Varun Srinivasan
@v
one thing that take people a while to internalize is how social contracts are really the void which binds a protocol. standards, smart contracts, blockchains etc are all important pieces that make it harder to break these contracts casually, but do not make it impossible. if you have sufficient social consensus you can break all of them (see DAO fork, Bitcoin Cash fork etc)
3 replies
2 recasts
32 reactions
boscolo.eth
@boscolo.eth
đź’Ż - But these examples are not super relevant in this thread. The FC protocol is made up of different components. Today, 100% of the control of the identity layer is in Merkle's hands, which is essentially no different than đť•Ź.
3 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
there are certaintly intersubjective scenarios, but the entire point of blockchain smart contracts is the ability to bind code to a larger more established social contract like the ethereum consensus mechanism. before: i run the server, you obey the social contract with me after: i bind my commitment to ethereum, we both obey the social contract with ethereum we can always fork ethereum but that's a much much much bigger bar than changing the social contract of some server i run. sure everything is social consensus, but not all social consensus is made equal, and the real utility is being able to build one source of really good consensus that we can all bind to and build on top of.
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
meta-david đź’Ą| Building Scoop3
@metadavid
It's as canonical as you believe it to be
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
