computers then I need some was to
> ensure that
> they cooperate.
> Now, "ownership" is a concept deeply imbued into
human society, but
> it's worth remembering
> that it is essentially a solution to this same problem. It all boils
> down to using
/...\ good job at letting them talk to each other. Good
enough, you don't want a single tool responsible for everything.
>
Humans on the other hand, have an abstracted notion of property, I
> maintain control of my bicycle
> by chaining it to something when
/...\ court case.
(The (d) I added because we better reject the idea of a pure
machine-supported "proof" as applicable to
humans for moral reasons.)
> Now - if you want to build a true p2p system, a decentralized system -
> that depends on people
> freely choosing
Quite... the drogulus is supposed to be application agnostic.
> So I need an environment where I see agents (be them accounts
> representing
human users or automated, autonomous processes)
> communicating via asynchronous, unreliable, unidirectional
> messages. That's how we observe
human interaction in writing.
>
Humans /...\ juristic persons sending letters, registered mail etc.
>
Again, quite. Actually, it's not just
humans - I've been reading quite
a bit of literature on insect interactions, communication and
behaviour. A good overview and a book I particularly enjoyed was
Deborah Gordon's "Ant Encounters - Interaction Networks
/...\ idea
> to have a type property in the agent object pointing to another
> (signed) object which holds the script code and important:
human
> readable terms and conditions. The other object would be the
> contract governing the agents actions on incoming requests. No
> script object found
datacenter, on other people's computers then I need some was to
ensure that
they cooperate.
Now, "ownership" is a concept deeply imbued into
human society, but
it's worth remembering
that it is essentially a solution to this same problem. It all boils
down to using coersion to ensure
/...\ those "rights" personally.
So what they have is a "possesion" (a non-abstract form of property).
There are no absentee landlords in the non-
human animal kingdom.
Humans on the other hand, have an abstracted notion of property, I
maintain control of my bicycle
by chaining it to something when
/...\ using just information?
I think this is possible, not just because there are computer systems
which achive this within specific
contexts, but also, because
humans can already do this naturally.
Small scale groups do not use coersion,
they use information - everyone involved pretty much knows what is
going
need some was to
>> ensure that
>> they cooperate.
>>
>> Now, "ownership" is a concept deeply imbued into
human society, but
>> it's worth remembering
>> that it is essentially a solution to this same problem. It all boils
/...\ what they have is a "possesion" (a non-abstract form of property).
>> There are no absentee landlords in the non-
human animal kingdom.
>>
>>
Humans on the other hand, have an abstracted notion of property, I
>> maintain control of my bicycle
/...\ think this is possible, not just because there are computer systems
>> which achive this within specific
>> contexts, but also, because
humans can already do this naturally.
>> Small scale groups do not use coersion,
>> they use information - everyone involved pretty much knows what
other people's computers then I need some was to
ensure that
they cooperate.
Now, "ownership" is a concept deeply imbued into
human society, but
it's worth remembering
that it is essentially a solution to this same problem. It all boils
down to using coersion to ensure
/...\ personally.
So what they have is a "possesion" (a non-abstract form of property).
There are no absentee landlords in the non-
human animal kingdom.
Humans on the other hand, have an abstracted notion of property, I
maintain control of my bicycle
by chaining it to something when
/...\ using just information?
I think this is possible, not just because there are computer systems
which achive this within specific
contexts, but also, because
humans can already do this naturally.
Small scale groups do not use coersion,
they use information - everyone involved pretty much knows what is
going
they cooperate.
>> >>
>> >> Now, "ownership" is a concept deeply imbued into
human society, but
>> >> it's worth remembering
>> >> that it is essentially a solution to this same problem. It all boils
/...\ have is a "possesion" (a non-abstract form of property).
>> >> There are no absentee landlords in the non-
human animal kingdom.
>> >>
>> >>
Humans on the other hand, have an abstracted notion of property
/...\ just because there are computer systems
>> >> which achive this within specific
>> >> contexts, but also, because
humans can already do this naturally.
>> >> Small scale groups do not use coersion,
>> >> they use information - everyone involved pretty
conversation and business. Publications, private messages,
archive+backup, calendar, notes etc.
So I need an environment where I see agents (be them accounts
representing
human users or automated, autonomous processes)
communicating via asynchronous, unreliable, unidirectional messages.
That's how we observe
human interaction in writing.
Humans or juristic
persons sending
/...\ good idea to have a type property in
the agent object pointing to another (signed) object which holds the
script code and important:
human readable terms and conditions. The
other object would be the contract governing the agents actions on
incoming requests. No script object found: either no updates
/...\ locate
script in the object itself.
Now we need "trust but verify": since we must not allow any single
human
to control the agent, we can not allow a single computer to compute the
update and then somehow copy the new state to other peers. After
trade agreements, to
enhance power imbalances.
Most of these problems come out the sheer size of states and
corporations, and most of the normal
human interactions that might
protect against abuse assume relatively small groups. A sports club,
church community, even a village, are all self managing. Regulation
still happens
/...\ worker. We need rules and regulations, we need
detection and response, and the response has to have some real impact.
These are, I suspect,
human things.
Humans are interacting, and
humans
need to address problems. As a direct outcome of the
human model, we
might look at community size. This
ensure that
>> they cooperate.
>>
>> Now, "ownership" is a concept deeply imbued into
human society, but
>> it's worth remembering
>> that it is essentially a solution to this same problem. It all boils
>> down to using coersion
/...\ what they have is a "possesion" (a non-abstract form of property).
>> There are no absentee landlords in the non-
human animal kingdom.
>>
>>
Humans on the other hand, have an abstracted notion of property, I
>> maintain control of my bicycle
/...\ think this is possible, not just because there are computer systems
>> which achive this within specific
>> contexts, but also, because
humans can already do this naturally.
>> Small scale groups do not use coersion,
>> they use information - everyone involved pretty much knows what
datacenter, on other people's computers then I need some was to
ensure that
they cooperate.
Now, "ownership" is a concept deeply imbued into
human society, but
it's worth remembering
that it is essentially a solution to this same problem. It all boils
down to using coersion to ensure
/...\ those "rights" personally.
So what they have is a "possesion" (a non-abstract form of property).
There are no absentee landlords in the non-
human animal kingdom.
Humans on the other hand, have an abstracted notion of property, I
maintain control of my bicycle
by chaining it to something when
/...\ using just information?
I think this is possible, not just because there are computer systems
which achive this within specific
contexts, but also, because
humans can already do this naturally.
Small scale groups do not use coersion,
they use information - everyone involved pretty much knows what is
going
application agnostic.
(as is Askemos ;-)
>> So I need an environment where I see agents (be them accounts
>> representing
human users or automated, autonomous processes)
>> communicating via asynchronous, unreliable, unidirectional
>> messages. That's how we observe
human interaction in writing.
>>
Humans /...\ juristic persons sending letters, registered mail etc.
>>
> Again, quite. Actually, it's not just
humans - I've been reading quite
> a bit of literature on insect interactions, communication and
> behaviour. A good overview and a book I particularly enjoyed was
> Deborah Gordon
schrieb David
Burns:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Adam
Ierymenko < adam.ierymenko@zerotier.com >
wrote:
Human societies are networks too. I think this work
has po litical and philosophical implications inasmuch
as the same information theoretic principles that govern
computer networks might also operate in
human ones
/...\ here, maybe it can help us find new
ways of fixing it there.
And networks are
human societies, every
node has at least one person associated with it, trying to
cooperate/communicate with at least one other. But it seems
like it would be easy to push the analogy
/...\ understand you "vaguely similar". It seems not to
be that vague. It's just a different "machine" executing it:
physical hardware or
human agents. But both are supposed to stick
precisely to the rules until the software is changed. (And both are
usually buggy
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with
On Aug 14, 2014, at 1:30 AM, David Geib < trustiosity.zrm@gmail.com > wrote: It
also think itâs a toy version of an even larger problem: how to devolve power in general. >
Human societies are networks too. I think this work has po litical and philosophical implications inasmuch as the same information theoretic principles that govern computer networks might also
/...\ operate in
human ones.
> If we can fix it here, maybe it can help us find new ways of fixing it there. Or the other way around for that matter. Look at the societies that work best and see how they do it. > I wonder what might
/...\ defend against.
> Decentralization and the devolution of power are something that lots of people want, and theyâre something
human beings have been trying to achieve in various ways for a very long time. Most of these efforts, like democracy, republics, governmental balance of power, anti
might be, scientists know no borders, and
build on each other's knowledge. The free software movement can be
considered yet another contribution to
human knowledge and culture, on par
with scientific knowledge.
The arts show that you can pay for a work and make it available to the
public
/...\ vision from
another Century. The new narrative involves peer production and common
experimentation. Products driven by commercial plans fail to address the
complexity of
human life.
Complexity that we must embrace if we are to succeed in building a
sustainable society on this planet. It is unfortunate but true that
/...\ politics of capital, and the new narrative must convey the
idea that economics should be pushed back to its original application of
serving
human communities, not special interests.
"Redecentralization" is about empowering our communities, not shifting from
global masters to other global masters. That is the process
understand you "vaguely similar". It seems
not to be that vague. It's just a different "machine"
executing it: physical hardware or
human agents. But both are
supposed to stick precisely to the rules until the software is
changed. (And both are usually buggy
/...\ contract holding all the code required to boot the
system. By analogy this would be the constitution and the body of
law a
human inherits.
Custom and law typically operate by defining constraints that
must not be violated, leaving agents free to pursue arbitrary
goals using arbitrary strategies
/...\ different. Or maybe the level of
abstraction?
I'd say: the level of abstraction. We can't take the
human intent
out of the game. (In our model, agents representing users may be
free send arbitrary messages. Akin to no regulation and freedom of
expression
might be, scientists know
no borders, and build on each other's knowledge. The free software
movement can be considered yet another contribution to
human knowledge
and culture, on par with scientific knowledge.
The arts show that you can pay for a work and make it available to the
public
/...\ vision from another Century. The new narrative
involves peer production and common experimentation. Products driven by
commercial plans fail to address the complexity of
human life.
Complexity that we must embrace if we are to succeed in building a
sustainable society on this planet. It is unfortunate but true that
/...\ politics of capital, and the new narrative must convey
the idea that economics should be pushed back to its original
application of serving
human communities, not special interests.
"Redecentralization" is about empowering our communities, not shifting
from global masters to other global masters. That is the process
Adam Ierymenko < adam.ierymenko@zerotier.com > wrote:
Human societies are networks too. I think this work has po
litical and philosophical implications inasmuch as the same information theoretic principles that govern computer networks might also operate in
human ones. If we can fix it here, maybe it can help us find
/...\ ways of fixing it there.
And networks are
human societies, every node has at least one person associated with it, trying to cooperate/communicate with at least one other. But it seems like it would be easy to push the analogy too far, as custom, law, contracts, etc. are only vaguely
Jeremy Malcolm [LibreList] Digital consumers breaking through the cloud 2014-03-25 10:53:12 lost era, the rights that underlie these lost expectations remain as relevant today as ever. Indeed, they derive from the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which guarantees us all freedom from arbitrary interference with our privacy and correspondence, and the right to receive and impart information and ideas through
/...\ media and regardless of frontiers. Whilst it may seem to trivialise
human rights to attach them to the question of where your email is hosted, we have already lost more than enough ground in the past decade that strongly asserting our rights is the very least that
property
could be simply a key or better a certificate proofing additional
information together with the key.)
What's hard to decentralize would be
human-meaningful names to those
identities.
Or did you address something else by "identity"? Sorry-- I've been writing quickly. "Identity" as in authentication
/...\ property
could be simply a key or better a certificate proofing additional
information together with the key.)
What's hard to decentralize would be
human-meaningful names to those
identities.
Or did you address something else by "identity"?
Thanks
property could be
simply a key or better a certificate proofing additional
information together with the key.)
What's hard to decentralize would be
human-meaningful
names to those identities.
Or did you address something else by "identity"?
Sorry-- I've been writing quickly. "Identity" as in
authentication
/...\ property could be simply a key
or better a certificate proofing additional information
together with the key.)
What's hard to decentralize would be
human-meaningful
names to those identities.
Or did you address something else by "identity"?
Thanks
side). The collecting system
would essentially perform the Gödel-enumeration (in some refined form
like mapping to another human meaningful expression than natural numbers
– but that's at worst a recursive incarnation of the same problem).
What am I missing?
> We don't even know
property
could be simply a key or better a certificate proofing additional
information together with the key.)
What's hard to decentralize would be human-meaningful names to those
identities.
Or did you address something else by "identity"?
Thanks
personal cell phone, and emails
>> me, so that I can read the posting and follow up with a human
>> summary, often within minutes of the posting.
>>
>> This is a real simple model -- it's a small Ruby script
least with everyone, is not
complicated using the Web. It was actually built to publish... in a
decentralized way.
I agree that as humans, we're social animals. But what made us
centralize stuff is mostly greed. There is nothing written in stone
saying that we need to centralize
also sends an SMS to my personal cell phone, and emails me, so that I can read the posting and follow up with a human summary , often within minutes of the posting.Â
This is a real simple model -- it's a small Ruby script -- but it's proven
maze@strahlungsfrei.de [LibreList] Re: [redecentralize] Intros and current projects 2014-01-02 23:56:09 personal cell phone, and emails me, so that I can read the
> posting and follow up with a human summary, often within minutes of
> the posting.
>
> This is a real simple model -- it's a small Ruby script -- but it's
> proven useful
personal cell phone, and emails
>> me, so that I can read the posting and follow up with a human
>> summary, often within minutes of the posting.
>>
>> This is a real simple model -- it's a small Ruby script
personal cell phone, and emails
>> me, so that I can read the posting and follow up with a human
>> summary, often within minutes of the posting.
>>
>> This is a real simple model -- it's a small Ruby script
think of Ubuntu, or
Android (regarding open source OSs) or Bittorrent, or Piratebay (in terms
of things that come to mind if an ordinary human is asked what do they
thing of as an example of P2P or F2F tech). Â Given the news about Bitcoin
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 control.
best,
holger
>
>
> Hope to get an email
strong
believer in grassroots movements and local ownership of
technology. My focus over the next few months is to make
the technology available in human readable form, so anyone
can understand, deploy using whatever model that fits best
in their scenario.
Cheers,
Anish
Thomas Levine [GG] Distributed Dance Party update 2018-06-18 23:34:00 these tools for educational, environmental and
 humanitarian applications, and what are their implications on conscious
 evolution and human development?
 >>> illumina.io/crypto-symposium
 AnarchaPortugal - Porto, Portugal July 19-20
 Â
 [d69a94dd-9eca-4eee-9b8c-4aa656bdea42
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
control.
RT>I agree. But the Google, Twitter
were just describing something that happened to you.
Generally speaking, Telegram's problem is the same as Tox's is the same as many humans -- personal defensiveness. I'm not sure how to solve that, but working in public  and operating openly  are great starts
owns the
air we breathe, yet some abuse this fact to pollute it without
restraint. Free software is a commons, it's made for humans.
Proprietary software is made for vendors.
> If by proprietary you mean not-changeable-by-someone-else?
>
No, I mean it's not free
owns the air
we breathe, yet some abuse this fact to pollute it without restraint. Free
software is a commons, it's made for humans.
Proprietary software is made for vendors.
> If by proprietary you mean not-changeable-by-someone-else?
>
No, I mean it's not free
personal cell phone, and emails
>> me, so that I can read the posting and follow up with a human
>> summary, often within minutes of the posting.
>>
>> This is a real simple model -- it's a small Ruby script
pairspace@gmail.com > wrote:
This language may be useful in the marketing of decentralization. Trustable open clients can augment first-person human decisions based on untrusted, commercial third-party inputs.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vrm/2014/03/19/why-we-need-first-person-technologies-on-the-net/
--- There are social influences on how we use first person technologies,
of course, just as there
think of Ubuntu, or
Android (regarding open source OSs) or Bittorrent, or Piratebay (in terms
of things that come to mind if an ordinary human is asked what do they
thing of as an example of P2P or F2F tech). Given the news about Bitcoin
it's a sure
P S [LibreList] First Person Technologies 2014-03-29 17:32:15 This language may be useful in the marketing of decentralization. Trustable open clients can augment first-person human decisions based on untrusted, commercial third-party inputs. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vrm/2014/03/19/why-we-need-first-person-technologies-on-the-net/ --- There are social influences on how we use first person technologies, of course, just as there are social influences
have to solve except with lots of people and other entities. If something is non-computable for machines it is also non-computable for humans. > One idea I've had is a hybrid system combining a centralized database and a decentralized DHT. Both are available and they back each
without any external contact. This is like the Bitcoin solution except that instead of using processing power as the limit on Sybils you use human face time. Then when the attack comes you already have trusted parties you can rely on to help you resist it.
So you *can* bootstrap
without any external contact. This is like the Bitcoin solution except that instead of using processing power as the limit on Sybils you use human face time. Then when the attack comes you already have trusted parties you can rely on to help you resist it.
I'm not sure
interesting point. Zooko's triangle was supposed to be that you couldn't have a naming system which is decentralized, has global human-readable names and is secure. And it fails by the same overgeneralization as we had here. You don't need centralization as long as you have trust
bottom line is kind of this:
Decentralization and the devolution of power are something that lots of people want, and they’re something human beings have been trying to achieve in various ways for a very long time. Most of these efforts, like democracy, republics, governmental balance of power
vaguely similar". It seems not to
be that vague. It's just a different "machine" executing it:
physical hardware or human agents. But both are supposed to stick
precisely to the rules until the software is changed. (And both are
usually buggy