Hey @Rich some good news. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was willing to entertain a proposal in their encyclopedia for “Blockchain Ethics” so I’ll let you know how that turns out. Also here is a revised proposal below. I included a link to a syllabus I found which seems like the most comprehensive treatment of the issue I’ve discovered thus far.
An area of research which studies the ethical aspects of the design, implementation, and governance of blockchain based monetary exchange systems and institutions. Source
feels a bit circular to be referring to our own forum for a definition, there are no official sources?
the Term is the expanded version of the shortened Tag in the glossary so they should directly reflect each other I think
you have a tag for ‘ethics’ but in the term you get more granular with ‘Blockchain’ and ‘Oracle’ ethics, then in the definition there is ‘data’ and ‘contractual’ ethics mentioned. This is what I was getting at in my comment above about whether we need to create some clarity about what type of ethics we are talking about. It’s a fantastically encompassing term… Do we need to have one or more tags for oracle-ethics, data-ethics, etc. Or perhaps blockchain-ethics is enough to imply that it covers all the rest?
Thanks @Rich, all fair points. Here’s my response to each below:
It is indeed circular, but that’s because there is no “official” source yet to the best of my knowledge. The paper that I summarized in the post that I linked to is the most official source I could find thus far but I can dig a bit more. If I were to refer to another source it would probably be something like “business ethics” which deals with data ethics and contract ethics.
No problem regarding the Term
I think blockchain-ethics is be best tag since it would encompass both data ethics and contractual ethics that are relevant to blockchain.
Now that SCRF is going to be hosting summit materials on the forum, I propose we have an “event” tag that can be used for all of the Smart Contract Summit 2021 posts as well as any future summits, conferences, or events that SCRF participates in and hosts content for/about on the forum.
Based on the conversation that happened on the Adding a “Hardware” category post, it looks like Hardware, AI, and ML should be included in this update. @Rich did suggest or in the original comment, but it strikes me that we would want to have all three. Does anyone from the IoT group have thoughts about adding these as tags and SCRF: Glossary entries? Would @Gearlad and/or @fmendoz7 want to move that forward?
@jasonanastas any update on the definition work needed for blockchain ethics as a tag?
Keepers would probably need some similar documentation in the glossary. Who might be interested in that?
Considering how many different oracle layers/applications have been created and how they don’t all deploy nodes the same way, I think it’s definitely a relevant distinction to be made. I am looking for sources in that it was requested that I make a more detailed explanation of an “oracle node” for an upcoming summary.
Thank you for following up on this! I actually discovered that there were various definitions of an oracle node within the space, so I have been trying to find the best and most clear definitions to give a more appropriate view of the concept. I definitely agree on the smart contract definition, but I just wanted to point it out to make sure it was known that it was an important term to start thinking about adding to the glossary. I should have a couple good definitions within the week.
Part of this conversation happened earlier and there was a general sense that for the purposes of the glossary and tag, specificity is what we were after. Ethics as a tag is likely too broad. Jason had a few posts where maybe data ethics would be a useful tag, but I think we were still trying to specify what data ethics were? It seems like the Ethics of Technology concept might be getting closer, but looking at the Wikipedia link, there seems to be a lot of potential directions to go in. Maybe technoethics and the material from Luppicini (2009) that is cited in the wiki might get us to the concept that @jasonanastas is advocating for?
Wondering if we can be more specific on the definition. I’m not sure that “…different from balances in traditional reserve or settlement accounts.” creates a meaningful distinction. Feels like there are more important nuances here. Perhaps the distinction is around who issues, authority to issue, control of monetary policy, representing as opposed to backed by Fiat, etc.
I think this works. It might need some paraphrasing. I do wonder if there is need for a glossary entry for Action and recommendation trust, however. Or are they inherently linked to oracle nodes that being defined by oracle nodes would be acceptable?