In the internet of 2017, when something goes terribly wrong, the service provider hosting the content or code can usually turn it off. But the rise of blockchains means that won’t be the case for much longer.
One of the most interesting things about blockchains and the global computer superstructure being constructed on top of them is that blockchains can’t forget—unlike the internet services of today. And code running on top of blockchains is nearly impossible to turn off.
This shift—from today’s internet technology to blockchain-based networks of the future—poses some particular challenges for regulators. We have already seen regulators struggle to deal with the implications of encrypted messaging. Soon, blockchains, which are built on cryptographic technology similar to that used in encrypted messaging, will pose even bigger challenges.
A generation ago, there were massive debates about the freedom of the internet. The largely free internet that happily emerged from those debates has, I believe, been a massive net positive (if at times challenging) thing for the world. In the next few years, those debates will happen all over again at even greater stakes, thanks to blockchains.
Permanent Distributed Memory vs. the Right to Be Forgotten
For many, the most powerful conceptualization of blockchain technology is that, if the technology is broadly enough distributed, it is impossible for the historical records kept in the blockchain to be erased or changed.
This is a core piece of why bitcoin and its brethren are so appealing to those who worry about the concentration of power in the modern world. Bitcoin is the embodiment of a form of value and a medium of transaction that powerful organizations can’t censor or freeze.
That logic, of a distributed ledger, can be extended far beyond a simple record of accounts. Anything you could store in a database you could, in theory, store on a blockchain—text, photos, video, etc. Putting it on a blockchain, while perhaps somewhat inefficient, would make it impossible to remove or reverse.
To understand what this means in a practical sense, consider the European concept of the “right to be forgotten.”
The idea behind the right to be forgotten is that a person can require service providers like search engines and social networks to remove content about them. The spirit of the law is that you should own the information about you.
This law has always been inane in my mind for one practical and one philosophical reason. The practical reason is that because it is basically impossible to audit whether “your” content is gone or not, it is basically impossible to enforce—and rules that can’t be enforced are generally bad rules.
Philosophically, the right to be forgotten is corrupt because it basically assaults a person or a company’s right to remember things. There have been countless heated arguments throughout history about the right of free speech, but almost no one in history has ever argued about my right to remember things. It was impractical—except in the movie “Men In Black”—to even discuss a person or organization’s right to its own memory. But, the right to remember—if questioned—is perhaps the most important right we have as a species. It is what gives us the ability to have a society where we build relationships and trust one another.
The blockchain, by its very construct, removes all questions about the right to remember. The entire technology relies upon the fact that no data, once written, can be removed from the blockchain. That is its value.
What does this mean for Europe’s right to be forgotten? In a world of blockchains, it is literally an impossible law. The technology dictates that people have about as much a right to be forgotten as they do to fly—it is impossible.
More broadly, the blockchain undercuts any laws we (or service providers) have had barring certain content on the internet—from nipples to defamation. Once that content has been published, it can’t be removed.
That is the massive opportunity and a challenge. The prospect that people can collaborate to generate new forms of global trust without relying on central organizations is particularly relevant today, when trust in ISPs is diminishing. And it is also a very challenging concept for the traditional systems of power that currently exist.
Unstoppable Computer Systems; Enabling the Next Silk Road, Rogue AIs and Resilient Infrastructure
If the blockchains by their nature make removing content from the internet impossible, they also effectively make code that runs on top of blockchains impossible to stop once it is released.
Just like unstoppable memory, unstoppable computer code is something that many people see as important to the future of freedom and a casus belli—something worth fighting for.
It is easy to see why. In a world that feels ever more centralized and fraught with controversy, building guarantees that important platforms or systems can’t be easily shut off seems very important. After all, it was a desire for distribution in light of the nuclear war threat that contributed to the invention of the internet in the first place.
There is, however, some difficult implications to systems like this that are worth acknowledging. Take, for instance, the case of the Silk Road and Silk Road 2. These websites were difficult for governments to shut down—but they succeeded eventually.
At some point, however, someone is going to build a version of Silk Road that sits on top of some blockchain—and that one will be much much harder (even potentially impossible) to turn off. Once the code is there and any sort of brand or community is built, these systems will be extremely resilient to any attempt to turn them off.
Even beyond that, consider the worries some people have about rogue AI-based systems. In today’s world, I believe most people who worry about unstoppable rogue AI are being alarmist—because we can always unplug it. But, in a blockchain-based world, that might no longer be so easy.
This is the nature of blockchain technology. It is a tool that has both very positive and usually very scary implications. Good and bad will come of it.
The Balance of Knowledge-Power
I consider myself both an optimist and a technological determinist. I believe that now that blockchains exist as a technology, they will be built, improved and used.
I believe that they will bring massive good and stability to the world, creating a framework where we can not only trust speech, but create a truly safe space for collective memory. The first use case might be digital gold—giving broad access to an “inflation proof” way to store value away from local market manipulation. But the long-term use cases for such a system go far, far beyond what we currently see.
That said, this next internet revolution is going to be—in time—as disruptive, if not more so, than the first internet revolution. Technology is going to force laws and social mores to change. And, like many periods of radical growth and change, it is going to be a painful and disruptive transition.