Blockchain Revolution: the END of Consultant Democracy? – VisualPolitik EN

This video is sponsored by Squarespace. Begin your free Squarespace trial in the present day at and use code VISUALPOLITIK to get 10% off your first buy.

In a earlier VisualPolitik video we spoke about what cash is, its most important issues and why cryptocurrencies are right here to remain. The pace, anonymity, security and independence of cryptocurrencies, which aren’t run by governments, politicians, or any “council of clever males”; aren’t options we are able to ignore.

You most likely already know that Blockchain is the expertise that helps Bitcoin. However there’s extra to it than that. Blockchain is sort of a enormous e-book the place all of the bitcoin transactions which have taken place all around the planet are registered.

Blockchain may help finish paperwork, an issue that has been with us for hundreds of years. With using blockchain assets can go to essentially the most vital locations and productive areas.

Are you able to think about firms run by non-human house owners?
Are you able to think about an organization whose proprietor is a couple of traces of code within the cloud?
Are you able to think about an organization or an NGO with no human staff?

*We have been capable of create this video because of the invaluable assist of our good buddy Víctor Solsona. From right here, Víctor, thanks 1,000,000.

And remember to go to our buddy’s podcast, Rethink Media:

Why do BITCOIN and cryptocurrency ARISE?

45 thoughts on “Blockchain Revolution: the END of Consultant Democracy? – VisualPolitik EN

  1. Also, I would suggest you to read about Estonian e-residency and imagine how those systems may merge? We could have entirely virtual countries without even any physical land. Just connected companies and cultural space and so forth.

  2. My worst nightmare in 13 minutes.
    Simon, your videos are usually very good, explanatory, taking into account many side effects of discussed decision.
    It's not the case of this video, unfortunately. Yes, politics are corrupt, some more than others and not necesasry in a bad way – they have agendas and that's why we want them. Dehumanising politics like this it the end, Simon. We won't be deciding over ourselves anymore. And if you believe that people can write an all-encompasig code to make decisions instead of us, history proves you wrong.

  3. You talk about all that cloud-based AI stuff as some kind of savior. It is not.
    Everything is hackable, and with AI and cloud technology, nothing will change. While people controlling the world now are politicians and bankers, with AI and cloud it will be hackers.
    Therefore, nothing will change, and could become even worse than it is now.

  4. Oh, another technology fetishised by anarcho-capitalists awaiting widespread adoption? There is no way this is going to have any positive effect on the majority of us.

  5. The most dangerous thing blockchain could be used for is turning it into a public ledger of short permanent records(words/pictures/video) ie put in the formula for coca-cola, it stays there forever and no one can remove it EVER

  6. blockchain will be integrated with the banking systems and currency will be the same. cryptocurrency is a fad. all currencies will have a shared ledger info. additionally blockchain will be used in franking of documents thus crypto contracts etc.

  7. The problem with the newspaper example that it is very difficult to quantify for a ranking algorithm journalist performance in general. What is indicative of good journalism? User reviews: on political issues one would get grossly exaggerated votes from fanatic supporters of whatever political agenda so the system would respond to political pressure that way. If not reviews then article length? Hopefully not… popularity of articles posted maybe by even employing machine learning? Well that, dear viewer would basically impose capitalism to the journalism domain because the algorithm would only care about maximizing its score(s) of fitness and as humans function fake news, conspiracy theories, populism, pseudoscience and basically anything sensational or outrageous spreads online like wildfire so the system would become the worst version of Breitbart one could conceive in no time. I personally could not name good metrics for journalism because the technology that understands text in depth while correlating with supporting evidence automatically in a machine learning fashion as far as I know does not exist and probably if it existed it should not be used to directly influence AND CENSOR people's sources of information about reality. Machine learning is very bad for any problem where lives could be at stake. One can not debug the corpus after it having made a bad decision. One would be able to find how the error occurred, how the machine learned the opposite of what it was hoped to learn but even with that knowledge removing false information from the corpus can become challenging very quickly. So if the rules of that chain are implemented as bad as most smart phone apps it is more likely than not to cause the Breitbart effect rather than the much needed objective news source proponents would make you think of when mentioning blockchain in this context.

  8. I think what's presented in this video is highly unlikely.
    Representative/"corporate executive" are not only here as trusted third parties. They are here to be more informed about the "global picture" and *take decision*. We can see even country like Switzerland that have a lot of direct democracy that they still use some level of bureaucracy. Furthermore, some of their citizens have remarked that they don't feel qualify to decide on what they are being asked (hence the low turn out).

    Saying that the future is unpredictable doesn't mean all futures are equally likely, or that the weirdest is more likely. This argument is totally irrelevant IMO.

  9. It's okay to trade with bitcoins but how will you earn them if everything is done by the Blockchain
    If only the best gets paid, what about the rest?

  10. True, fluid democracy combines direct and representative democracy. Meaning that individuals and organisations can be delegated regarding voting and representation while the political parties are becoming more obsolete

  11. I'm not buying it. Take the case of an algorithm/block chain health insurance provider. It's well known the ideal healthcare payee is someone who lives a long and happy life (to pay their monthly fees) then the second their health starts to fail just drops dead immediately (to minimize healthcare costs). So to keep those costs down, if someone has a stroke and is in need of long term nursing care, would our algorithm start recommending depressing videos in his media, insert some status updates on his social media about how his children don't love him, and show him advertisements for how exhilarating it is to skydive without a parachute?

    We can't have that! Manipulating stroke victims to suicide would be unethical! Evil! So we'd need some way to regulate our algorithm! Maybe a committee of people to regulate the algorithm's changes before a new version is updated and make decisions on what changes are ethical and which aren't, I guess they'd need to be representative and elected to the position. And then, oh yes, we're right back where we started with our representative politicians and red tape regulations.

  12. the major problem with automation is the same problem that happened in the developed countries in regard to robotics being applied in the industry. every time automation occured… even if the costs went down the productivity skyrocketed and fewer people were in the loop …owners of the automation process always charged more or kept the prices the same. blockchain sounds great on the surface and heck in an idealized world without humans it might work but people are motivated by greed… even the most wonderful of us… because that is the way the game is played. Blockchain could easily lead to the want for nothing beautiful world described in some scifi books tvshows and movies… but how do you isolate greed from the system? there are two motivations of greed, Wealth & Power. Blockchain might on its own solve one but grant insurmountable access to a privy few for the other, eventually returning the system back to an imbalance… but blockchain could allow for a level of control that far outstripps whats possible today.

    I think blockchain designs could and should be applied to any system that manages any project dealing with large numbers of diverse people… however the fundamental flaws in our modern business and governing systems still suffer from money taking priority above anything else… you need to separate money labour and product and make them each tradable currencies of equal value and manage that through blockchain-like systems… that would allow for a fair system without greed messing it all up. also it wouldn't be socialist or any other system people denounce as negative. people could still make a lot of money built around supply and demand but not at the expense of labour or the quality of products. it would just add these as part of the business circle with built in checks and balances.

    do you have a unique skill? market that under labour… does your skill create something? market that under product… combine the value of both to determine a price… the enforcement of norms in this process would then be overseen through blockchain-like systems… ensuring impartiality and letting the true value of your skillset to shine through without bureaucracy and more senior people taking an unfair cut preventing your success.

  13. Simon, I like you and I think you are very intelligent. But you only have to look at the United Kingdom and Brexit to realize what a stupid idea it is to turn more power over to the hands of the general electorate. Nations are amazingly complex and require a certain amount of stability in order to function. This is why we elect people to run them for us. These individuals can focus all their efforts towards learning about the problems facing not only their nation but also about the people who elected them. Too many people are already far to easily persuaded by demagogues, false information, and pop culture celebrities.  Representative democracy certainly has its flaws, but what you are suggesting at best would be the rule by the majority without regard for minorities, and at worst it would be little more than anarchy. Blockchain will revolutionize the world and it will likely solve many problems within government. But too many people, when they don't like the individuals who have been elected by the public, start to believe that if only the everyday citizen ( like themselves ) had more of a direct say in the government, then suddenly a utopia would arise. That's hubris.

  14. summary: block chain is complicated and we dont know exactly how its gonna work. block chain might be able to replace politicians and make the world a better place. block chain is complicated and we dont know exactly how its gonna work.

  15. Ah this is so not the end of bureaucracy its just the automation and further dehumanization of our governing apparatus. Its this very kinda unimaginative rigidly programed policy of governing bureaucracy structures that makes them so manipulable by political leaders. Also blockchain is in no way this fallible cross reference apparatus we assume, it works on the same principle as Wikipedia where truth is just consensus or perhaps even just the most strongly lobbied position not necessarily reality. Blockchain just seems so availing because the risk from it are just as opaque and even harder to understand then blockchain its self.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *