2018/08/16: The vision is a radical departure from the one-person, one-vote, once-every-year-or-two trip to the ballot box we are familiar with—and by which, in Siri’s view, we are so ill-served. Users of Democracy.Earth’s one-size-fits-all governance platform—code-named Sovereign—would have infinite flexibility to vote on any kind of topic or person, whenever they log on. In the Democracy.Earth future, every day will be election day, and the ballot will include anything that enough of us think should be there.
In this perfect world, Siri argues, the supposedly unhackable and absolutely transparent blockchain will ensure that no centralized election authority is required to tabulate a vote, and no corrupt politician or gridlocked legislature can interfere with the popular mandate. But coming up with a superior form of voting technology is just the beginning; the larger, far more revolutionary goal is to devise a decentralized decisionmaking process that eliminates the necessity for any kind of central government at all.
“We are not in the business of selling e-voting machines or helping modernize governments with internet voting,” Siri says. “We want to empower people down to the individual level without asking for the permission of governments.”
The proposition that new solutions are necessary for our strange new world is hard to argue against. The problem lies in proving that something as complex as Democracy.Earth fixes more than it breaks.
What Siri seemed to be saying is that Sovereign isn’t really intended as a replacement for how the United States elects a president or California passes an initiative. Instead, it's really an exercise in figuring out how to use the blockchain to make group decisions in the crypto-digital domain. Sovereign, in other words, represents government of the crypto-people, by the crypto-people, and for the crypto-people.
Ethereum is not aiming to change world finance, it is offering a platform for applications. Moreover, Ethereum as a project has much more in common with a company offering a product than Bitcoin, which operates as a group that is developing a protocol.
I think that the Bitcoin maximalism position is possible on that basis (one protocol will win) while still being able to look at smart contract platforms as companies.
I look at Ethereum as a company, and the world of companies is one that requires vigorous competition. Without that competition, a company becomes complacent and won’t innovate; why would they?
The hype around blockchain is massive. To hear the blockchain hype train tell it, blockchain will now: What the heck is a blockchain, anyway? And can it really do all these things? Can blockchain
What would happen if laws were written and maybe even “executed”, that is applied, as if they were computer software code?
Aurecon will be the first company in Australia to use a visual employment contract, creating a succinct and meaningful visual contract that uses illustrations to complement the text.
I am intrigued by blockchain technology and in the future use of smart contracts. Here, when I say "blockchain" I refer a secure, trustless,
An article at CoinDesk this week provides an excellent example of such a case, describing how collaborative development and agreement on data and other standards will be essential before the securities industry buys into the concept of using blockchains to support trading. As noted in the article: