Down the Rabbit Hole of the Symbolic Landscape of Blockchain Technology

Exploring the symbolic world of Blockchain Technology evokes the whimsical universe of Carroll's Alice, filled with grids, codes, and mysteries. Through my interactive graphic novel, I intertwine metaphorical narratives with political and technological fiction. This exploration leads to a reconsideration of the consensus in our democratic society, exemplified by the “Byzantine Fault” of the Bitcoin network. Coined in 1982 by Lamport, Shostak and Pease, it reflects a dilemma in which Byzantine generals must agree on military action, emphasizing the need for “trade-offs” and the supremacy of consensus. As we delve into this amalgam of metaphor, military strategy and technology, we ponder the meaning of terms like "Byzantine" and the power of story in solving problems. Reflecting on past revolutions and our current reality, characterized by social disunity and authoritarianism, we take up the challenge of preserving democratic values. Despite radical differences, consensus remains crucial, shaping decision-making and action. But in this calculated system, random data can also simulate consensus. This raises questions about the sustainability of radical consensus. What seems logical in calculations takes on a new dimension within an emotional and social reality.

Down the Rabbit Hole of the Symbolic Landscape of Blockchain Technology, I am reminded of the enchanting and mysterious world of Carroll's Alice, with its grids, codes, and decodings. My inspired interactive graphic novel intertwines metaphorical tales with political and technological fiction.
Venturing into the symbolic landscape of Blockchain Technology can reevaluate our understanding of consensus within our democratic society. Take, for example, the Bitcoin network, where the term “Byzantine fault” is employed. But what does this truly entail? Coined by Lamport, Shostak, and Pease in 1982, it stems from a scenario where Byzantine generals must converge on consensus regarding a military maneuver. The conundrum appears unsolvable, yet choices must be made. This introduces a “trade-off” – a sacrifice of one benefit for another. “Trade-offs” are a known strategy in reaching consensus. However, in the case of the Byzantine Generals, the choice is starkly binary: attack or retreat. Hence, the solution is equally radical. Should consensus elude them, arbitrary data is conjured to enact a decision and proceed with action. Here, we witness the primacy of consensus over individual choice and the introduction of arbitrary data.
Let us delve deeper into the amalgamation of metaphor, military strategy, and technology. Why, for instance, are the generals deemed “Byzantine”? The moniker was coined by Leslie Lamport, Robert Shostak, and Marshall Pease themselves. They opined in 1982 that presenting a problem as a narrative garners more attention in the theoretical community. But is a title alone a tale? And does the employment of exotic terms in any way aid in resolving the issue? While it may provoke speculation and imagination across interdisciplinary realms.

Consensus within democracies of past, present, and future

As we cast our gaze back upon past revolutions such as the transformative Atlantic upheavals of the late eighteenth century, they continue to shape the narrative of the "modern" world with ideals of freedom, equality, and democracy. Our contemporary reality is marked by escalating social discord and the ascendancy of authoritarian regimes, encountering a crisis of consensus.

The revolutionary epoch still resonates with contemporary society: delineating the boundaries of equal rights, fostering good citizenship, and navigating political mobilization amidst social discord. The struggle for freedom of expression and the safeguarding of democratic values remain pertinent, as authoritarian forces seek to undermine these foundational rights.

In grappling with these challenges, we must acknowledge the inherent conflict of interests within politics and recognize the intricacies of democratic governance.

However radical the diverging interests may be, consensus is necessary in decision-making and enabling action. Because consensus dictates, arbitrary data must be created to simulate a consensus on the democratic course of action. Thus, decision-making and action ensue. In this scenario, consensus is pivotal in delineating the boundaries of equal rights, nurturing good citizenship, and navigating political mobilization amidst social discord. Can the struggle for freedom of expression and the preservation of democratic values endure within this simulated system of consensus? What seems plausible as a logical solution within a computational system takes on a different meaning within a social and emotional system, namely our democratic society.