Redecentralize

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

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

also think it’s 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 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, 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

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

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.  This is a real simple model -- it's a small Ruby script -- but it's proven

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

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

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       [d69a94dd-9eca-4eee-9b8c-4aa656bdea42

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

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

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