We’ve had enough of digital monopolies and surveillance capitalism. We want an alternative world that works for everyone, just like the original intention of the web and net.

We seek a world of open platforms and protocols with real choices of applications and services for people. We care about privacy, transparency and autonomy. Our tools and organisations should fundamentally be accountable and resilient.


Robert Tischer [LibreList] RE: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform (as in no servers) 2015-09-02 11:05:11 (3 years 10 mons 11 days 12:47:00 ago)

-----Original Message-----
From: redecentralize@librelist.com [mailto:redecentralize@librelist.com] On
Behalf Of holger krekel
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 8:49 AM
To: redecentralize@librelist.com
Subject: Re: [redecentralize] Check out Hiveware's decentralized platform
(as in no servers)

On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 07:43 -0400, Robert Tischer wrote:
> Redecentralizers:
> Please check out my decentralized dev and runtime platform called 
> Hiveware at www.hiveware.com which stands for Hyperstructured 
> Interactive Virtual Environment softWare. I have been working on it 
> for many years. I expect to launch the engine by the end of the year 
> called the Hiveware Big Bang. See the prototype using Microsoft Word 
> that gets rid of the need for Tracking Changes and makes GoogleDocs 
> and Office 365's cloud-based destructive collaborative editing look more
like jungle warfare than group authoring.
> (see www.hivewareforword.com, also see YouTube and search under 'Hiveware'
> to see a Hiveware for Word video)
> I am looking for C++ entrepreneurs who would like to build 
> decentralized apps on top of it. Just think of some topic area you 
> love to do, then think of an app you would build (or adapt or 
> interface with if there is an API), and sharpen your C++ skills. Think 
> co-operative applications from the ground up (collaborative is good, 
> but cooperative is better). The code will eventually be open read-only
source. How's that for innovation!

A long-time FOSS developer myself, i am critical but not fundamentally
opposed to "open read-only source".  What is your reasoning behind it?
RT>"open source" for me is tantamount to promiscuous copying without regards
to ownership of intellectual property rights. Only the early days of
communism believed this was an ideal. But no one but a thief would dream of
going into a retail store and walking out with someone else's material
property today. Nor could we think of owning a house without a lock on its
front door. Nope, creative ownership to my way of thinking as a
psycholinguist, is conveyed along with the creation of said item be it
material or virtual like code, music or digital art. You can give it away
without compensation for the time, materials and effort you have expended on
the item, which is what the forced philosophy of "open source" espouses. And
you can have it practically stolen from you as is done in the fine print in
contracts with corporations for which you work. You can also sell it just
like you would a painting, but that is not directly supported in today's
Internet. And you can share it with responsibility and mutual respect
undergirded by interlocking software structures. This is what Hiveware does.
It creates the potential for a new Internet where cooperative sharing can
take place while maintaining ownerships (there are many different kinds it
turns out). Imagine the ability to sell someone a digital item and repossess
it if some part of the payment fails? And I haven't even written yet about
linguistic meaning which takes a hit when data is copied away from its
creator. This is why IMO Google Search will eventually fail.

IMO technical decentralization needs to be accompanied by decentralized,
collective forms of ownership as long as ownership is a determining category
in our societies. Otherwise Google, Twitter, FB and the likes could claim to
be decentralized because they operate large distributed CDNs and other
technical decentralization techniques.  Clearly, as soon as an entity
commercially captures interactions between humans and their machines there
is a centralization of power and an excellent point of surveillance and
RT>I agree. But the Google, Twitter, and FB (NSA?) server farms don't have
to be privy to the contents of the created material. 'A' who sends content
to 'B' via a server 'S' where the content is 2048-bit end-to-end encrypted,
still creatively owns his digital item where 'B' owns a legal copy of same.
This is the conversation currently taking place between the public and the
government's security agencies who want de-encryption backdoors always
available. Once this debate resolves on encryptions side, the debate will
naturally become, "Why do I need to send data through a server?" Doesn't
really make much sense if you can guarantee un-eaves-droppable end-to-end
delivery. Servers can go back to being a commodity that  delivers computing
power and ease of setup/maintenance to end users. Meta (Big) Data analysis
of A->S->B data transport is another discussion which would also
theoretically disappear with piecemeal direct A->B encrypted transport. Not
disappear really, but rather properly owned, meaning folk's notions of
privacy and possession would automatically be honored. The real problem is
how to organize piecemeal encrypted transport. Again, that is what Hiveware
is attempting to do. /RT>


> Hope to get an email from you soon.
> Robert Tischer
> Hiveware, Inc
> "You Can't Hack What Doesn't Exist" (meaning centralized servers)
> rtischer@hiveware.com
> Congratulations on your upcoming conference.

about me:    http://holgerkrekel.net/about-me/
contracting: http://merlinux.eu