1. 5

  2. 8

    This reminds me of a lot of idealistic motivations that have caused myself and many friends over time to work on various cryptocurrencies over the years, but I’ve come to fully abandon any hope that popular power cultivation can be assisted through what in-practice serves only to calcify and concentrate existing power structures.

    After spending time with several successful projects, there’s always a point where they invite you to meet the shady billionaires who have been buying fancy chairs for the office etc… And in these moments it’s clear who the customer is. And they are well served - despite the extreme difficulty the many brilliant engineers in the ecosystem have to come up with a convincing argument for what behavior is actually unlocked by the system they are building.

    The use case is there, and it works well. It’s just that everyday people are simply not the customer. The customers are those who pay attention to (or have people who pay attention for them) to the growing calls for capital controls (even the IMF is relaxing its previously harsh opposition to them, and anyone who paid attention to the Asian Financial Crisis can’t seriously oppose them if they have a shred of integrity) to try to slow down the capital flight that drives all economies into a race-to-the-bottom to strip everyday people of their dignity despite them following all of the rules they learned while growing up about how to be a good person, worker, and citizen.

    Every successful crypto project is used by billionaires as an offshore strategy or high-risk-class investment. Every unsuccessful crypto project was used by billionaires as a pump-and-dump. Both are created by idealists who want to bring people together and ultimately cultivate power to help them advocate for themselves more effectively and construct better communities. But in-practice they are building the machines that work against their personal goals in every way.

    Capital controls are in fact the more important action to be taken on behalf of groups of people who wish to avoid continued dis-empowerment through capital flight. Sometimes, centralization is vital to allow everyday people to effectively target their grievances in the first place. The systems we build always reflect the power systems outside of the systems. Crypto evangelists will always cry “mechanism design will let us program the future!” but that’s totally ignorant of the fact that mechanism design is design, and it’s actually “mechanism implementation” that is relevant, and reflective of existing power structures that were cultivated by going out into the real world and talking to like-minded people for whom the last calcified systems didn’t work acceptably well. Please use your clear motivation to bring people together to actually bring people together, outside of a system of rules that confines them in a way that allows billionaires to squeeze them more easily.

    1. 1

      I hope you try to read through the paper. This is in fact a proposal for a data-interchange format, the cryptocurrency part is just a necessary consequence of solving all issues related with data-interchange formats.

      Edit: and regarding the point about existing power structures, the issue with currencies is how you distribute tokens, this project has a fresh take on that problem.

      1. 1

        Edit: and regarding the point about existing power structures, the issue with currencies is how you distribute tokens, this project has a fresh take on that problem.

        I’m not sure how distributing tokens compares to propping up existing power structures.

        On a separate topic, I’m guessing (very easily) that you don’t have a formal Philosophy background here.

        1. 3

          All token distribution schemes are trivially gamable by those who already have most of the power by either concentrating mining resources if it’s PoW or by using sybil attacks/pseudo-sybil attacks (paying hordes of people a small cut to loan their identities). All distribution schemes concentrate on those who have the capability to apply such gaming at higher economies of scale than small groups who do not have the resources to proportionally game the system, because the system reflects the real power gradients outside the system. Schemes that sound egalitarian at the outset, like demurrage or totally-flat random distribution, simply benefit those who have the ability to move things around more quickly or efficiently than non-whales.

          I used to think that crypto would at least educate the participants more about economics and how awesome government-as-an-identifiable-resistance-site can be at solving certain justice deficits and approaching actual “efficiency” through capturing externalities via taxation + legislation + litigation, but in practice most folks are being shoveled so much anarcho-capitalist propaganda by the true customers who can detect and exploit those externalities that the education received tends to work against their own interests.

          1. 1

            If you read the section where I define politics and currency you can see that my scheme is neither flat random nor centralized, we try to preserve all information when we make a consensus.

            In practice this is similar to the Quecha language (see: http://www.zompist.com/quechua.html) we self-evaluate how much to trust things and others use these evaluations as reality-checks.

            Really there’s a ton of ideas in the paper I think would be worth discussing, I’m sorry it isn’t written in a way where people are interested in reading it :/

          2. 1

            haha, no I study mathematics… my philosophy comes from a few years spent hitchhiking across the planet and reading books. I don’t believe in our current system of evaluation, this whitepaper is my attempt at describing what an evaluation system should look like.

      2. 3

        I have to be honest, I have no idea what I just read. It seems to be a description of an interchange binary protocol, but has several snippets that make me dubious that anything here makes any sense:

        We claim that Behaviour = Trust(Information) can model any entity in the shared reality

        We believe in freedom; Trust ⊂ Information × Behaviour

        We believe in intelligence; throughput ∼ latency−1 i.e. tradeoff between efficiency and redundancy.

        We believe in harmony; there is a convergence of knowledge, ∃polite ∈ ∨Knowledge.

        We believe in prosperity; ∃world ∈ Freedom ∧ Harmony

        By using datalisp to describe how to communicate in the network we can get closer to a goal of the system, which is to optimize the firing sequences in the world-wide propnet by calculating paths using the bayesian semi-naive evaluation or something else that allows us to be as lazy as possible without compromising security.

        1. 1

          It’s a description of a /human readable/ data-interchange format. The human readable part is what makes it necessary to talk about politics (how do we decide what each word means?) and economics (how do we avoid the tragedy of the commons? - i.e. a noisy language where nothing is properly defined).

          I tried to be as honest as I was able to in how I came around to these decisions when designing the system, while this is just a thought experiment as-is, I really do plan on building this.

        2. 1

          My description of the link was removed so I am putting it as a comment:

          I said I’d fix this paper this week but I think it has enough clarity to warrant discussion. If you guys can help me clarify my arguments further then I would appreciate it a lot.

          Two FAQs:

          Q: https://xkcd.com/927/

          A: https://xkcd.com/312/

          Q: Why don’t you make a problem statement.

          A: The paper explains a theory of how to convince someone and argues the case somewhat consistently with the theory. For me the format makes sense, it’s pretty compact and covers a lot of topics.

          Another one I hope to get:

          Q: Where do I go to keep debating?

          A: Currently there is a @datalisp telegram channel. I also bought a domain (datalisp.is - not yet set up) but if you read the paper and understand the general idea then I guess you know best what to do.

          1. 1

            Since no one is saying anything;

            I’m really just using the ancient greek framework of ‘ethical persuasion’ you can join ethos and pathos to get (unsustainable; kairos) and meet them to get (centralized; logos) the ethos is the codebase the pathos the patch.

            I see the computer as a machine for communication so I have a lot of thoughts basing the architecture on such inherited knowledge…