Decentralization Philosophy Part 1 From Buddha to the Conquistadors

Let's Talk Bitcoin!
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

I've been trying to figure out how to talk about this topic for a while because cryptocurrency is this really kind of strange flat structure. That has all of these little hierarchical structures built on top of it and you can take that analogy and you can really really zoom in on it or you can really really zoom out on it as kind of still true really regardless of how you're looking at it and I think a lot of this has to do with just the nature and sort of the oddness oddness of crypto currency and a Bitcoin as a community right as a movement and as technology that also is attached to people getting rich. Sometimes today I WanNa talk about a topic that I've been calling catalysts and CEOS and take a look at what the crypto currency space looks like. Today what it looked like in the past. Ask Talk about some of the different attributes that got us to where we are today. So Toshi said an interesting precedent. They led with their ideas and to a lesser extent their code and the early sparked a was association that contribution catalyzed first Bitcoin and then the crypto currency movement at large those who believed in that vision given an opportunity to get rich in some cases crazy rich rich and that combination of factors lead. I all coins coins than ICO's SAFT'S STO's and I don't think even talked about on the show before and who knows what will come next because clearly the path of innovation that's occurring here is not over at all but it also created what feels like a strange legacy that we're going to explore today as simply put are charismatic leaders who emerge from that flat structure that is the bitcoin protocol more or less dangerous more or less problematic more or less notable than the mark Zuckerberg's the Elon Musk's Jeff bezos. Goes and Steve. Jobs who really lead their movements. There's not that much of a difference between Associate Akimoto and a Jeff bezos except for the way that they fundamentally went about not inciting the change that now has kind of swept the world in one case kind of the e commerce site of and the other case this digital currency cryptocurrency or blockchain bitcoin movement. Or whatever you WANNA call it. Today's conversation is about decentralized catalysts and centralize CEO's the first thing I thought of when you said SA- Toshi contrasted to Jeff bezos. US was the difference. Between a certain personality type blended with introversion versus extroversion an extroverted rated person who is very smart and capable and intelligent and can see the future almost but wants credit and wants to be the face of an organization and is is comfortable in that role. You end up with someone. Like Jeff bezos. WHO's out there? And he's totally comfortable with that even though he retracts heat sometimes but but she didn't want the credit souto she wants to be behind the scenes and gets everything they needed from just being the mastermind. Mind who's kind of silent and letting other people be the face and I think that's really interesting. If you study personality types. Maybe even like the Myers Briggs. Souto Souto she is like your classic. I N T J personality type. They're like the mastermind architect but they don't need the credit and they don't need to be the face. Jeff Bezos as US would be like an E. N. T. J. who's like the CEO and the leader and wants to be the public face. I think that's a really interesting point. But I think that there's another factor here. Maybe okay which is that. Was it a choice. For Satoshi to take the type of catalyst like behind the scenes never revealed role or was that a factor of the not just the disruptive potential but what was being disruptive of course it was a choice. I mean Saito. She clearly thought through the implications of what they were doing carefully but if they really wanted credit they would have justified some way to take the credit and to be public about it. I think you always have a choice. I think another pretty good way to differentiate so Toshi from Jeff bezos is one of them make several hundred million a year contracting with the CIA Eh and the other one was never heard from one someone spoke to the CIA. I don't know who's point that supports but I think the big different factors that there was a legal path for Jeff Bezos to do what he did and even if he was an introvert. It still a good choice for him to do it. If it winds up that he has all the resources and success. I don't think we see that in practice very often where you have a founder. Who Comes in catalyze is a thing and then leaves before it actually becomes successful and their contribution bution isn't largely replaced by what comes after? I don't think it's so cut and dried that. What Jeff Bezos was doing or wanted to do with there was a legal path for him him? I mean he was doing something that nobody had ever done before. What was that avoiding state sales tax? This is another good point. Jeff bezos has been really interested in Star Trek. He wants to create a star trek future and some of the things he's been doing are totally unprecedented. And so it's not as though you can really say. Oh they're definitely legal because there's never been a legal precedent to establish that they are legal. You could say oh well Ijaz doing things that are a gray area or questionable. But he's he's not asking for permission and that's an admirable quality so you're talking about different levels of challenge and so with Jeff Bezos thing and with examples like like Uber. And other things like that. You are talking about companies that are doing very disruptive things but the question is who are they disrupting and in both of those situations the person or the entity. That's it's being disrupted their state governments and so if you're like a national company and you have presence in many many states that actually gives you the ability to play a bit of a game there. The thing that Uber did is kind of the reverse of what happened with napster. Napster was a decentralized network for file sharing then hit a bunch of national and even global organizations that suited everywhere but it was ultimately fighting these national or global organizations whereas Uber. They weren't fighting any global or national organizations they were fighting lots and lots and lots of little regional monopolies and it's to a lesser extent. Sure about Amazon to every state where they weren't collecting sales tax. Well that was an individual a fight so it's not like they had a problem with the United States. They had a problem with each individual state. Look at what's happened with projects in the lead up to the invention of Bitcoin and all of those centralized charlize alternatives. They were competing with the federal government for fundamentally monopolized right in the right to issue currency and control sort of the dynamics of the money that we all use news. And that's a place where it seems like you couldn't have done this as a CEO because people tried that and they basically all wound up getting arrested or getting all their assets season in many cases giving customers assets assets seized two so as we can see. There are definitely reasons why people do decentralized and centralized organizations whether it's from personal reasons just because they don't want the credit in some cases or in some cases because having the credit is dangerous and on the other hand the advantages of taking on that leadership role. Well the thing about a flat structure is that it's a flat unstructured. So even if you're on top of it still major basically at the same level as everybody else but organizations you know. Companies these are hierarchies for the most part and so if you have that role at the top of that structure well. It's a lot higher than you'd be if you were at the top of a flat structure. All of this comes back to one of my favorite books. It's really short and highly recommended. Did starfish and the spider by Rod Beckstrom Ori Brachman. I read it actually before I became interested in Bitcoin and it was really kind of formation book for me. We've talked about on the show before but it's been like five five years so I figured it wasn't a bad topic to bring up again. The subtitle of the book is the unstoppable power of leaderless organizations. And if you're a fan of decentralized technologies but I've never read it I cannot recommended amended highly enough quoting from the book. A spider is a creature with eight legs coming out of its central body. It has this tiny head and usually eight is. If you chop off the spider's headed headed dies and that's exactly what happens with centralized organization a centralized organization has a clear leader. WHO's in charge? And there's a specific place where decisions are made if you get rid of the leader. You paralyzed realized the organization now. This contrasts with a decentralized organization. which is a fundamentally different animal? It's actually a starfish. At first glance at starfish looked similar to a spider appearance but the starfish is decentralized. starfish doesn't have ahead. The major organs are actually replicated through each and every arm and in reality. starfish is a neural network work. Basically a network of cells instead of having a head like a spider the starfish functions as decentralized network and you can even in nature see situations where a starfish fish has been wounded and for example in arm or even several arms have come off what tends to happen is that actually both pieces will then grow into a complete starfish and it's another another method that they can reproduce. You might say that that's inefficient from a biological perspective to duplicate or pent-up locate editor. How you even and say that word but to make five copies of all of your major orders and neural tissue? GAFFER's them this great advantage of being able to regenerate just from from a small piece it means that while starfish might not have perhaps some of the advantages that a spider does it also isn't vulnerable in the same way. That spider is to damage to you. Know very small parts of it because again it's just not centralized we're GonNa talk about this concept in a different way a little bit later. But what other comparisons do you like besides this kind of starfish in spider for decentralized and centralized organizations and kind of broader question that I wanna come to his how many companies do we actually think or how many any projects do we actually think like rough. ballpark percentage in crypto actually are starfish versus. How many might be using a network that is a starfish but in reality the are themselves

Coming up next