Embed Notice

@Moon@shitposter.club no, what Vitalik said. Governments as-is don’t have the agency to decide to stop it, and the ultimate rejection of such ideals fall to broader society: however nice it sounds, anything opposing the onward march of the industrial system is contrary to the goals of those who participate in it. If blockchain does not work to improve industrial output either directly or indirectly, it will be rejected. And Vitalik’s stated goal in that statement of more autonomy and impedance to the progress of control contradicts what makes production more efficient.
So the possibilities therefore are as follows:
* the approach is rejected by wider society,
* the approach is changed to be in line with industrialism, abandoning the original goal, or
* a temporary societal agreement to keep the status quo (rejection of an extra step of technological or techno-social abuse and control)

And, mind you, saying the social agreement is temporary is redundant. All social agreements break down over time as the benefits of pursuing and using technological advances which themselves must improve the ability of the industrial system to propagate become harder and harder to resist over time.