That’s why I don’t do it…there is no inevitability about how crypto in general will pan out in the future, or what the final implementation of Safe Net will be as far as I’m concerned.
That’s why I do it and why it is not pointless.
If you think the discussion is pointless, either don’t partake, start a thread about how pointless discussing the future of crypto development and its implications for society is, or lobby the mods to move to off topic, whatever.
The future is not inevitable, it is what we decide to make it and I will continue to discuss ways to replace mechanisms for crypto development to provide for the weak/vulnerable.
Crypto in general is going to change the world of finance/data and replace a number of Govt functions, de-centralising power/democracy etc, This being the case, I think we better start thinking about replacing the societal safety net too and replacing the tax system that provides for this.
I do not believe relying on Charity is suffice, though I get that you do - this does not give you the right to keep jumping in to say how pointless discussing this aspect is - that is the pointless/non- constructive part - I say either argue against it, state why providing a societal safety net is not any kind of moral consideration (for all crypto communities/developers/inventors) or don’t.
I get that you think I’m asking for core to be changed and that this is an annoyance, however if you followed my other “Quick Question” thread, you would have realised that there may be alternative mechanisms without changing the core. I believe de-centralising the Foundation at some future point along with a voting system would do the job.
I would not have come to think about ways to do things without affecting the core, without first having the idea the core needed changing - one idea/discussion/solution leads to another. I don’t believe any discussion in this area is pointless, it creates debate, which then gives Maidsafe both sides of arguments, from which they can make their decisions.
I will continue to discuss whatever I want to, as long as there’s someone willing to discuss it with me - I will never be told what I can or can’t say…however pointless others may think it.
D.Irvine recently stated that he thought of coding languages as “tools”, when discussing the benefits/ rewards of transposing to “Rust”. The decision to be made was based on weighing the benefit of using a “sharper” tool against the negative of maybe slowing progress – it is a balancing act for Maidsafe to decide before Launch.
What I’m saying is along similar lines:
In answer to your “better question”, Society will view Safe-Net as a Tool to enable the functioning of an equitable Society. If some “component/mechanism” is “missing” or some other way of adapting the tool to provide the function is not part of the tool, another tool will be found, or old tools that did the job in a half-arsed way will be still used. (ie Govt/Charity). I do not believe this to be a desirable outcome, but if we are talking about inevitable futures, then this would be the inevitable future consequences of your inevitable future, I think.