Vitalik: El mecanismo de gobernanza óptima que una vez busqué resulta difícil de lograr, ya que la matemática y la economía conforman una visión del mundo más amplia.
BlockBeats News, on December 15th, ETH founder Vitalik Buterin replied to a tweet on Twitter, 'Something you used to believe in but changed your mind after learning more.' He said, 'One change in my way of thinking is that the economic factors involved in my thinking have decreased compared to ten years ago. The main reason for this shift is that in the first five years of my life in the blockchain industry, I spent a lot of time trying to invent an optimal governance mechanism that could be mathematically proven. In the end, I found certain fundamental impossibility results, which clearly indicate that the mechanism I was looking for is impossible to achieve, making the most important variable for the success or failure of existing flawed systems in practice (usually the degree of coordination between participant groups, but also includes other black box factors that we often consider as 'culture') a variable that I didn't even model.' 'In the past, mathematics was a major part of my identity: I was very passionate about math competitions in high school, and shortly after entering the blockchain industry, I started doing a lot of coding work. I was excited about every new encryption protocol in Ethereum, Bitcoin, and elsewhere. Economics also seemed to be part of a broader worldview for me: it was a mathematical tool for understanding and finding ways to improve the social world. All parts fit together perfectly. Now, there is a drop in the fit between these parts. I still use math to analyze social mechanisms, although the goal is more to make rough preliminary guesses about what might work and mitigate worst-case scenarios (which are usually done by robots rather than humans in the real world), rather than explaining average case behavior. Now, even in my writing and thinking, I often use very different arguments, even when supporting the same ideals as ten years ago.'
Esta página puede contener contenido de terceros, que se proporciona únicamente con fines informativos (sin garantías ni declaraciones) y no debe considerarse como un respaldo por parte de Gate a las opiniones expresadas ni como asesoramiento financiero o profesional. Consulte el Descargo de responsabilidad para obtener más detalles.
Vitalik: El mecanismo de gobernanza óptima que una vez busqué resulta difícil de lograr, ya que la matemática y la economía conforman una visión del mundo más amplia.
BlockBeats News, on December 15th, ETH founder Vitalik Buterin replied to a tweet on Twitter, 'Something you used to believe in but changed your mind after learning more.' He said, 'One change in my way of thinking is that the economic factors involved in my thinking have decreased compared to ten years ago. The main reason for this shift is that in the first five years of my life in the blockchain industry, I spent a lot of time trying to invent an optimal governance mechanism that could be mathematically proven. In the end, I found certain fundamental impossibility results, which clearly indicate that the mechanism I was looking for is impossible to achieve, making the most important variable for the success or failure of existing flawed systems in practice (usually the degree of coordination between participant groups, but also includes other black box factors that we often consider as 'culture') a variable that I didn't even model.' 'In the past, mathematics was a major part of my identity: I was very passionate about math competitions in high school, and shortly after entering the blockchain industry, I started doing a lot of coding work. I was excited about every new encryption protocol in Ethereum, Bitcoin, and elsewhere. Economics also seemed to be part of a broader worldview for me: it was a mathematical tool for understanding and finding ways to improve the social world. All parts fit together perfectly. Now, there is a drop in the fit between these parts. I still use math to analyze social mechanisms, although the goal is more to make rough preliminary guesses about what might work and mitigate worst-case scenarios (which are usually done by robots rather than humans in the real world), rather than explaining average case behavior. Now, even in my writing and thinking, I often use very different arguments, even when supporting the same ideals as ten years ago.'