"competing virtual nations" is a false narrative

in panarchy •  5 years ago 

What a "nation" is it is a social consensus mechanism, to uphold a state, that is resistant to being overthrown. That is achieved with representative government, people-rule, voting for which state to follow. The Nakamoto consensus, invented by Craig Wright in 2009, is the exact same thing, a social consensus mechanism to uphold a state that is resistant to being overthrown. The first generation, proof-of-work, did so by "voting with CPU", a simple way to bootstrap a "virtual nation" because it only required a cryptographic hash function, widely accessible in 2009. The third generation, after proof-of-stake, is what I call "proof-of-vote". It is exactly analogous to what a "nation" was as a social consensus mechanism. People vote for validators, using proof-of-person and proof-of-suffrage, and validators are delegated authority based on how many votes they have, game theoretically equivalent to how many coins a validator has in proof-of-stake.

The Nakamoto consensus is since 2009 a singular global consensus, a single "nation", from that it can be deduced that the story of "competing virtual nations" is completely false. There will be a singular nation, with competing legal systems within the state, and because of that a free market for government, what Paul Emile de Puydt called "panarchy" in 1860.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

that consensus was a big step at that stage