Below is a comment that I posted to an article by Mr. Kai Stinchombe. Kai’s article is a well-written critique against the universal applicability of blockchain. His article is well worth the investment of time it will take to completely read it.
———-
Dear Mr. Stinchcombe,
Thank you for your cogent assessment of the applicability of blockchain technology. Since its introduction, too many people have looked at Blockchain in the same way that some physicists looked at cold fusion. To some, cold fusion was a masterpiece of ingenuity. To others, it was pure poppycock.
But why was cold fusion so attractive?
People want cheap energy. And people don’t want to be victims of broad geopolitical struggles. They saw the promise of technology demonstrated in the fifties, sixties, and seventies in the form of a nuclear arms race. But efforts at harnessing the power of fusion for peaceful purposes were fraught with the failure of unfulfilled promises. So people wanted “cold” fusion to work because no one had solved the engineering challenges associated with traditional fusion approaches. In short, people wanted limitless power on their kitchen countertop.
The same thing is true about blockchain. People want independence. And they want to get the government and corporations out of their living rooms. More specifically, they want the “bad actors” out of their back pockets and purses. People despise banks and they despise politicians. So they desperately want a solution that dis-empowers those whom they distrust. And they are willing to trust technology instead.
But the fact that you do not trust the bankers, the corporations, or the hacker elite does not mean that you should blindly trust in the promise of an “indifferent” technology.
First, technology is not something that is amoral. We view science as something immutable and ‘scientific’. But it is never that simple. Technology is built by people. And it is influenced by the experiences of those people.To see a vivid demonstration of this, we need only consider the WOPR (in “Wargames”) which was influenced by the pacific nature of its creator. Or we could consider Ulton (in the Marvel Cinematic Universe) who was every bit as much of a control freak as its creator.
Second, technology must be built (and maintained) by people that have money. So every technology is controlled by the masters who built it and the masters who operate it. If this were not the case, then why are intellectual property rights being enshrined in perpetuity. And we need look no further than Apple to see an example. Steve Wozniak was the builder with the idealistic vision. And Steve Jobs was the operator with the drive to control the creation and to destroy its competitors.
So if the real problem is that people don’t like others to steer their lives, then that is the problem that they should address. For some, that means going off the grid. For them, it is easier to hide from the wickedness of the world rather than live within it. For others, it means becoming one of the people who design the collars, leashes, and chains that will keep us in check. These are the inventors who wish to think abstractly and not consider the consequences of the systems that they will build. And for still others, it means that they must wield the whips, the chains, and the leashes that are restraining the people. For this final group, they seek to take advantage of the systems of control. None of these groups is inherently more right than the others.
But what does this have to do with your thesis?
Basically, I think that solutions must address the real-world problems that prompted their necessity. In the case of blockchain, it was created because people distrust bankers and governments. And as Dan Jeffries notes, the blockchain is headed for even more control by the banks and by the government. So its original reason for existence is propelling it towards the very hands that its creators had sought to deplenish.
Mr. Stinchombe, your premise is right. Blockchain is not a panacea for anything. It won’t solve our problems with the monetary system or with accounting practices. Indeed, it may even exacerbate them. Neither will blockchain be the means of creating an independent and trustworthy voting system.
Let’s solve the problems that are before us. If our problem is a lack of trust, then let’s not assume that a piece of technology is the ‘trustworthy’ alternative. Instead, let’s work on the problems of the heart that are creating such fundamental distrust in our foundational institutions.
For example, if you don’t trust politicians, don’t blame the voting machines or the Russians. Instead, let’s leverage competition as the means of investing in alternatives. If you hate both Democrats and Republicans and you consider all of them to be tools of “the system”, then work to create a new and competitive party. Become the kind of leader that you want to follow. Write about your thoughts. Share your thoughts. And work with those who share your thoughts. Or you could become part of the flawed system itself. You can try to alter it from within. But one thing is clear: there are risks with such an approach. In particular, you could be lured into complacency and acquiesce to the very manipulation that you are seeking to change.
But whether you build a competitive system or you seek to transform the current system from within, one thing is clear: technology will never change problems with the human heart. Our solution is not as easy as building a robot that will solve the challenges which we sought to avoid. Let’s do the hard lifting of trusting others — even if they invalidate our trust.