On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 11:42:22AM +0200, Jaromil wrote:
> For instance when I read Geert here, someone whom I held accountable all this 
> time for his netiquette violations, his texts are very readable from a mobile 
> mail client. When I read Carlo von Lynx instead, a man notably very observant 
> of netiquette, his mails appear hard to read.

Me? Netiquette? I'm just using 30+ year old mail clients... haha
But I will try to break the 72 character rule ASAP.
Also, I'm not Kibo, so you're getting this feedback a month late...

> “One main problem with anarchism as a social system is about transaction 
> costs. But the digital revolution alters two aspects of political economy 
> that have been otherwise invariant throughout human history. All software has 
> zero marginal cost in the world of the Net, while the costs of social 
> coordination have been so far reduced as to permit the rapid formation and 
> dissolution of large-scale and highly diverse social groupings entirely 
> without geographic limitation.”
> - Eben Moglen, 1999

Unfortunately there are a couple more...

> The DAO concept presumes that access to a DLT is available to all 
> shareholders to allow members to vote on collective decisions and 
> transactions in a distributed and asynchronous way. Votes may be held during 
> certain time-frames and more sophisticated governance rules may be adopted, 
> for instance that each voter may exercise a weight that is proportional to 
> his or her investment or commitment into the project, which may be measured 
> in various ways and not just by means of a financial stake: from using a 
> simple time-bank to adopting different reputation and delegation systems up 
> to more sophisticated governance models as “Conviction Voting”.

You say "for instance" here, but since a person can adopt a thousand 
wallets/identities when buying shares of a DAO there isn't really a viable way 
to implement a *democratic* decision-making process whereby humans do NOT count 
by how much they are invested... is there? I think this defeats the plan of 
using DAOs and blockchains for governing Commons right from the start. You have 
experienced Liquid Democracy, you know how a Commons can indeed be governed via 
the Internet if the precondition of identifying participants as real human 
beings is actually implemented.

Since we don't want to drop the objective of disintermediation, what we really 
need is a distributed social network and graph that we can consult to ensure 
that all participants are real human beings - only then can we hope that the 
decision-making process has any ethically meaningful outcome.

> What is interesting to note as an outcome of this and other big DAOs is that 
> the technology per-se (be it completely or partially decentralized) did not 
> provide a solution to the many challenges posed by large and distributed 
> governance models.

Unlike liquid democracy, which does...

> “Smart” is an euphemism for magic / enchanted / cursed (unfortunately, it 
> usually means cursed) - Caleb James DeLisle

hahaha, you can't beat cjd

> Let's dig into the “smart contract” definition

I think it was termed "smart" because it does more advanced things than a 
Bitcoin. So it isn't smarter compared to a proper real-world contract which is 
backed by proper human jurisdiction with humans deciding what's right and 
what's wrong, not some obscure person that wrote up some DAO bytecode and let 
it run loose in complete disrespect of the eneeds of human society.

> Determinism: unknown random values are never mixed during the computing 
> process so that, given the same data inputs, the exact same outputs can be 
> always obtained in any execution condition on any machine architecture. This 
> also means that execution is a “duplicable” process (could be also defined as 
> reproducible or reversible) and can be verified.

In 1990, Stephen 'BuGless' van den Berg suggested IRC chatrooms should be 
governed by bytecode which is distributed to all IRC servers and reliably 
executed always in the same way. These days one would connect those IRC servers 
into a private blockchain, of course.

1990... that's five years before Java bytecode hit the streets and only three 
years after LPMUD was invented, a multi-player game that runs on bytecode, 
empowering all "wizards" to develop code for the game without having to trust 
them. Previous multi-player games only allowed wizards to configure 
pre-programmed items.

I'm just saying, great ideas keep bubbling up frequently. One of them got 
disproportionate extra attention because it is suitable for crime and 
speculation. It may have been conceived to confront the "hornets" (see below), 
but the hornets are nesting in it as it is much easier to abuse and gain 
advantage in than traditional means of corruption, crime and speculation.

> Malicious code: no declared intention for the execution is imposed on the 
> code, it may even aim to consume the resources of an entire network of 
> machines. All code has to be executed: it is up to the machines to defend 
> themselves from malicious intents by limiting the conditions of code 
> execution, for instance a limit in computation cycles.

So we all agree that the code is the same, but we may refuse to run it, so we 
cannot agree on the results...  :D   I would rather adopt a social graph to 
achieve malice resistance instead.

> The innovation lying behind the term “smart contract” focuses on the contract 
> language and virtual machine as building blocks to scale up platform 
> infrastructures at great sizes, while providing access to advanced 
> cryptographic computations that seal contents in a programmable way.

Too bad it still sits on top of blockchains and mined currencies. With the 
consensus mechanism built on top of a distributed social network, those 
contracts could actually be among humans, and evaluating the consensus of 
humans doesn't take any GPUs. Right?

> The core components of a blockchain/DLT in the “web3” acception are four:
> 1. The peer to peer network layer

Which is highly susceptible to Sibyl Attacks and therefore cannot be employed 
safely for any other purpose but:

> 2. The consensus algorithm
> 3. The virtual machine
> 4. The immutable ledger
> Then there are two optional components mostly related with state persistence:
> 5. (optionally) a peer to peer distributed file system

... which either passes through the consensus mechanism, making it 
energy-inefficient as nodes have to process file system changes even if totally 
irrelevant, or otherwise there is limited guarantee for consistency as the 
Sybil Attacks & co are back in the game, allowing for certain nodes or certain 
content to be masked ... right?

> 6. (optionally) oracle notarization for legacy databases

I missed this one.

> What I’ve written so far should make clear that, by virtue of crypto design 
> patterns, the integrity of an application and its results may be completely 
> separated from the blockchain/DLT infrastructure that runs them, while all 
> participants can be reassured about the correctness of the inputs, the 
> processes and the outputs.

Given anyone of them actually fully understood all implications of the code, 
including the person who wrote it...

> In a certain dystopian future the term “software piracy” may acquire a whole 
> new meaning and it will be up to the crypto commons movement to defend the 
> freedom of decentralized system developers as Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator 
> of Bitcoin, who has aptly chosen to hide himself and his or her real identity 
> following the famous last sentence:
> 
> “WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.”
> - Satoshi Nakamoto, 11 December 2010

Sounds legit, but I can't help thinking that he might also have been fully 
aware that he was deploying a huge pyramid scheme with him probably the richest 
participant and just didn't expect that the hornets would let Bitcoin go on for 
so many years, allowing him to still enjoy all the wealth of this 
cryptographically most sophisticated form of scam.

> If a censorship war is ever started against developers then a whole new sort 
> of “lunar” software licenses may be needed, or perhaps no licenses at all: 
> just public domain software maintained by anonymous developer collectives.

Huh... why should the hornets worry about developers? There's nothing wrong 
with distributed systems, just the idea of a consensus-based currency was 
brilliant yet profoundly wrong and bad for human society. A great future for 
disintermediated technology is possible after the criminal incentives and 
financial speculation have been regulated away. We need human-driven 
disintermediated tools, not currency-driven. Kick out the mining process, plug 
in the distributed social graph.

> I believe the crypto commons movement has a clear mission: to shape and 
> defend the techno-political evolution of information technology platforms 
> outside of the logics of property. The new conditions for anonymous 
> collective ownership of decentralized information architectures require us to 
> understand a new ethical sense for computational democracy.

Sounds legit. Maybe you've been expecting the right things from the wrong 
technology, though.

> The unconditioned accessibility to and governmentality of programming 
> languages will be of growing importance, even more than free and open source 
> practices are already today for the crypto commons movement.

You should try out liquid democratic software development.

> As a propositive conclusion I would like to share a few ways I see the crypto 
> commons movement can go beyond the mere application of financial gambling or 
> digital property attributions.

I'm all ears.

> The crypto commons movement ideal will be that of making humans understand 
> machines: to envision new trust models in cybernetics and fight back the 
> supremacy of centralized black-box governance. The crypto commons movement 
> challenge is to create deterministic conditions for replicable computation, 
> implement algorithms whose mode of operation can be scientifically proven, 
> communicated with simplicity and democratically debated. Algorithms of 
> dissent.

Indeed, this summary of intent makes sense to me as well, although I am 
considering somewhat different approaches to get there... a lot more 
human-centric I guess.

-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption.
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:

Reply via email to