it's a problem of a distributed consensus. it's very simple ...

npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku

hex

41565f2078ddbff53b919061635953c5c911ccadb5b467aa9d17aba2cde7f72b

nevent

nevent1qqsyz4jlypudm0l48wgeqctrt9futjg3ejkmtdr842w302azehnlw2cprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsyeqqz27jc32pgf8gynqtu90d2mxztykj94k0kmttxu37nk3lrktcxfv2e7

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2025-12-11T19:48:55Z

↳ 回复 Sat Nakamoto (npub1zmtk7f3tdzdmrgel4gklj4xmu7k8z7fhlt28vks9mhaw8kkf9ptqj22fyn)

If not, then don’t we also have a similar problem of monarchy, oligarchy, etc.? Beyond the “just fix the money” statement?

it's a problem of a distributed consensus. it's very simple to make an analogy to the architecture of distributed systems, how do you decide who is the leader, or can you decide without a leader.

if you get an LLM to give you a summary, like, a page, explaining the principles of distributed systems, you will learn that leaders are not necessarily needed to make a consensus, and physics can be used, as in the nakamoto consensus, to enforce the faithfulness of the log it produces, the blockchain, which is a transaction log.

there are cases where a single leader works better, but fails in other cases. a round-robin or democratic election of leaders works better in some ways, and fails in others. leaderless consensus algorithms also have failure modes, so it's not really a question of "which is better" it's about a fit between the threat model and the work of the system.

the utilitarian/aristotlean notion of respecting property rights as having a net benefit of raising the common wealth, has a failure mode too: that being that greater wealth is there to steal. the success of capitalism precisely has thrown this stumbling block in the path of civilization because of the vulnerability of people to deception, and the escalation of this into the place we are now, where the people have been stripped of their ability to reason about the situation, and encouraged and made normalized that the ongoing robbery is for everyone's good. the result is a decline in the common wealth, so the threat vector here is that more wealth means more to steal means more powerful methods of avoiding the vengeance of the victims which leads to the total collapse of the society.

that's why Hoppe argues that a monarchy, along similar lines as we see in Luxembourg, is the most productive and leads to the least harm for the most number of people.

funny enough, that's also what the whole Jesus is King thing is about. they dematerialize the figurehead into legend and history, and that's why a substantial part of the population of christians are borderline anarchocapitalists. actually, same can be said of islam, judaism buddhism and taoism. taoism's main book even sets out rules for how a king should operate, and it is practically the same as what the bible says about it (eg, samuel, genesis, jude, daniel, revelation, ezekiel).

since we both already now agree the threat comes from an entitled ruling class who have moved behind the curtain and exert their power indirectly, to shield from consequences, basically all of the models are vulnerable to this, on a society-wide level. except the religious figure who is supernatural in some way, leading by a system of rules that all participants understand, and a simple set of rules that even a 4 year old child can understand.

there is a cognate in distributed systems for this kind of thing, and you find them in leaderless protocols like biitcoin. i have part way designed one too, maybe you would find it interesting if you grasp the argument i'm making:

https://git.mleku.dev/mleku/jericho

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "41565f2078ddbff53b919061635953c5c911ccadb5b467aa9d17aba2cde7f72b",
  "pubkey": "4c800257a588a82849d049817c2bdaad984b25a45ad9f6dad66e47d3b47e3b2f",
  "created_at": 1765482535,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "28e8077e130519db74ec712d7875f32a02fafeed9081446c831137014c915d4d",
      "wss://relay.orly.dev/",
      "root",
      "55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "adadafb6a8ce65d6fd1d4f51e7f44f26a2997583932a9070139122dd74e2bff2",
      "wss://relay.nostr.band/",
      "reply",
      "16d76f262b689bb1a33faa2df954dbe7ac717937fad4765a05ddfae3dac92856"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "16d76f262b689bb1a33faa2df954dbe7ac717937fad4765a05ddfae3dac92856"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "9a21569255d0a3a9e75f1de2e4c883c9be2e5615887f22b2ecf6b1813bcd587d"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "3c6d08c75000fdb7226014e1e7e14abf9a51b628f5de60f892b39a9a9e797774"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "jumble"
    ],
    [
      "alt",
      "This event was published by https://jumble.imwald.eu."
    ]
  ],
  "content": "it's a problem of a distributed consensus. it's very simple to make an analogy to the architecture of distributed systems, how do you decide who is the leader, or can you decide without a leader.\n\nif you get an LLM to give you a summary, like, a page, explaining the principles of distributed systems, you will learn that leaders are not necessarily needed to make a consensus, and physics can be used, as in the nakamoto consensus, to enforce the faithfulness of the log it produces, the blockchain, which is a transaction log.\n\nthere are cases where a single leader works better, but fails in other cases. a round-robin or democratic election of leaders works better in some ways, and fails in others. leaderless consensus algorithms also have failure modes, so it's not really a question of \"which is better\" it's about a fit between the threat model and the work of the system.\n\nthe utilitarian/aristotlean notion of respecting property rights as having a net benefit of raising the common wealth, has a failure mode too: that being that greater wealth is there to steal. the success of capitalism precisely has thrown this stumbling block in the path of civilization because of the vulnerability of people to deception, and the escalation of this into the place we are now, where the people have been stripped of their ability to reason about the situation, and encouraged and made normalized that the ongoing robbery is for everyone's good. the result is a decline in the common wealth, so the threat vector here is that more wealth means more to steal means more powerful methods of avoiding the vengeance of the victims which leads to the total collapse of the society.\n\nthat's why Hoppe argues that a monarchy, along similar lines as we see in Luxembourg, is the most productive and leads to the least harm for the most number of people.\n\nfunny enough, that's also what the whole Jesus is King thing is about. they dematerialize the figurehead into legend and history, and that's why a substantial part of the population of christians are borderline anarchocapitalists. actually, same can be said of islam, judaism buddhism and taoism. taoism's main book even sets out rules for how a king should operate, and it is practically the same as what the bible says about it (eg, samuel, genesis, jude, daniel, revelation, ezekiel).\n\nsince we both already now agree the threat comes from an entitled ruling class who have moved behind the curtain and exert their power indirectly, to shield from consequences, basically all of the models are vulnerable to this, on a society-wide level. except the religious figure who is supernatural in some way, leading by a system of rules that all participants understand, and a simple set of rules that even a 4 year old child can understand.\n\nthere is a cognate in distributed systems for this kind of thing, and you find them in leaderless protocols like biitcoin. i have part way designed one too, maybe you would find it interesting if you grasp the argument i'm making:\n\nhttps://git.mleku.dev/mleku/jericho",
  "sig": "5cc0b25d0afb204594c7a362943a542885a84e70bba11f5cce8c3652fac61e32d0e05d252f749733cbbcedc93c00235e19beed1d81fe28852c67921f65ad8561"
}