... especially people with armies, nukes, virtual monopoly over school systems that can propagandize a nation's worth of kids that the system is the only good and possible system, while simultaneously keeping most away from alternative viewpoints and possibilities.

That's the point of decentralized communication.

Once physcial cash is gone, central banks will take full control of all money and control it at will - including the ability to turn off your access to it in an instant for any reason. Blockchain will become the ultimate centralization tool since only central bankers will be allowed to control it. If you think 'they' are going to allow a system in which they don't have full control, you are sadly mistaken. People will merely be numbered assets on the blockchain, each with a unique token. If you don't comply with their wishes fully, your token will simply be turned off, and you will be excluded from the system. Enjoy your slavery.

The future is a state planned economy with an highly advanced democratic dispensation that accomodates all the workers of all races, sexes and genders. The future is strategic planning of the economy and common ownership of the means of production. The future is communism.

@@saffa321 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Up 😂 decentralisation would bring capitalist problems to a greater scale. Since everyone participates. Decentralised communism = poverty

Exactly, it has come to the point where the world is at a turning point. The megalodon capitalist are clinging to a dying centralized system. The pandemic is their last hope to try and control everyone before they can not longer control everything. This is beautiful and I will spend the rest of my life helping the system improve.

Didn't they say the same about Bitcoin?

Cardano is the way

I've always been skeptical on Ethereum. Still am today despite the price around $700 per ETH. I have hope in EOS. It's taking on the same idea with a slightly different approach. And scaling looks to already be solved.

oh you actually meant to say EOS

after one year of your post i do strongly agree with it ;-)

Competition is not the driving force of capitalism. As the moral philosopher Adam Smith made clear, competition is the limiting force of capitalism. It is the thing that keeps capitalists from taking over the world. -dlj.

Nice word salad. Competition is the driving force of capitalism. It's what re-organizes production and distribution in increasingly efficient ways.

Arising-Tale I don't think so. People reorganize the ways they make things. The act of reorganizing is what reorganizes. If two people are trying to reorganize something, we may call that competition. "Competition" is a word you and some other people apply to the number of people doing the reorganizing. It is not a force. It is a word you applied because there are more than one people doing the reorganizing. You're the one with the word salad, seems to me. Since you're a specialist in it, could you do some explaining, please? Is a "driving force" different from a force? Or is it just a decoration, meaning something like "good force" or "force that anonymous Arising-Tale likes"? Do you agree with me (and Adam Smith) that the development of your increasingly efficient ways has the effect of keeping any one capitalist from taking over everything? And do you agree with us that if it ever didn't, that would be the end of capitalism? -dlj.

David Lloyd-Jones I know this thread is a year old, but can we agree that it is both the limiting and driving force of capitalism?

In the digital age local knowledge is value.

I can't wait. I have a feeling it's gonna be a bumpy ride along the way though.

To AnCapistan we will go

We have a system in place already, a Micro Loan. A small investment (loan) to purchase a means of some production via a sewing machine or perhaps seed for a garden.... can lift a person up enough to build a sustainable life. Crypto Blockchain offers a means of establishing a minimum amount of trust needed in all 4 pillars. Granted it may take some time yet, but look what we as a community could achieve. To be clear this is NOT aid but business on a small scale.

It isn't about the payment system on it's own. It is about each person thinking about their value, securing that value, and being able to use it in creative ways to solve societal needs with hopes that they receive some reward for it. At the heart of it is privacy. Whether this has come too late and the corporations already have too much data is anyone's guess. You might not like to donate $2.... But you might 1 cent if you felt it was a good project. Or half of a cent, or a 1/4 of a cent. Something minuscule to you but to someone on a farm out there this means a tractor to speed up work on the fields and get product to the market.

It is a permeation of credit. It is almost impossible to have a basic understanding of economics and not come to this conclusion.

It is so much more than just a payment system. With applications like Ethereum, it is possible to build entire businesses with little more than a product, passion, and a smart phone. The crypto ecosystem will pave the way for people who have never seen real opportunity in their life a chance to truly make something of themselves. Once these deprived countries begin adopt this technology, it will explode, because unlike 1st world countries, third world countries WANT to work to make money, and once they see the way, it will absolutely explode.

I think it's good to also listen to Charles Hoskinsons tedtalk as well. Many don't have the ability to accumulate wealth and history which are the first 2 steps to starting a business. No one is arguing that this is a quick process, but without these fundamentals the process cannot even begin

MrPisster eat your vegetables

Not in uni yet i suppose ?

💯 write my manager regarding making millions in B..T..C.+1...2...3....1...4...0...3...4...1...4...5

There's an exploration of this in The Conquest of Bread

No. Centralised power brings equality and organisation, while decentralisation causes inegality ans differences.

So anarchy lmao. Back to the stone age.

Exactly my question, I suspect that communication control will be the new banking....I wonder if this talk could be updated?

+1...2...3....1...4...0...3...4...1...4...5

💯 write my manager regarding making millions in B..T..C.+1...2...3....1...4...0...3...4...1...4...5

With great power comes great advancement. With few power comes great crimes.

Well, he is speaking here about automatic consensus about a history of bits in a ledger.. Not quite deep democracy yet :)

gilbpaul no one can define what a resource is. therefore it is very hard to create a resource based economy.

Nonsense. We're talking about natural resources which are used by humanity for direct consumption or manufacture.

so basically anything and everything? Was oil a resource 200 years ago? Was Iron a resource 3000 years ago? Resources are always changing. Technology determines if something is a resource or not. What happens when something that is not considered a resource today becomes a resource tomorrow? Are you just going to confiscate it from the owners? Luck and Technical advancements play a huge part in wealth disparity. 100 years ago you could have bought desert land in Arabia for a Penny. Today you cannot because they "struck" oil. This is something that people who favor the RBE simply do not understand. You either have to have a central authority own everything because everything can become a resource (after all everything is simply a form or energy) or you own nothing and let the private market work. What you CANNOT DO is confiscate land from people once it becomes valuable. So I will ask you again. What is a resource? Cheers

@@shake6321 as you yourself seem to point to, a ressource is simply anything that through a process is transformed into a service.. plus some more or less ambarrassing extra outputs called waste. And indeed, they are relative to technology. We may not be able to control the direct consequence of an uneven distribution of ressources on the planet. But we can choose to invest into technologies that do not rely upon ressources owned by other states or private actors. And who knows: one day it may be that many of us will start to see the highest fulfillment one gets through sharing and collaboration rather than hoarding and competing. I m a dreamer, but i m not alone :)

Yan Eperon I am a dreamer aa well. but the “natural order” may make our dreams impossible. thus, i rather have freedom and inequality than tyranny and equality. we do not need that many more technological advancements to really raise the global standard of living.

💯 write my manager regarding making millions in B..T..C.+1...2...3....1...4...0...3...4...1...4...5

Thats the problem with centralization. It makes quick quick solutions but every one and every place has different effect to it and needs its own specific need. If your country bans farming hoes because they are too sharp, the rich farmer in the city may celebrate since he does not even need it, the poor farmer in the country however will be devasted as he need that tool to provide for himself and his family.

@@shalyfemusic We may then theorize that desirability of centralization may have a corelation with how common the issue to be solved is within the affected population. The less generalized the issue, the less decentralization there should be. Question of tuning the thing.

@@MrCounselMmh good point

he's wrong. Digital IDs will be tied with CBDCs and then we'll be forced to signin to the internet everytime and crypto will be outlawed.

It's decentralised because there is no central authority in control of the block chain. I don't know what you mean by private. It's not completely anonymous, but pseudo anonymous (that might be the wrong way to put it)

In a decentralized society, there would be no government, because that is centralization. Therefore it would be anarchy, having no rulers. People would be accountable to not aggress against others, but aside from that, not really any laws would exist. With that, there wouldn't be this one big power having all the weapons. All military weapons would be universally for sale. Every person could own tanks and whatever else. A decentralized society would not be territory that another nation would want to invade, in other words.

Benjamin K Broderick Everything you've said sounds right Broderick, but no laws?

It's a little tricky because the way we use the word "law" now entails that all within a certain jurisdiction would be required to abide by the bounds of certain laws. That's why my claim to no laws was ambiguous. Sure there would be rules of individual homes and establishments, and there would be a standard upheld universally throughout society of non-violence and non-aggression, but those would be implicit, as opposed to being written by one official authority and enforced by the same. The non-aggression standard would perhaps be what you might call common-law, or a societal norm and expectation, but not the type of law we are typically used to at this time, written by those who make laws, and imposed universally to all within a geographical region. Decentralized law would be a better term, as it could not remain a decentralized society and still be under centralized law. The universal necessity of non-aggression is natural and innate in all humans for survival and development, and since all humans typically wish to remain in control of their lives, remain free from suffering, and so on, there is reasonable assurance that humans will continue to insist upon the absence of aggression inasmuch as we employ reason and rationality over the medieval, dark-age pitfalls of blind belief and obedience that we see in the unthinking, non-questioning statist and religious masses around the world. The standard of non-aggression would surely be the closest and only thing we could compare to laws as we have them now, for no other expectation can be rightfully imposed onto others, and if it is to be a decentralized society, no centralized opinion of what precisely is classified as aggression could be made. This upholding of the non-aggression standard would be an organically flowing process of the collective human conscience, not a regime imposed by a set of law-makers. Third-party arbitrators would be making decentralized decisions, not by precedent or law books, but by their own methods of expertly assessing the disputes and assigning them with solutions. Perhaps we might say that laws would be written on a case by case basis, applicable for only an individual, and with an expiration date, much like a prescription from a doctor. Furthermore, the offender would be voluntarily agreeing to the decision of those third-party resolving teams, or what we now call courts. The plaintiff and defendant may both agree to sign contract that gives the authority to a firm to assign law over their lives by way of a coin toss. They may instead choose an expert firm that assigns law based on their thorough and complex opinions and because of their reputation for fair judgement. They may choose a firm that legitimately rehabilitates criminality, and assigns law to individuals in need of this rehabilitation from violence, theft, and so forth. Either way, non-aggression would be the standard, and those violating that standard may be imprisoned till they seek to resolve the conflict and be assigned laws on the matter.

Felix Koschar The technological age will enable a decentralized society to work, and the ability to keep law and order. This is what real anarchy is, although decentralization does not carry the shock value, which is why you should use the word to spread this ideology, because most are biased against anarchy, because of the misinformation of it by those who favor centralization or Governments as most call it. I use it all the time to move people towards anarchy, and it works very well, although most do not know it is anarchy.

@@BenjaminKBroderick I don't see what would prevent a group within a decentralized society to collaborate to invade the ressources of another part of it, then share among them the latter - or betray the others and fight for it at last.

I Am only in favor if we centralize ecogreen protocols period

And intellectual / cognitive theft ? Powerful stupidity needs smart supply. Surveillance is theft.

did you ever watch that movie called robo-cop?

I love your question. That is why decentralized transaction will never be good a idea. 😂

His idea is that if everyone is sacred, then only physical perturbations would be ban. But yeah it obviously lacks enforcement and commonality

​@@juliusgalido2319😂😂😂😂 facts

+Markus Oh How can you think technology frees us ? Humans were born without technology, and free. Technology is just a tool. Either we use it to slave ourselves, or to remain free.

+skzap Free us from this planet. Free us from this solar system. Free us from this Galaxy. Free us from biologically imposed limitation.

💯 write my manager regarding making millions in B..T..C.+1...2...3....1...4...0...3...4...1...4...5