Quote from: frozen on May 17, 2013, 05:52:52 PM

Quote from: hashman on May 17, 2013, 07:16:17 AM

Quote from: frozen on May 17, 2013, 12:06:21 AM

How does "picking somebody randomly to make important decisions" remain a good idea?

Because a random idiot is more trustworthy than anybody else. Because thats the best we can do knowing what corruption our wetware is capable of generating.

I don't follow this logic. Are you saying I should trust a random idiot more than someone who has established trust with me?

Not exactly. I'm staying that someone who has an established relationship with you may not be impartial to the decisions which involve you. For example, you might trust your best friend more than a random idiot to be a juror at your trial. But is that a more rational solution in the interest of fairness and justice than a random idiot? Probably not.

The trick is you have to get somebody to make the decision that everybody agrees is the right person. Democritus solved this problem by picking a citizen at random. He would certainly disagree with the voting for a representative of the people, even before realizing the charade of insecure voting practices.

Quote

Quote from: hashman on May 17, 2013, 07:16:17 AM

Well, actually we can't even do that. Juries these days are sadly always pre-screened.

If you mention you support jury nullification, you'll be disqualified.

That is scary. Kind of like having a copy of the constitution on you is evidence you are a subversive enemy of the state.

Quote

Random idiots are often swayed by the appearance of authority. Random idiots, in groups, often justify the use of violence against non-violent individuals.

Very good points. In bitcoin, the random idiot who secures a block of transaction can remain relatively anonymous. Lets hope the formation of pools doesn't wind up too much fortelling your second issue there.

Quote

Quote from: hashman on May 17, 2013, 07:16:17 AM

If you can think of a better way to resolve a double spend, please do let us know.

I never claimed I had such a solution. I only wondered if "picking somebody randomly to make important decisions" was truly a good principle or not.

This was the original proposal by Democritus. He wrote that a better solution was to use a random idiot. Well OK, maybe he didn't use the word idiot

In any case, Satoshi's solution for the double spending problem is very much along the lines of what Democritus wrote, and seems to work pretty well so far.