Hashgraph Board

An anarchist's critique of Hashgraph

Offline anarchy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • 1
  • +0/-0
    • View Profile
An anarchist's critique of Hashgraph
« on: February 08, 2018, 03:04:52 PM »
An Anarchist's Critique of Hashgraph

1) Couldn't hashgraphs full consensus distributed ledger empower what some people call 'terrorists' to
collaborate with complete privacy from certain intelligence agencies via their own (uncompromised) swirld(s).
(I express no judgement as to whether this would be good or bad)

2) Could a hashgraph based cryptocurrency 'kill' modern capitalism? Let me explain:
The values inherent in this technology^(1) could be a stronger social force than the U.S. military's ability to
keep capitalism/business proceed as usual^(2). A union of corporations, of sorts, could then enable a hashgraph
based cryptocurrency to take the place of dollars as the world reserve currency. This would cause an, awaited
for^(3), lethal injury to capitalism^(4). Especially if many governments replace their old respective currencies
with hashgraph's new, nearly universal, and non-permissioned cryptocurrency.
(Again, I express no judgement as to whether this would be good or bad)

Notes Question 2
1) Notably, the speed, fairness, efficiency, security, and absence of profiting middle men regulators all
incentivize business to use hasgraph's full consensus distributed ledger technology for many uses, especially (in
this case) for a crytocurrency. The mass of humanity would support hashgraph too; as a way to eliminate
increasing amounts of DDOS attacks on the internet of things in developed countries; and developing countries
would desire it so as to (try to) escape debt peonage. It'd also be safer, more stable, and easier to use.
2) That is, with foreign countries paying high interest rates on debts, while deficit spending continues to
increase in the U.S.
Debt: The First 5,000 years by David Graeber. pg. 6
3) Ibid. pg. 359-360.
4)The dollar is backed by the speculative value, not gold. When faith in one's currency is undermined it
decreases in value. This often leads to a feedback loop of panic and sell. Economies shrink, and governments
enter recession until a central bank dramatically increases the currency supply close enough to infinity for
peoples' faith to return, so 'progress' can resume. But before long, prices of goods rise to meet the currency
supply. People panic and sell sooner, and hyperinflation occurs.
This is elegantly shown in the beginning of episode 7 of Mike Maloney's Hidden Secrets of Money.

3) Could Swirlds really be monopoly-proof?
The following text has rebuttals to many of the possible ways of procuring voting stake in differently managed
Swirlds which Leeman Baird proposed in his Whitepaper titled 'Swirlds and Sybil Attacks' on June 6, 2016.
Excerpts from the whitepaper above are in quotations; my rebuttal follows each ------.
'PROOF OF STAKE - each member can associate themselves with one or more Bitcoin wallets they own, and
their voting stake is set to the total balance of those wallets.'
------Wealthy people could have enough of a cryptocurrency to make a monopoly from the start.
'even one defined by the swirld itself.'
------Wealthy people could decide on any preferred cryptocurrency for whatever Swirld. New, anonymous, and
uncorrupted Swirlds with a neutral cryptocurrency, could be compromised as holders of its currency are
manipulated/bribed, or the actual person in charge of a mode is physically replaced by a puppet.
'PROOF OF BURN... there is a fee that must be paid to join the swirld, and the voting stake is proportional to
the amount paid.'
------Wealthy people could buy their way in through their existing currency/power
'PROOF OF WORK - a member can earn voting stake by solving a computational puzzle. This is similar to
Bitcoin [mining]'
------.... wealthy people can afford the best mining rigs
'PERMISSIONED - each member gets a voting stake of exactly 1, but they are only allowed to become a
member if they have permission [from] a vote by the humans involved'
------Which humans? How could a Swirld prevent a tyranny of the minority? How could a truly democratic
Swirld not suffer from the tyranny of the majority (where an agreement is only reached after so many
compromises that no one is really happy).
'....[or from] some existing organization'
------such as a neo-secretive tax-exempt foundation perhaps? (wealthy people)
'HYBRID - the original founders of a swirld each start with an equal voting stake'
------Might these founders be wealthy?
'Each member will split their own voting stake with all those they invite [who] will still [collectively] still have
the same total voting stake as the member had originally'
------This would only make it easier for wealthy founders to hide as they split their voting stake to subordinates;
possibly even if the history of who invited who is shared.
------self evident
'THE SWIRLD could start with the hybrid model, then allow users to sell voting stake to each other'
------ the original founders could still be conspiring wealthy people
'PERMISSIONED but with the permissioning done within the swirld itself, by having an actual election, with
the humans talking with each other prior to voting'
------ still risk of tyranny of the majority.

4) Would there be systems of credit and debt within Swirlds big and small? What is your best guess at to what
these would look like?

It seems to me that monopolies within Swirlds could form. Wealthy people could conspire, could secretly plan
to do something illegal or immoral, such as control more than 1/3 of a powerful Swirlds voting stake. It'd be
difficult for laymen to know that a Swirld isn't honest because as long as they don't do anything important, their
transactions will be unaltered. Even if sufficient demand for a reformed honest Swirld replaced a corrupted one;
the new one could become corrupted through a combination of bribing, physically threatening, and finally, by
replacing an assassinated mode with a puppet until a monopoly controlling greater than 1/3 forms. Lastly, even
if no monopolies ever formed within any Swirlds, it could seriously be doubted whether whatever services it
provides would satisfy (non-genetically-altered) human needs greater than anarcho-primitivism would; than a
real physical world where wealth is a social status, where autonomy and respect for the Earth reign, and where
love is felt for ones neighbors (in my opinion).