#climateDiary
-
It’s not often I listen to something from Nate Hagens and disagree, but that’s where I’ve ended up after listening to Ashley Hodgson https://overcast.fm/+2tlWL0Cq0
Her analysis of the dynamics of why we’ve gone wrong is spot on. But to get from there to ‘solutions’ like blockchain I am profoundly sceptical of.
Given that Nate’s core critique is energy blindness, which I’m 100% on board with, it’s ironic to hear him “agreeing” with blockchain…
-
Jonathan Schofieldreplied to Jonathan Schofield on last edited by
…once we are economic-shocked into energy clarity (relatively), the only techs that will stand up are ones which do their basic operations efficiently and *directly* in service of webs of trust curated by people.
Blockchain is the antithesis of that. As I understand it, it takes the fundamentally straightforward act of storing a computational state and extrudes it into a labyrinthine game. It is inefficient *by design*.
-
Jonathan Schofieldreplied to Jonathan Schofield on last edited by
…e.g. The PoS jump made by Ethereum just took an egregiously awful and unscalable PoW paradigm and turned it into something less worse. But still bad.
Didn’t it?
Please show me why I’m wrong.
-
Jonathan Schofieldreplied to Jonathan Schofield on last edited by
…Tech efficiency aside, I still think Jathan Sadowski summed up the hubris at the core of blockchain when he said that crypto-currency related tech is
“a libertarian fantasy looking to replace society with a decentralised frontier that’s doomed to fail because it has…
an atomistic view of a fundamentally relational world”
