"digital jurisdiction"

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>出于加密货币与生俱来的独特性，其价格走势本不应该被人为地解读，而场外观众们也无需矫情地揣测低迷熊市与失守分析师之间的暧昧联系。比特币可谓区块链世界第一个广为人知的创业项目，考虑到它对现有金融体系的颠覆性冲击，这些华尔街拥趸们的「洋相」或许不失为一种班门弄斧式的保身明哲。

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>「区块链以增加计算成本为代价来降低社会成本」，这样的论断让人联想到前几年有关新能源汽车的讨论。新能源汽车的 per unit actual consumption 不一定比内燃机车辆低，但人们寄厚望于它的 social benefit。<br/><br/>我们现在已经知道，区块链会把人类带向一个新世界。试追问：区块链就是这个「世界」本身吗？又或者只是新世界的运行规则？大脑在变得更加聪明，而思维在变得更加固化，已然练就了一种表述：每个世界都要有自己的运行法则。<br/><br/>在上述疑问尚无共识之前，我们不妨先关注一下特斯拉的股价？

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>技术在为人们勾画远景宏图的同时，也引人深思——发明技术的人类，已经演化到了其自身权利得由技术赋予的状态了吗？想必最激进的技术主义者也不会否认，教会他识字表达的不是命令行，而是活生生的人。廿一世纪的我们已经知道，「天赋人权」不过是句颇具浪漫主义色彩的政治标语，那些被我们珍视的权利其实是人类自己争取而来的。谈论区块链落地场景时更富批判性的靶向在于技术文化与身份认同之间的张力，可参见评论文章《新时代新气象，个体式激进与集体式自律》。

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>将区块链与互联网发展史作同类比较，的确能发现相似的轨迹，但也难逃倚老卖老的嫌疑。从何时起，我们给自己立下了「后来者无论成功与失败，始终跑在前人滑破的气流里」这一金科玉律？值得一提的是，见证时代前沿发展的进步主义者，在世界观上大多并不前沿，甚至很前现代。<br/><br/>试问：你渴望完美无缺的人设吗？若是，那你又可否期待「能加速该进程」的技术横空出世？自渡与普渡，向来是技术社群必须直面的哲学迷思。

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>如果没有区块链的加持，公权力是否会想到采用类似分布式技术等颇为 geek 的手段来维护现有体系？就算这只是个早晚会实现的时间问题，那民众也应该保留不停追问的权利。要知道，公权力与 geek 在精神上互为对立——回顾一下当年快播王欣案上公诉方那贻笑大方的审问吧——「（针对媒体类大文件的分布式存储）你为什么要粉碎文件？你到底有何企图？」<br/><br/>同样令密码学社群捉摸不透的企图是，区块链确权被运用在现实资产上。高度透明、单一登记，这与现在的互联网秩序在目标上又有何区别？真可谓理想主义者的又一次溃败。

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>至今为止我们还没有遇到完美的币种，可能以后也不会有。哪怕是久居排行榜单之首的比特币，也难以自视清高，不加入这首群雄逐鹿的协奏曲，但是契合乐谱精神的指挥家想必不是中心化的交易所。倘若让这曲华章无限延伸，我们或终将寻到一位让乐迷们心悦诚服的意中人。</br></br>然而，总有些东西是永恒的。不妨就让他们在此演奏，直到永远。

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>Tata 释出的这份调查报告《发展周期（The Cycle of Progress）》枚举了企业在区块链应用上面临的主要障碍，但这并非警告——我们有必要正视不同层面的差距。事实上无论是在公司内部还是在更广的社会层面，这种异步感早已存在，甚至可以说，恰恰是这种异步感造成了人们认知上的差别，庞大的生态体系因此得以建立、维系。<br/><br/>如今，这些巨型组织的内部孵化出了一股新生力量——他们面对新技术的诱惑蠢蠢欲动，又无法轻松甩掉旧资产的包袱，还要和那些持不同意见的高管和股东们做对抗。但这样的拉扯并不一定是零和游戏，在这争斗中不同派别也能射出良性互动的微光，亦向现状抛出问题——既然我们做好了迎接新技术到来的外部战略准备，为何不改变自下而上的内部交互方式？

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>1933 年德国包豪斯设计学院被纳粹关闭，大部分师生移民到美国，他们同时也把自己的建筑风格带到了美利坚。尽管人们在严格的几何造型上感受到了冷漠感，但是包豪斯主义致力于美术和工业化社会之间的调和，力图探索艺术与技术的新统一，促使公众思考——「如何成为更完备的人」？而这一点间接影响到了我们现在所熟知的美国式人格。<br/><br/>区块链最终会超越「人治」、达到「算法自治」的状态吗？类似的讨论声在人工智能领域同样不绝于耳。「绝对理性」站到了完备人格的对立面，这种冰冷的特质标志着人类与机器交手后的败退。过去有怀疑论者担心，算法的背后实际上由人操控，但随着「由算法生成」的算法，甚至「爷孙代自承袭」算法的出现，这样的担忧逐渐变得苍白无力——我们有了更大的焦虑：是否会出现 “blockchain-based authoritarianism”？

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>联合国数字合作高级小组联合组长 Amandeep Gill 的上述观点，如同 TED Talks 讲者们勾勒的世界理想那般，昭示出强烈的国际公民精神。民众们可以为这些机构在数字化转型方面做出的努力而感到欣慰，但同时也得警惕，此刻听到的甜言蜜语，其实和总统们在电视前的新年致辞并无大异。<br/><br/>举个令国际主义者们略感沮丧的例子——联合国长期以来一直在探索区块链的多项人道主义用途，比如使用以太坊区块链将基于加密货币的代金券发放给叙利亚难民、利用虹膜等生物识别技术追踪消费情况。机构付出的努力值得肯定，但这样的技术运用其实是对历史发展轨迹的重复和既得利益体系的维护。何时，我们对技术落地场景的讨论才能从参与者的价值判断转到渠道本身？Gill 的 “strengthening cooperation across borders” 也许暗示着，在旧的世界秩序下，这就是道无解难题。

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>战争，灾害，外来星体撞击——人类对未知的恐惧迫使科技在人文主义的荫蔽下谨小慎微地拓展边界，如履薄冰。假设最糟糕的情况下，地球上所有节点同时离线，所有无线沟通渠道中断，届时比特币网络会荡然无存吗？<br/><br/>发射卫星来同步比特币网络的做法在许多人看来是不可理喻的，甚至有点病入膏肓的可笑，但这艘「诺亚方舟」所承载的纯朴愿景，足以破封我们现世所面临的诸多困境。没有什么是永垂不朽的，如果有，那将是太阳系最后一个比特币区块，以射线的形态在浩瀚银河里砥砺前行。

<big>评：</big><br/><br/>某拼单电商在社群经济上的成功，引得拥趸们直呼「长尾理论」的胜利，更有甚者将其与「供给侧」等概念扯上关系，把那些所谓的「只专注前 20% 用户」的头部企业们拉出来数落一番，颇带莎翁悲剧意味地称之为「精英主义的溃败」。 <br/><br/>实际上，倘若拨开利益布局的云雾，你我足以探见，商业公司从未考虑只专注于特定的用户群体或阶层文化，过去是这样，未来也会是。例如，区别于 Uber 商业模式的 Airbnb，这几年虽然在营销上大谈社区文化的多元和共享，背后却承受着股东的持续施压。<br/><br/>我们是否该在区块链新世界继续沿用旧的组织范式？如果我们不愿反复看到一轮又一轮对精英主义的追逐和声讨，do something different, pls.

Gunosy is working on LayerX, new blockchain proj

a platform for cooperative open communities

How blockchain is decentralized and not.

Australia's Digital Transformation Agency has been researching potential government uses for blockchain.

“Our position today, and this is an early write-up, is that blockchain is an interesting technology that would be well worth being observed, but without standardisation and a lot more work, for every use of blockchain that you would consider today there is a better technology,” Mr Alexander told the hearing.

. . .

“We’re not saying that blockchain doesn’t have potential but today, without standardisation, there is the challenge of blockchain becoming a little fragmented. When we get to the standardised blockchain then the opportunities for it will grow.”

Workforce-readiness focused compendium of how edtech innovations align with preparing students for jobs.

We must be careful to distinguish between blockchain ledgers and proof-of-work, because they are separate things that just happen to have been combined to make Bitcoin. There are energy-efficient ways of managing blockchain ledgers, such as proof-of-stake algorithms. Some of these algorithms are already being implemented by rival cryptocurrency schemes

. . .

PoW is obscenely wasteful, consuming more electricity than all of Ireland to generate an endless stream of mathematical garbage.

Bando "Blockchains for Social Good": links funzionanti:

https://ec.europa.eu/research/eic/index.cfm?pg=prizes_blockchains

https://ec.europa.eu/research/eic/pdf/infographics/eic_horizon-prize-blockchains.pdf

This is so true. Still looking for an application that can benefit from this concept.

Join me in annotating @mweller's thoughtful exercise at thinking through the last 20 years of edtech. Given Martin's acknowledgements of the caveats of such an exercise, how can we augment this list to tell an even richer story?

私有鏈技術：關鍵問題是怎麼獲得共識才結鏈？

Not sure if I understand this correctly. Does this mean the number of transactions that a blockchain-powered network can process is equivalent to the number of transactions that the slowest node in the network can process? If so, I haven't heard such limitation.

Bitcoin mining uses a lot of electricity -- currently as much as Ecuador.

The cryptocurrency network Ethereum recently announced that it will try "proof of stake" rather than "proof of work".

A good primer on decentralization

Ethereum is the way the internet should have been. I absolutely feel they are the forerunners of the future. Would love to see mozilla spearhead ethereum related projects.

Twenty five hundred years ago the pressure of trade forced the minting of the first coins. Eleven hundred years ago the weight of all those coins forced the printing of paper money. Seven hundred years ago the challenges of international trade forced the development of bills of exchange. And fifty years ago the mainframes gave birth to the credit revolution.

Right now we’re on the cusp of a similar revolution. Because our smartphones want our money. They don’t want to have to talk to a bank for an authorisation. They just want to hand over the cash. But they can’t, because we haven’t got money that fits into a smartphone. Yet.

Sometime in the next few years, one of these big central banks is going to introduce its own blockchain-based money — blockchain money issued by a government. It’s been nicknamed ‘fedcoin’.

This is obviously a mistake as it is sufficient to put the address (or its hash value) on the chain, the data (of any size) being stored on something like IPFS. Blockchains were initially designed to store transactions not content — the discussion about the size of the block was about the number of transactions that could go in a block... Things evolved with new systems like https://www.bigchaindb.com/ and the landscape of blockchain-like technologies will continue to grow and diversify...

Agree! Such structured and shall-be-interoperatable data can plug with recommendation engine for guided learning path. possible?

Agree X 1000.

I initially thought that it would make sense to have a learner's identity on the chain, and include all of their evidence of work with their credentials. These could be docs, PDFs, videos, audio, apps, games, etc. This of course is an untenable process.

I think that having identity on a distributed ledger technology, with links out to the domain of the learner, that houses/hosts all of this evidence would possibly make sense.

I also think that we need to identify ways & means to archive this evidence (which would not live on the chain) so that evidence doesn't disappear.

If we're using these technologies to address the problem of orphaned badges, what happens when the evidence is orphaned as well?

Please note that some would suggest that we don't really need the evidence...we only need the documentation of that moment in time the learner was issued the credential as evidence of work that was completed. I see that point...but also think that building up an eportfolio, or domain of one's own and connecting this to a distributed ledger technology with read/write access on the past of the individual would be awesomesauce. :)

I think we still need to look at possibilities to make this blockchain and distributed ledger technologies possible. In my thinking it would be putting your identity on a distributed chain, and then linking out to evidence, credentials, etc. Yes, this will take time, space, and money. Hopefully we can learn from bitcoin, ethereum, and others to develop something that metastasize into a mess.

I also appreciate the need to allow anyone, regardless of where they live, or means to do so, with the ability to read/write to the ledger.

Well stated. One of the narratives that we've heard again and again by ed technologists recently is that blockchain and distributed ledger technologies will take the humans out of the process and replace them with machines. I definitely disagree with this assessment, and think that you're correct that there is (or will be) as need for "continuous social negotiations" that are transparent, and can be audited/revised as well.

Agreed. I think one of the other concerns embedded in this is that we bring our own value systems into this work as we code, develop, and spread this work. Our individual values might not be the value systems of the collective whole.

Agreed. I think there are also challenges as we work to ensure that we don't reify some of the problems from the past. Just by "putting some blockchain into it" doesn't mean that things will be better. We need discussions and decisions about what we want/need in education, and how blockchain and distributed ledger technologies might address this.

Blockchain misconceptions and the Future of Education

The Web Beyond: How blockchain identity will transform our world

No use cases, but conflicting opinions from experts

DAO, a venture capital fund based on Ethereum cryptocurrency, was hacked, and ether coins valued at about $55M were fraudulently transferred. This article gives some details of the hack.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investment-fund-based-on-digital-currency-to-wind-down-after-alleged-hack-1466175033 The account with the stolen ether coins has been frozen, and they plan to undo the fraudulent transactions. But this itself is disturbing to some, as part of the idea behind cryptocurrency is lack of a central authority.

The creators of DAO proclaimed that the code is the contract. So if no laws were broken in the course of the hack, one could argue that the transfer is legitimate under those terms. https://medium.com/@Swarm/daos-hacks-and-the-law-eb6a33808e3e

Apparently there are new attacks already. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4ot3z8/dao_is_under_attack_again/

The uncanny mind that built Ethereum - Vitalik Buterin invented the world’s hottest new cryptocurrency and inspired a movement — before he’d turned 20.

Key problem that includes "the DAO"

MIT Media Lab and use of the Bitcoin Blockchain and not Ethereum (or other alternatives) to get it running.

http://certificates.media.mit.edu/

In bitcoin, these coins obviously refer to monetary units. But, it would be interesting to see how these would be adjusted given new information.

In the case of credentialing, this could be assessments, observations, certifications, credentials, etc.

The "digital signatures" could come from trusted parties, colleagues, peers, etc. Depending on the framing of the system...it could be anyone. With these signatures, it could link back to their own values and identify more information about the individual/organization offering the signature.

Once again, in the initial framing of bitcoin, it appears that the idea is to utilize technology (i.e., blockchain) to make transactions over a digital channel without involving established, trusted parties (e.g., banks).

This is interesting. Much of the pushback about blockchain and bitcoin comes from questions about "trust" and issues with auditing/editing/revising information from the past.

It seems like (at least with the initial framing here by Nakamoto) "they" recognize a need for "reversal" of information/data/values and also an increased need for "trust" in the model.

This system may work well for financial transactions, but what happens when we build a "proof-of-work chain" for other information/data?

At its base, it seems like a "proof-of-work chain" using a database propagated by peer-to-peer technologies.

Questions about who is the "we" in this document.

This is getting mentioned more and more in an open science context.

This post seems to have gotten the conversation started across some important sites about the idea of a federal backed cryptocurrency in the US.

Explanation of blockchains by Jeni Tennison.<br> https://twitter.com/JeniT

http://theodi.org/blog/impact-of-blockchains-on-privacy<br> Potential privacy issues of blockchain applications.

Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies<br> https://www.coursera.org/course/bitcointech

PeerTracks, a music streaming and retail platform company, is the first outfit to use the brand new MUSE network, in partnership with CCEDK and OpenLedger.

http://www.peertracks.com/faq.php<br> https://www.openledger.info/<br> https://www.ccedk.com/about

The concept of trust, in the sociological and economic sense, underlies exchange. In the 15th-17th centuries, the Dutch and English dominance of trade owed much to their early development of instruments of credit that allowed merchants to fund and later to insure commercial shipping without the exchange of hard currency, either silver or by physically transporting the currency of the realm. Credit worked because the English and Dutch economies trusted the issuers of credit.

Francis Fukuyama, a philosopher and political economist at Stanford, wrote a book in 1995, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, on the impact of cultures of trust on entrepreneurial growth. Countries of ‘low trust’ have close family culture who limit trust to relations: France, China, S. Italy. Countries of ‘high trust’ have greater ‘spontaneous sociability’ that encourages the formation of intermediate institutions between the state and the family, that encourage greater entrepreneurial growth: Germany, England, the U.S. – I own the book and (shame on me!) haven’t yet read it.

I thought of this article in those contexts – of the general need for trusted institutions and the power they have in mediating an economy, and the fascinating questions raised when a new facilitator of trust is introduced.

How do we trust? Across human history, how have we extended the social role of trust to institutions? If a new modality of trust comes available, how does that change institutional structures and correspondingly the power of individuals, of institutions. How would it change the friction to growth and to decline?

Prior to reading this article, I had dismissed Bitcoin as a temporary aberration, mostly for criminal enterprises and malcontents. I still feel that way. But the underlying technology and it’s implications – now that’s interesting.

In any reporting on a controversy in science or technology a journalists job is first and foremost to find out whether there’s overwhelming support for one side among experts and if there is to report that straightforwardly.

I don't know enough about bitcoin to have an opinion about this controversy. Regardless of that, this is a very good point. "Impartial" shouldn't mean giving equal credence and equal time to fringe viewpoints -- unless they are coming from some noteworthy experts with strong evidence.

Mike Belshe, CEO of BitGo, says they need to increase the blockchain size immediately.<br> http://belshe.com/2016/01/18/bitcoin-blocksize-and-the-future/

http://r3cev.com/s/Watermarked-tokens-and-pseudonymity-on-public-blockchains-Swanson.pdf

Yet if a network is comprised of known and trusted entities with legal, off-chain obligations to fulfill, then you have a set of different security assumptions to build around. And in the case of financial institutions, a feature such as proof-of-work via mining, which is currently core to public blockchains is an unnecessary and even redundant.

This paper explores several of the drawbacks and challenges of using public blockchains for securing off-chain titles and concludes that these types of networks are not fit-for-purpose for globally regulated financial institutions.

Ethereum is 'a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts.' ... Here, we're sharing some simple instructions on how to get started with Ethereum

https://ethereum.org/<br> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum