in the particular case of Szabos law and the 21 Million Bitcoin supply-limit, "code is law" is vital for price discovery and yes otherwise it is a weakness (evolution proves you right). Of course the term "law" is BS but it is a suggestion to the ones deciding. Once a particular system is established, you cant undo it by hopping to another software. You cant undo mindshare. Szaboslaw was allready broken when we shifted from p2pkh legacy addresses (starting with "1") to bech32 native Segwit ("bc1") ... after your logic it is fine, since there is no "code is law". But from a moral point of view most non-techi Bitcoin users are tricked off the Nakamoto chain. Nakamoto holds p2pkh coins, while most of the newer users hold netiveSegWit, while believing they hold the same BTC as Nakamoto 😂. The market does not discriminate between both flavors of BTC, but game-theoretically it is a huge difference if you hodl like Nakamoto or if you blindly follow the consensus ("because majority consensus is king"). Iterated over many trial and errors mistakes are fine and makes the system anti-fragile but can you really apply this to the already established systems?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sure, we can, and sure we will.
In my own opinion, both our current monetary and governance systems are severely flawed (note I'm referring to both cryptocurrency and fiat monetary systems, and pretty much every form of government which sovereign nations currently operate under).
I operate under these systems today, but I long for, and work for new, better systems to replace them. I don't know if we'll see significant change in my life time, but I've reached the point in my life where it's the primary goal for all my future work.