302cc9b4780f8cbef6f70c3a8417913050b6aafb ([info]mindbound) rakstīja,
@ 2017-09-09 23:29:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Garastāvoklis:awake
Mūzika:Mentallo & The Fixer - Burnt Beyond Recognition: Radiant
Entry tags:computers:networks, computers:security, economics, politics

Prediction: Given enough time, blockchains will out-compete and replace most other forms of networks.

Humans are a highly networked species, the first one to network across genetic and geographic boundaries and thus expand its dominion. Networks allow humans to cooperate in an organised manner and to allocate the fruits of the cooperation. Overlapping networks create and organize our society, being the physical, mental, and digital roads connecting us all. Money is a network. Religion is a network. A corporation is a network. Travel and trade routes form a network. Electricity is a network. Of course, the Internet is a network. Ultimately, civilisation and culture comprises a network of such networks.

Networks must be organized according to rules. They require governance to enforce these rules against cheaters and freeloaders. Networks have “network effects”. Adding a new participant increases the value of the network for all existing participants. Network effects thus create a winner-take-all dynamic. The leading network tends towards becoming the only network. The rulers of these networks become the most powerful people in the society. Some networks are run by kings and priests who choose what is money and law, what is sacred and profane. Rule is closed to outsiders and based on power. Many are run by corporations – the social network, the search network, the phone or cable network; closed but (at least initially) meritocratic. Some are run by elites – the university network, the medical network, the banking network; somewhat open and somewhat meritocratic. A few are run by the mob – democracy, most of the current Internet, the commons; open, but not meritocratic, and, generally, comparatively very inefficient.

The XX century created a new kind of network – market networks; open, efficient, and meritocratic. Merit in markets is determined by the commitment of resources. The typical resource-equivalent is, of course, money, which itself is just a form of reified time. Market networks work where there is a commitment of money, otherwise they are just mob networks. Their applications have been somewhat limited, until now. Blockchain is the new invention that allows meritorious participants in an open network to govern without a ruler and without conventional money. They are merit-based, tamper-proof, open systems. The meritorious are those who work to advance the network. As society gives you money for giving society what it wants, blockchains give you coins for giving the network what it wants. It’s important to note that blockchains pay in their own coin, not the common money of financial markets. Blockchains pay in coin, but the coin itself just tracks and quantifies the amount of work done, and different blockchains demand different work: Bitcoin pays for securing the ledger, Ethereum pays for (executing and verifying) computations, etc. Blockchains combine the openness of the Internet with the merit-based modus operandi of markets.

To a blockchain, merit can mean security, computation, prediction, attention, bandwidth, power, storage, distribution, content, and so forth. Blockchains port the market model into places where it couldn’t go before. Blockchains’ open and merit–based markets can replace networks previously run by kings, corporations, aristocracies, and mobs with networks governed by anyone with merit to the network, optionally but preferentially delegating arbitrary complex parts of the governance process to formally verifiable smart contracts co-approved by the meritorious users of the network. It’s nonsensical to have a blockchain without a coin just like it’s nonsensical to have a market without money. It’s also nonsensical to have a blockchain controlled by a sovereign, a corporation, an elite, or a mob. Blockchains, therefore, provide novel ways to govern networks, whether for banking, research, voting, law, search, social media, phone and energy grids, or computation and communication in general.



(Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-09 23:41 (saite)
Another one popped off the stack.

(Atbildēt uz šo)


[info]scaramouche
2017-09-10 02:28 (saite)
Nākotnē, varbūt. Šobrīd gan limitējošais faktors ir indivīdiem pieejamā vieta.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Diskusija)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-10 02:38 (saite)
Nesapratu domu.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]scaramouche
2017-09-10 02:46 (saite)
Fiziskā vieta. Storage space.

Ja klientam vajag 100% pārliecību, ka informācija ir korekta un ir uzvarējusi balsojumos, tad klientam ir jāuztur visa blockchain'a vēsture.

BTC gadījumā tas varbūt nav pārāk traki, bet, tiklīdz tiek iesaistīti kādi mediju formāti, tā vietas prasības aug astronomiski.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-10 02:51 (saite)
Tur ir varianti, kur vienkāršākais un viens no praktiskākajiem ir operācijas ar pointeriem uz datiem, nevis pašām datu vienībām (sk., piem., Git LFS). No datu glabāšanas, protams, nevar izvairīties, bet var izvairīties no user-end duplikācijas.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]scaramouche
2017-09-10 02:57 (saite)
Un kas gan ir pointeris, kas norāda uz kaut ko, kas vairs neeksistē?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-10 03:15 (saite)
Blokķēdē nekas nebeidz eksistēt, that's one of the main points about it. Piemērot datu un pointeru paradigmu blokķēdei ir uzdevums, kam es vēl neesmu redzējis gatavus risinājumus, bet zināmi priekšdarbi jau eksistē.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]scaramouche
2017-09-10 05:31 (saite)
Atļaušos joprojām būt skeptisks.

Kādam jābūt redundancy factor, lai IPFS būtu funkcionējošs?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-10 10:18 (saite)
Neesmu pārliecināts. Kādā brīvākā brīdī noteikti izpētīšu detaļās IPFS un tās krustojumu ar blokķēdēm. Skepticisms, savukārt, ir labi, kamēr tas ir apgriezti proporcionāls pieejamajai evidencei; fully justified in this case, IMO.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


[info]gedymin
2017-09-10 02:36 (saite)
Merit = value? Vai lieto šo vārdu cita iemesla dēļ, piemēram, lai atsaukties uz meritokrātiju?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Diskusija)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-10 02:40 (saite)
Merit ⊂ value, bet jā, tā ir atsaukšanās uz meritokrātiju.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]gedymin
2017-09-10 02:43 (saite)
Ātrāka videokarte bitkoinu rakšanai = lielāka cilvēka ērtība un tiesības uz ietekmi politikā? :D

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]gedymin
2017-09-10 02:43 (saite)
*vērtība

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-10 03:03 (saite)
Konkrētās blokķēdes ietvaros – sure. Precīzāk gan būtu teikt, ka no svara ir nevis pati videokarte, bet gan rakšanā ieguldītais IPS/FLOPS/ciklu/laika daudzums, bet šajā kontekstā tā ir mostly semantika.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]scaramouche
2017-09-10 05:32 (saite)
Citiem vārdiem sakot - jo vairāk naudas, jo lielākas tiesības kontrolēt informācijas plūsmu?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]gnidrologs
2017-09-10 08:59 (saite)
Cik progresīv un egalitāri.:)

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-10 10:08 (saite)
Pasīvs naudas daudzums ir nerelevants. Jo lielāks ieguldījums kāda tīkla uzturēšanā un tā utilītfunkcijas maksimizācijā, jo lielākas tiesības kontrolēt informācijas plūsmu šajā tīklā — tas gan.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]scaramouche
2017-09-12 01:57 (saite)
Un ar ko tas atšķirtos no "jo vairāk naudas var samaksāt / samaksā pareizajiem cilvēkiem, jo lielāka ietekme"?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-12 02:04 (saite)
Primāri ar to, ka šajā gadījumā ietekme vienmēr ir funkcija no reāla ieguldījuma tīkla uzturēšanā un/vai attīstībā, ar konkrētu, kvantitatīvi izmērāmu lielumu (proof-of-work vai proof-of-stake veidā).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


[info]honeybee
2017-09-10 08:54 (saite)
Methinks that the idea that "merit" is, an can be, measured in coin, or that "it’s nonsensical to have a market without money" is wrong. Money is the crudest approximation of worth (of course in the money exchange system it makes sense, but human systems have multiple "currencies" that run in parallel with money; and the rule regarding those is that only a fool would exchange these for money). Likewise, rules and laws are the crudest expression of values; an individual's ethos cannot be determined (and only extremely crudely approximated) by how many or which rules/laws have they broken. Again, there are many invisible moralities flowing over the rules/laws, and they actually determine which rules/laws are OK to break, and when. The meanings of actions change with time and context. A preserved tweet from 20 years ago has not preserved its (original) meaning neither for the author nor for the public; its meaning changes with time both for the author and the public. A "fully preserved tweet" would have to capture all these changing contexts, and in the model you propose it should have its merit constantly re-evaluated, and the merit-fluctuations saved (so that, you know, I can bet on this blog post becoming more valuable tomorrow than it was yesterday, regardless of what I think of believe).
IMO a system that is built for stability (encoded in the blockchain as an "unchanging/unchangeable" thing) is bound to be subverted in extremely weird ways and/or collapse because by design it doesn't take into account the dynamics of societies, which are, it turn, quite hard to predict. (Or, rather, taking into account all the subtle changes would make it big, unyieldy and hard to operate: for, to determine the value of your post for me *now* it would have to figure out to what time am I referring to when I think about this post (ie when I first read it) and then try to predict whether or not after writing the comment, the value of the post has changed for me; if I would have paid 10 cents for reading it the first time, how much I would pay to read it again? In 10 years' time? - this is a stupid example, of course, but the same would go for software, books, movies, ads, sports events, you name it.)

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Diskusija)


[info]scaramouche
2017-09-10 09:12 (saite)
Citiem vārdiem sakot, fakti pēc kāda laika nebūs derīgi, jo būs mainījies konteksts?

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]honeybee
2017-09-10 09:25 (saite)
Nu tā ir, like, 1/10 daļa no tā, ko es teicu, un nekorekti pārtulkota :D Fakts paliek fakts, tā vērtība ir kontekstuāla, individuāla un laikā mainīga. Nauda, kas tiek samaksāta par konkrētu "faktu" (piemēram, 1h darba) vienmēr ir ārkārtīgi rupja aproksimācija šīs stundas vērtībai, turklāt gan no darbinieka, gan darba devēja puses, savukārt izteikt naudā tās "neredzamās" vērtības, kas tiek apmainītas, diez vai kaut ko līdzētu (pagātnes eksperimenti ar "eu, davaj ieviesīsim naudu tur, kur bija citas apmaiņas sistēmas" have gone hilarioulsy/horribly wrong).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]honeybee
2017-09-10 09:27 (saite)
(pat neņemot vērā faktu, ka "1h darba" pati par sevi ir ārkārtīgi rupja aproksimācija :D)

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-10 10:34 (saite)
Great comment! While there is quite a bit more there for me to think about, couple of points off the top of my freshly woken-up brain:
  • A network or a market doesn't have to capture the full level of detail of human interactions, judgements, or moralities, only to the extent that is relevant to its particular purpose, which in practice means that there will likely always be small but valued things that the networks won't capture and that will be left to "ordinary" human interaction, which is fine;
  • Blockchains, smart contracts, and things like that are extremely easy to update and reconfigure, it's just that they always carry their immutable changelog with them for everyone involved to see, which means that, while change is easy, cheating and sabotage is anything but and a damaged section of the blockchain can, by the will of its meritorious users, be simply frozen and the rest of it continue as a fresh branch with common history;
  • Like every market, blockchains can and do account for the malleable value of things they carry, often with more sensitivity and shorter response time than conventional ones, which can already be seen in today's blockchains such as cryptocurrencies.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]honeybee
2017-09-10 15:14 (saite)
Well, in my opinion money captures a very small amount of what is going on in the market. For example, for each job I do, how fast and well I do it, and whether I do it at all, the money I charge is an approximation of the actual workd +/- all these little things that go unsaid.
If I would change my invoicing system so that the invoices were automatically sent to clients for the precise amounts of time I have spent on their tasks, it would actually make the system *less* just for me. (To make it more just I would have to enter modifiers like "sweet, but clueless client" or "fucking boring job" or "damn I hate this product", or, probably, "this client knows what they're doing" or "this was actually fun" or "OMG this product makes the world better, I would gladly advertise it for free!" in my invoices, which would be more precise, but probably would damage further relationship with the client - and before you say that it's a small matter, for me, these things can mean a difference between 30 minutes, an hour or 1.5 hours. The fun thing is that I think the clients know this, they just wouldn't want to be told, and I am not that keen on telling either.)
Similarly for nearly all the interactions: I don't have a perfect memory of the things that I have said to everybody and the things that were said to me and I don't think that any of my relationships would improve if all these things would be remembered forever (there is a lot to say for "forgive and forget", especially for small grievances).
The thing is, I think most relationships have a leeway for "cheating and sabotaging"; and there are few promises that are made to keep (and very few promises that are actually worth keeping) - and this goes both for small-scale interpersonal relationships and for large-scale relationships between "the mob" and "the rulers" of various sorts. Would these relationships become better and more efficient when everything is recorded and can be referred to? I don't know. (As in "I really don't know, it's something that I cannot possibly predict, since so much would change".)

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]honeybee
2017-09-10 15:23 (saite)
Actually, come to think, the modifiers for tasks would work in the opposite ways for me and the client. Ie for boring/horrible jobs for clueless clients I probably work slower and with less inspiration, while for fun jobs for great clients I work faster and better; so for the things that I would want to charge more (because I personally suffer) the clients would probably want to pay less, and vice versa. Which would make the system feel horribly unfair for us, *precisely* because it is precise (while current, horribly imprecise system works, and is perceived as fair - I believe on both sides -, because it largely rests on the unspoken contracts).

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


[info]mindbound
2017-09-10 15:45 (saite)
Of course, I also don't know what a "world on the blockchain" would look like, since this technology has just made its first, still somewhat unstable, steps. This is just one of the cases where, as far as I'm able to see, the benefits and opportunities could, with high probability, far outweigh the risks and downsides.

A lot of things can be expected to change, both on the surface level and more fundamentally, similar but perhaps even more significant than another emerging layer of omnipresent code, i.e. the "Internet of Things" (of course, even outlining the ways IoT and blockchains could intersect and interact would require at least an entire post).

A world saturated with strings of code, implemented both in the cloud and as physical objects, running most of the interactions that today still happen at human speeds, each accountable and subject to review in its ledger but at the same time most of them carrying encrypted data of which only the source and destination, but not the content, can be determined — certainly a few steps apart from the world we are used to see now but perhaps not all that much. Most of the preliminaries of these things are already here and working all around us, just not made fully explicit yet.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)


Neesi iežurnalējies. Iežurnalēties?