Editor's Note: This article comes fromBabbitt Information (ID: bitcoin8btc), Author: Vitalik Buterin, Compiler: Free and Easy, released with authorization.
Editor's Note: This article comes from
Babbitt Information (ID: bitcoin8btc)
Babbitt Information (ID: bitcoin8btc)
, Author: Vitalik Buterin, Compiler: Free and Easy, released with authorization.
One major philosophical difference I've noticed in how people approach large-scale decisions in the world is how they approach "compromise" versus "pure" trade-offs. If you have a choice between two options, usually expressed in a deeply principled philosophy, you will naturally lean toward one of the two paths being correct and think we should stick to it, or you prefer Like to find a way between two extremes.
And in mathematical terms, we can put it this way: Do you expect the world we live in, and especially the way it responds to our actions, to be fundamentally "concave" or "convex"?
Someone leaning towards the "concave" position might say something like this:
"Going to extremes is never good for us, too hot or too cold can kill. We need to find a balance between the two, and that's the right thing to do."
"If you just implement a little bit of philosophy, you can choose the parts with the highest returns and the lowest risks, and avoid the parts that are more risky. But if you insist on going to extremes, once you pick the low fruit, you will be forced to Trying harder and harder to find smaller and smaller benefits, and before you know it, the growing risks can outweigh the benefits of the whole thing."
"There may be some merit in being against philosophy, so we should combine the best of both worlds, and be sure to avoid doing things that anti-philosophy considers horrific, just in case."
And someone who prefers a "convex" position might say:
"We need to be focused, otherwise, we risk becoming erudites."
"If we take a few steps down that road, the road becomes slippery and just pulls us lower and lower until we're in the abyss. There are only two stable positions on the slope: either we're in Below, or stay above."
"If you give an inch, they'll ask for a mile."
"Whether we follow this philosophy or that philosophy, we should follow some philosophy and stick to it. It doesn't make sense to mix everything up."
But as you can probably tell, not everyone has the same intuition. What I want to point out in particular is that the Ethereum ecosystem generally has a basic "concave" temperament, while the temperament of the Bitcoin ecosystem is essentially "convex". In the field of Bitcoin, you can often hear such arguments: either you have your own sovereignty, or you don't, or any system must have a tendency to be fundamentally centralized or fundamentally decentralized, which is impossible in between.
My occasional tongue-in-cheek support for Tron is a key example: From my own perspective, if you value decentralization and immutability, you should recognize that the Ethereum ecosystem does sometimes violate the purity of those values. The degree to which Tron violates these values is far beyond common sense and without remorse, so Ethereum is still the most popular of the two options. But from a "convex" point of view, Tron's extremity of violating these norms is a good quality: Ethereum half-heartedly pretends to be decentralized while Tron is centralized, but at least it's proud of it , which is honest.
The difference between “concave” and “convex” mindsets is not limited to obscure points about efficiency and decentralization in cryptocurrencies. It also applies to politics (guess which side has more outright anarcho-capitalists), other tech choices, and even what food you eat.
But in all of these issues, I personally also find myself always on the side of the balance.
secondary title
The fusion of "concave" and "convex"
But it's worth noting that even on a meta level, "concave" temperament is something that one has to be very careful to avoid, extreme. Of course there are cases where policy A brings good outcomes and policy B gives worse but still tolerable outcomes, but a careless mix between the two is the worst outcome. The coronavirus is perhaps a good example: a 100% effective travel ban is more than twice as effective as a 50% effective travel ban. An effective lockdown can push the R0 of the virus below 1, leading to a quick recovery, but an inattentive lockdown will only push the R0 down to 1.3, causing months of pain with little effect. This is one possible explanation for why many Western countries have reacted poorly to this: political systems designed for compromise, even when ineffective, risk falling into the middle.
Another example is war: if you invade country A, you conquer country A, if you invade country B, you conquer country B, but if you invade both countries at the same time, send your soldiers to each country, Then the combined power of these two countries will crush you. Generally speaking, when the effect of the response is "convex", you will usually find that some degree of centralization will bring benefits.
A 2% tax rate prevents very few transactions, and even the transactions it prevents are not very valuable - if a tax rate of just 2% is enough to prevent participants from making transactions, how valuable can transactions be? A 20% tax rate may block 10 times more transactions, but each blocked transaction is worth 10 times more to participants than it would be at 2%. Therefore, a 10-fold increase in taxes may cause a 100-fold economic loss. For this reason, a low tax rate is usually better than a high tax and no tax.
According to similar economic logic, outright prohibition of certain behaviors would cause the greatest harm, and replacing existing prohibitions with moderately high punitive taxes would increase efficiency, increase freedom, and provide valuable income to build public goods or help the poor.
The Laffer curve tells us that a zero tax rate will not increase income, and a 100% tax rate will not increase income, because in this case, no one will want to work, but a certain tax rate in the middle will increase the most income. There is debate as to what the tax rate for benefit maximization is, but in general there is general agreement on a graph that looks like this:
secondary title
The world has more than one dimension
Another complication is that, in the real world, policy is not just one-dimensional numbers. There are many ways to average between two different policies or two different philosophies. An easy-to-understand example: Suppose you and your friend want to live together, but you want to live in Toronto and your friend wants to live in New York, how would you compromise between these two options?
Well, you can take a geographical compromise and enjoy your peaceful lives at the arithmetic midpoint between two lovely cities.
Photo: This church is located about 29 kilometers southwest of Ithaca, New York
Or you could be more mathematically pure and take the midpoint of the line between Toronto and New York and not bother. Well, you're still pretty close to that church, but you'll be 6 kilometers below it. Another way to compromise, is to spend 6 months in Toronto and 6 months in New York every year-this may be a practical and reasonable way for some people.
The point is, when you're presented with options that are more complex than simple one-dimensional numbers, figuring out how to trade off between the two and really getting the best of both, not the worst of both, It's an art and a challenge.
