[NetBehaviour] blockchain & bitcoin stuff

Annie Abrahams bram.org at gmail.com
Thu Dec 7 21:35:23 CET 2017

Thanks Helen,

You express a lot of my feelings and thoughts. Today I read an article by
Regine Debatty "Using respiration to mine crypto-currencies"
on an art piece by Max Dovey, who succeeds in my opinion to make the very
complex and abstract blockchain into something I can think about. It puts
it on a human scale.

"Turning lung exhalations into mining on the blockchain network not only
hypothesizes that the body might one day play a more direct role in the
financial systems but it also suggests that there might be more sustainable
methods to maintain blockchains."
I think you and some others might be interested.

And so it also connects with Edward Picots apocalyptic videopoem The Great

I don't want to be quantified.

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:35 PM, helen varley jamieson <
helen at creative-catalyst.com> wrote:

> hi everyone,
> i'm dropping in again for a moment (i haven't been able to keep up with
> things because i'm very busy with this: http://www.magdalenamuenchen.de -
> if any of you will be in or near munich during february, march & april next
> year, please check out the programme & come along to something! & please
> pass on to your theatre/performance/live-art friends & networks)
> i had a big backlog of netbehaviour emails & have tried to read most of
> it, but for sure i've missed many nuances in the discussion. for what it's
> worth, here are some thoughts & comments:
> from ruth's summary email on 25.11.:
> Thor Karlsson presents Authenteq – a blockchain based identity platform
> that is eminently sensible and useful in a “trustless” world of people who
> want to rent things from others that they don't know, and move around
> freely, free of intermediaries. This rings many alarm bells for a room of
> artists, historians, sociologists and philosophers who value the ability to
> slip between many identities.
> the idea of a blockchain based identity platform is pretty abhorrent to
> me. as well as the social implications which are very problematic, fluidity
> of identity is fundamental to theatre & to cyberformance. it's built in to
> the design of UpStage - unlike most other platforms, one can be completely
> anonymous & change identity at will. over 14 years we have never had a
> problem with this, i think because the whole context is playful, deliberate
> artiface, the shared suspension of disbelief that is inherent to theatre.
> authenticity of action rather than individual personal authenticity is what
> counts.
> why are we accepting that the world is "trustless"? sure some people are
> untrustworthy, but this concept of trustlessness seems to have suddenly
> taken hold as an undeniable fact. if it is so, then how can we respond to
> that? is it possible to restore some degree of trust in the world? however
> naive it may be, i want to strive for that.
> the logic of war and defence at the heart of cryptocultures
> yes - this is something that needs to be more discussed
> from rob's response to ruth:
> Or it may just be the case that high finance appropriates folk fintech as
> high culture appropriates folk culture,
> absolutely agree
> from rob's responses to discussion about why bitcoin uses so much energy:
> It is not a waste of electricity, it is the cost of securing the network.
> but for whom? & at what cost to the planet, to the people, animals &
> plants who derive absolutely no benefit from bitcoin?
> So once there are no more block rewards for mining, fees will still exist
> and will become more important.
> so, it's all about a few people (cryptocurrency miners) making as much
> money as possible; aren't miners are simply replacing the so-called
> trustless third parties (banks, governments) that bitcoin is supposed to do
> away with?
> re faircoin vs. decred: i didn't see anything about energy efficiency on
> the decred website (maybe i missed it) & i find the whole governance thing
> overwhelming. who has the time to read, understand & get involved with
> this? my guess is, the same people who are developing the technology. so
> even if its governance mission intends to be more cooperative, it still
> comes down  to a pretty small & unrepresentative group of people.
> faircoin's reliance on third parties seems more realistic - we exist in
> communities where we need to interact on a daily basis with all kinds of
> third parties. sure, they can let us down, but this is how it's always
> been. even bitcoin, decred & all the rest of them must rely on third party
> actors (browser applications, for example). is being completely free of
> third parties a realistic or even useful goal to have?
> h : )
> --
> helen varley jamieson
> helen at creative-catalyst.com
> http://www.creative-catalyst.com
> http://www.upstage.org.nz
> *Magdalena München Saison 2018 <http://www.magdalenamuenchen.de>*
> 2 Februar - 28 April 2018
> *Frauen - Theater - Performance*
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20171207/d3d02724/attachment.htm>

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list