We trust the code. Is it technology neutral?

“Technology is neither good nor bad, it is neutral.” And this “neutrality” means in most cases impartiality. And this, in turn, could lead us to believe that this supposed impartiality of machines contrasts with the natural partiality of humans. So a machine controlled system should be a fairer system. No? In this room we often hear: “Don’t trust. Check “. But what it really means is that we shouldn’t trust other people, we should trust technology. In this case, the specific thing is to rely on the bitcoin code created by Satoshi Nakamoto.

The idea is that the internet is a common good and the bitcoin code is neutral, impartial and fair. Hence the perfect tool to replace banks and governments that are not neutral, impartial or fair. In other words, with this technology we don’t need human intermediaries. It’s not a secret to anyone that Bitcoiner is inherently suspicious. But for some reason he distrusts Satoshi very little. If we talk about another algorithm, generator bias is taken into account. However, this is not the case with Satoshi. Apparently, his anonymity gives him a supernatural element. For some strange reason, in the case of the Bitcoin code, Satoshi is neutral, unbiased, and fair. I mean there is no human factor.

Read on: The Great Conspiracy and Bitcoin. How can you invest in times after the truth?

We trust the code. Is it technology neutral?
We trust the code. Is it technology neutral?

The Bitcoin code is a programming achievement. Some experts in the field have mentioned that however, Satoshi was not the best cryptographer from a technical point of view, as he apparently made some mistakes that a skilled cryptographer would never have made. It seems to me that I heard this comment from Willy Woo in an interview about Satoshi’s true identity. In that interview, Woo explained the reasons he didn’t think programmer Adam Black was Satoshi, arguing that Black was a skilled cryptographer. And he would never have made those “novice” mistakes found in Satoshi’s original work. Aside from these small technical flaws, of course, no one can deny that the end product is the work of a genius.

In the past, many, many inventions were the work of “amateurs”. I don’t know if the Wright brothers were the best engineers of their time, but it doesn’t matter. Because these “best engineers” didn’t fly. The credit for the invention of the airplane rests with this couple of amateurs.

But Satoshi isn’t just the creator of a code. He is the creator of a new currency. This new currency requires infrastructure, energy, and maintenance to function. In addition, the code contains a number of unique characteristics that affect its functioning as a currency. If we look at money as a form of organization, we must assume that the type of money used has a large impact on the type of social organization it promotes. How Good is Satoshi an Economist?

Let’s leave the crypto world now to gain perspective. Nobody would dare to say that Facebook’s algorithms are unbiased. Because maybe it’s not about fairness, but about function. In other words, an algorithm works well or not. In other words, Facebook algorithms work fine as long as they perform the function set by their designer. In this case Facebook. These algorithms only become a problem for Facebook users when the interests of the company conflict with the interests of the users.

Read on: Speculation versus Investment. What’s the secret sauce to make money?

Since the industrial revolution, art has acted as a counterbalance to channel our anti-tech tendencies. Especially in romanticism we come across the character of the mad scientist. Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is an example of this trend that presents technology as a threat. This anti-tech romance still exists pretty much in Hollywood movies today. With the exception of Star Trek, in the vast majority of cases the future is portrayed as a dystopia as technology marked our end. It is the tragic irony of the machine that betrays its maker. Terminator, matrix, mother, etc.

With the rise of artificial intelligence, the debate over control of technology has become more relevant. Regarding control, researcher Max Tegmark, author of Life 3.0, conducted a survey, the results of which I find very interesting. What should the future look like? Who should be in control? Machines or people?

Regarding the type of futures, The two most popular futures are the egalitarian utopia and the libertarian utopia. On the other hand, among the most unpopular futures we have the Conqueror, Reversal, 1984, Self-Destruct, and the Zookeeper. The future “conqueror” refers to a future in which machines take full control. Inversion is an Amish-style world with no technology. The zookeeper is a future in which machines take control and humanity becomes a kind of zoo animal like in the movie Mother. 1984 refers to the novel by George Orwell. And the self-destruct is self-explanatory.

On the subject of control, Respondents prefer a mixed world where machines and people work together with the same goals. A minority prefer a world that is controlled exclusively for humans. And another minority refers to a world controlled by machines.

As an odd remark, Max Tegmark mentioned his poll in a TED talk, and the moment he said that a group of people absolutely wanted to control the machines, he and the audience started laughing mockingly.

Then I thought. Why would someone want to give absolute control to an algorithm? I assume that this is due to the supposed neutrality of the technology. (Idea from the objectivity of science and mathematics). Now, if an algorithm is fair and people are not fair, it would make sense to give the algorithm full control. This “justice” would be for the better. Of course, this would only be possible if the goals of the algorithm were perfectly aligned with the goals of humanity. The algorithm cannot afford to fail either. I mean it can’t go wrong. All of this on the assumption that we can find a neutral design. As you may find by now, none of this is easy to achieve.

Now the internet is neutral, Satoshi is neutral, and the code is neutral. And Bitcoin as a money and form of organization is essentially fair. So we trust the code. “Don’t trust, check.” “Bitcoin fixes that”.

Ladies and gentlemen, the idea that technology is neutral is extremely dangerous. Part of the two misunderstandings: That of the impartial designer and that of the infallibility of machines. And that leads us to neglect because we believe there is no danger. As a result, we do not take the necessary security measures to protect ourselves from design bias and possible errors or secondary effects of technology.

Bitcoin requires electricity, computing power and the internet. Dependency is a form of vulnerability. The limited supply of Bitcoin stimulates a money-hoarding economy and would create a chronic deflationary image in the economy that would reduce its attractiveness as a means of payment, a substitute for the dollar, or the currency of universal use.

Read on: Historical monetary impression, but inflation is not rising enough. Why is the bitcoin community so wrong?

Of course, Bitcoin can be used as a store of value. But this is contrary to the spirit of Satoshi’s white paper. “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer E-Cash System”. Trading on the Internet … This is how this historical text begins. But Bitcoin works much better as a store of value than as a means of payment. Don’t we have the right to choose how to use the technology we use? OR, Are the Creator’s Intentions Most Important? Are we slaves to a benevolent code? Or should the code serve our interests?

However, Who Controls Bitcoin? Satoshi? The code? Or the user community? Creator, machine or human? Who do we trust In God, in the Bible, or in us? With all these technical things, we can never forget people. It would be a mistake to turn technology into a sacred cow.

Similar Posts