Blockchain, that is, the generalized accounting technologies (DLT), is the first tool ever invented by human beings that has a core of morality that can separate good actors from bad ones. Developers and users of this technology are committed to making the world work more efficiently, safely, and more efficiently. Of course, this is an idealistic goal, but the unique features of DLT suggest compelling reasons for using it:
1) The DLT structure provides a proxy for trust between parties that may not know each other (due to immutability and accountability).
2) Provides a mechanism to allow participants to share (and create) data that is not currently available (transparency).
3) It is decentralized, ie not under the control of a single entity or organization.
4) It is (practically) immutable since more copies of the register (database) are constantly maintained and synchronized to be identical.
Think of DLT as a way of using software code (instructions) to automate processes that represent interactions between participants. These processes are agreements that must be carefully and thoroughly negotiated before they can be documented in the DLT (database). Basically, there must be a flow of logic, an assumption of rational behavior and a commitment on the part of the participants to achieve the shared and agreed objectives. If you're a skeptic, maybe you wonder if this process sounds theoretically elegant, but it might prove impractical in the real world? How can a DLT-based system work effectively with human beings (and real companies or government organizations) that can and behave irrationally or unreliably from time to time?
Incorporated into these features of blockchain technology is a moral principle that forces us to define our relationships in more detail than ever before. If we want to engage others in a process that will be recorded on a DLT, we are choosing to be open in terms of what we share, because we believe that we can get more benefit for all, while the potential risk of effective reduction is minimal. In this report, we are willing to operate transparently and to be responsible for each of our actions. This is a declaration of integrity. All our interactions will be stored permanently, so that even in the case of errors corrected later, the incorrect original record is kept on the registry. This will help us to keep ourselves honest, if not humble.
Why would anyone want to participate in such an ethically demanding process?
The use of a blockchain will result in an environment that will discourage the participation of bad actors, who generally want control, love secrets and hate being held responsible for anything. How many of us would like to feel more secure in terms of computer security, privacy and ownership of our personal data when they work on the Internet? How many of us would like to be able to distinguish "false news" from real facts, as presented on the Internet? Why is there so much trash and worse, so much criminal activity, in our digital world? These are very serious problems, more and more dangerous. Some technicians believe that DLT can provide safe localized environments because bad actors will not participate because they do not want to be easily tracked down.
Sharing data means sharing something of value and also means sharing control over such data, and indirectly, on people. Under what circumstances are authoritarian governments that currently have the power to control others, offer rewards and punishments, control resources, be willing to participate in a DLT? Giving up control will be difficult for these entities, as they should move on from the assessment of power and move on to focus on achieving the desired results, ie, serving people, operating more effectively and efficiently.
On the other hand, what about corruption and fraud in such authoritarian environments? Are not those equally significant threats to stability? Leadership based on fear and military power to maintain control is actually operating from a position of insecurity and mistrust. In this environment, how can someone say what is real and true? Both fear and distrust are extremely powerful feelings that can be transmitted virally and are manipulated by bad actors, especially. Would it not be more effective if more data were reliable and complete? However, greater transparency and data sharing presents a dilemma for authoritarian governments, as we see today in China.
The core of blockchain philosophy is a positive approach to life, because it is based on the sharing of knowledge and on the hope that transparency generates respect. Knowledge is an intangible asset, which means that it has very different properties from a physical asset such as gold. A physical good can be in one place and can only be owned by an individual at a given time. Knowledge, on the other hand, is and can be widely shared among many individuals, and everyone can benefit from its value, all at the same time, sometimes in different ways.
The value of knowledge that is not shared, like proprietary intellectual property, ie patents, generally decreases over time. Individual patents can be bought and sold, in what could be considered "zero-sum games", if considered in isolation. However, the intention of patent disclosure is to make knowledge widely available for everyone to learn from and to start from. In the broader global context of knowledge, the intent is to share for the good of all.
In a strictly defined business environment, such as sharing data between participants in a value chain or in a supply chain, this is becoming a high priority because global competition is increasingly fierce. Companies now realize that the complexity of global business requires interdependent interactions with a large number of entities and people who may not know how to trust, at least initially. In this difficult context where unilateral control is most likely only an illusion, and very risky, perhaps the blockchain approach to keeping everyone honest and responsible may be the only way for all of us to survive.
