Tom Liston, recently of Augur, has reportedly formed a religion on Ethereum. There has also surfaced a #steemchurch lately, and I confess I don't find these events particularly disturbing or silly. I have never much groveled at the feet of gurus, even though I do find their words and thoughts sometimes profound. The concept of a Pope or Messiah generally dissuades me from acceptance of any religion that proposes them.
If there is God, He has personal significance to me personally, or not at all, and this means my personal understanding - not some guru's - is necessary to my belief.
The idea of religion being voluntarist and decentralized is exemplified IRL, and sectarianism both rampant and rife, albeit far too mutually violent IMHO. To quote some guy famous for getting his ass whipped 'Can't we all just get along?'
In extension of my last post on God and physics, just as I find good reason to support religious hardforks, I similarly would support a physics blockchain (that would enable me to recruit foes of the Copenhagen School of quantum mechanics and discuss Pilot Theory in an echo chamber of true believers). I think it would be particularly illustrative of my contentions regarding String Theory, as it would be so forked as to be proved as meaningless as I think it is. It's the mathematical equivalent of purple prose, and just as laudable by folks looking for descriptions of reality.
Sacrilege, or salvation? Is blockchain suitable for religion (and physics), or a domain of infidels? Comment, and proselytize for the faith.
That is a hard question.
Blockchain being a consensus algorithm...
Science is not really about consensus.
Well, its not supposed to be, but if you want to be peer reviewed you have to think like the peer reviewers, who had to think like the peer reviewers, who had to...
Now on the holiest of holes...
There, consensus is even less useful. It is all about the personal experience. But, the personal experience can be said to be a block on the chain. The blocks being mined at about a trillion times a second.
And there are forks of this chain.
So, i don't know. Tough analogy.. or reality
I agree on both points, but must modify that agreement such that neither science nor religion are any use at all if folks can't agree enough to employ them mutually. Given hardfork/sectarianism, that seems to be the reality on the ground, as well.
Thanks!
As much as the big-grammars intrigued me to come, a Religion in the Blockchain is definitely false to me as a Christian, am referencing the Holy Bible not any Pastor or Bishop. BLOCKCHAIN IS MONEY MAKING= MAMMON!
God and mammon can't be served together, bless you sire.
While I respect your views, and certainly agree that you are absolutely without fault to form and state them as you will, I do strongly disagree.
First, religion is money-making, far more than blockchain. Have you any idea of the funds the Catholic Church alone possesses? Blockchain as a whole represents but a fraction of the money held by the Catholic Church by itself.
Second, while you personally, and many others, only think of blockchain in terms of tokens and as a new form of money, what it is actually is completely different. Blockchain is simply a distributed ledger. Ledgers are where data is recorded, and since monetary transactions are data, this makes ledgers useful for monetary purposes.
However, if you think for even a few moments about it, you probably use ledgers in many other ways already, such as to have a list of items to purchase when you go shopping for food, or to properly maintain your mechanical devices, such as cars.
The basic idea of bitcult is to enable individual people to assert their particular beliefs without being subject to inquisitors, who might burn 'infidels' at the stake. I strongly favor the freedom to wage faith with folks in agreement without being subject to criminal torture, as yet exists in many parishes around the world.
Peace!