All algorithms come twisted (aka embedded, or perhaps even embodied) with some kind of a bias.
an algorithm to detect intervals between stuff, comes as some kind of a connection making life that’s being made to come oriented around Intervals. What may seem as Intervals, in itself, will have one bias or another. ie,
in case we check something like urban spaces, do we say intervals come between buildings? Roads? Public recreation spaces, like parks? All? Other? etc..
It seems that these kind of questions become interesting in context of a future embraced by crypto.
a space where algorithms are used – and paid for – to consensusise() activities.
let’s say you fancy a trip in that crypto space.
You want to get a caravan and travel europe for a while.
Nowadays, you might buy a caravan, organise some insurance – road, property, health – get the kit and move on.
In a crypto space, how do you fix it so that the consensus algorithm works for You rather than the company who runs it and does it for a profit too?
In a crypto space, how do you fix it so that the consensus algorithm works for You rather than the company who runs it and does it for a profit too –
and you don’t need to stress too much about whether or not your lovely caravan will be there after you parked it while hopping into a local supermarket. And “stress too much” here comes as something like feeling:
I can park this thing here and, apart from locking, there’s no reason to boobytrap it. Indeed, in case someone will nick the thing – the insurance will sort it.
would it be there in case the consensus algorithm isn’t perceived as strong enough?
it seems that a fair few things we might have learned to take for granted, things that facilitate the way we live, will have to be pretty violent indeed in a crypto space.
the question of how the algorithm comes to be a consensus becomes pretty contentious indeed. It’s a question of a communal, a cultural, narrative – a story. When it is profitable for political parties to alter these kind of narratives for their own benefits – we have a history of struggles about exactly that – the narrative.
It used to be very profitable, if you are male and of a white european looks, to push a narrative that other people are inferiror – despite and in spite any evidence to the contrary. It isn’t all that asured benefitial nowadays – yet some, unfortunately, keep pushing.
in the uk, a fair few people alive, are still convinced all hell could break in the kingdom and probably the human cosmos – if the monarchy was to come gone.
it’s hard not to wonder whether these beliefs, these convicting intuitive convictions, don’t have much to do with the great british educational system that pushes regularly an historical narrative that’s locally oriented and revolves around the monarchy as such.
Where there’s a crypto cosmos, where networks of profit rely on certain tokens values and on everyone involved accepting one narrative rather than another –
how do stories come to life and evolve??
try talking to a crypto person critically about the stories of:
de/inflation as a currency defining element
what’s “access to money”
and maybe there will come a glimpse of how narratives can not come viscous in
a crypto oriented space.
workings according to a perceived legitimacy in human lives.
a governing body, for example, works by some kind of a legitimacy to produce a regulating consensus. eg, a general silent agreement that things will work in a certain way rather than another. hence in case you walk on a pavement and notice a hole, it is a local council that’s being contacted rather than and algorithm, or indeed a construction company who will chase you for the bill..