Editing Talk:DGF comparisons (section)

===Dissensus===

The paper first introduces the idea of dissensus:

“Dissensus describes the emergence of incompatible differences. Among peer-to-peer technologies, blockchain stands out as a set of ideas that explicitly seek to resolve dissensus through consensus protocols. In this article, we propose dissensus as a “protocol” for foregrounding the often sidelined yet productive aspects of incompatible differences. The concept highlights that there might not always be consensus about a consensus algorithm, and that indeed, dissensus is the precondition for new possibilities and perspectives to emerge”

They highlight a trend in blockchain projects where

“Prevalent among communities forming around blockchain technology more specifically is an emphasis on relegating governance to automated enforcement by a protocol, coordinating the otherwise free actions of actors in the network.”

But observe the tension inherent in trying to resolve dissensus through consensus mechanisms:

“Automating certain governance processes can be a welcome relief, minimizing the need for repeated actions. But when it is understood as neutral mechanisms for resolving dissensus and solving governance once and for all, it causes significant problems in theory and practice: in theory, it causes an issue of infinite regression, whereby dissensus about a consensus algorithm, for instance, then can only be solved through another neutral consensus algorithm”

There is a tendency to try and “solve governance” through technical means, but there are limits to that apporach:

“First, because governance entails more than mere coordination and resolution to conflict between predetermined individual behaviors and preferences—it also involves deliberation, negotiation, and transformation, and the formation of norms, cultures, and understandings that are often better navigated “off-chain,” so to speak. And second, because governance processes and technologies themselves might become the site of conflict. Dissensus as a concept therefore serves to place governance tools back into their social and historical contexts, as particular, not universal forms of negotiating difference.”