Money used to be used a means of exchange something of value for the rich that is gold. That by itself shows how dubious money seems, because gold is almost useless in practice. Nowadays, money has mostly only virtual value, because people trust the system, and the people in power somewhat trust each other and they agree through the market on exchange rates.
Anyway, take of instance "carbon budget" of countries, it can be exchanged for money. And they that "carbon budget" can be used to produce new products.
With the money, a low carbon footprint country can bargain to buy some products.
During this exchange the low carbon footprint might have lost value because conditions of the exchanges and the dubbed added value to the products.
It is far fetched, but to me their should be no money, hence probably no crypto-money.
A single-source of truth is helpful, but I am not convinced it is necessary, and is certainly not necessary in a fully cooperative system with no evil.
Thanks including me in the convo.
@mouloud Hello. Welcome to these informal crypto-anachist related talks and think tank.
Ecology is one of the key "constraints" we have for long added into our work. It has many implications, in many technical fields we work on, on manufacturing processes, on the fight against programmed obsolescence, on electrical consumption, matters (rare ir not) usage, repartition, and ultimately on economical models.
In your post, you have mentionned 3 issues / questions :
• Are money / crypto-currencies / functionnalities offered by blockchains, relevant for ecology in a crypto-anarcho-communism paradigm ?
• Blockchain electrical consumption not sustainable.
• Money can alter the benefits of carbon emussion accounting market logic.
These are all very interesting topics.
Here is my point regarding them :
@mouloud In the current digital technologies paradigm and cyberspace architecture paradigm, the most critical technological layers, the lowest ones, are completely fixed, non mutable. They are these integrated circuits, microprocessors, hardware, and network protocols. Because they are fixed and cannot be changed, many things we want to implement therefore require ugly implementations, and cannot be secured as we would like or at a cost that is huge ecologicaly. @zig @theruran @emsenn
@mouloud But these limitations, due to statism, are also the consequence of selfish capitalistic or cyber-geopolitical interests.
NSA with USA want to cyber-dominate the world and have cyber-imperialism rooted to their ways.
Bill Gates doesn't want to loose its position on the market and has interests to keep the current statut quo, even if I am sure he perfectly understands the work we are doing.
Bezos doesn't want to change the statut quo etiher because his Amazon
economical model mainly relies on consumerism and programmed obsolescence.
In other words, our radical critics of the current system, that is completely blocked, fixed, is the consequence of selfish capitalistic interests that prevent digital systems from evolving in the way we recommand.
This is why they have somehow enforced, for example, this stupid standardization model that cannot handle dynamism as our approach would require.
This is why, alos, they have voluntarily compartimented scientific matters in the digital technologies, as hardware and software, protocols, so that it would prevent folks to think out of the box of radicaly new architectures and system design methodologies. They have educated us in a biaised way so that any major change to these architectures, in all known technological layers, especially lowers ones, would be almost impossible to do.
We have already talked and debated all these aspects, and it is clear that there are underlying strategies from them to prevent any change of architectures where it matters most. They have formatted us so that it would be almost impossible for us to conceive such architectural revolutions. They have preserved their selfish interest, first, at all cost. That's all.
They have locked down our ability to change most of the architectures because they know that cyber-powers and cyber-rights models are exclusively the consequence of those architectures, and they want to impose us their own models, by forcing us to play with their architectures, protecting their models, and therefore, their political and failing economical system, in essence, capitalism. Doing so, they are preventing a crypto-anarcho-communist revolution.
Here it is.
But in order to implement this at world scale, we obviously need alternative cyberspace architecture that offer the equivalent of blockchain functionnalities in its core, as a service, scalable to billions transactions per second.
And this cannot be clearly achieved with the current cyberspace architecture design and paradigm, not with current digital system architectural paradigm.
In such paradigm, every citizen would have a kind of multi-wallet attached to him, beside standard wallet and bank accounts, to count those credit left for him on those hundreds of "criterias", and he would not have the possibility to "recharge" a specific line with monay. In order to buy a good or service, citizen would be obliged to have credit left on all fields, beside having the money to buy the good or service. This incentively would force citizen to @zig @theruran @emsenn
By the way, homomorphic cryptography would be very usefull to help create a cyberspace architecture allowing to easily handle for each citizen the multi-wallet holding those hundred "credit lines".
It's typically a functionnality that would require to be provided at cyberspace architecture level in order to be scalable. And this is not possible with the current cyberspace architecture paradigm.
Cybernetics of trust cannot be achieved with current cyberspace.
@mouloud This kind of logic I presented you here is anarcho-communist compatible. It would lead to a money less and class less society, without fascism, just with incentive logic, but it can work only if it is incorruptible.
This is because such functionnalities, scalable, real time, can only be achieved with revolutionnary alternative cyberspace architectures, enabling such cybernetics of trust, that we advocate, as crypto-anarchist situationist, to change of
@mouloud What do you mean ?
In this example I gave, these thousands of "specialized credit lines" given to all citizens each month, and the corresponding "cost" attributed to each service/good being consumed are not credited to the persone selling the service, but just debited to the buyer. In early transition phases to such system, such debit on all those specialized credit lines would done simultaneously with standard money transaction in money from buyer to seller.
Handling such multi-accounting system requires a cyberspace architecture designed for that, if we want it to be scalable, fast, and uncheatable.
The work we are doing with Theruran is how to create such cyberspace architectures, allowing such things, establishing the collective cyber-power and cyber-rights models to collectively administrate this. We are not that much discussion on which cyber-model to agree on, yet, because this is more politics, and here we are
@mouloud working first on how to create such digital architecture, secure ones, that can garantee choosen cyber-power and cyber-rights models, with all their "parameters".
Still, discussins on how those alternative cyberspaces architectures can impact society in a desired way, the way you clearly asked me today, is still a pleasure.
Invent the concept, and we will create tools to automaticaly generate cyberspaces architectures and digital systems architectures that can
garantee them, provenly, and that can evolve as desired over time.
Code as you mean it comes into play later on, based on those new cyberspaces architectures integrated fundamental services, like a DHT, or a blockchain like functionnalities. We are working on what could be called fundamental bricks that later on can be assembled or customized as desired with standard code.
As implementing them directly in code over the current cyberspace architecture is most of the time impossible, or not efficient (Slow, not scalable, or energy consumption problems, like for blockchains).
Hope I answered you question about code. There is still code, but fundamental brick you play with (the cyberspace architecture and the integrated services is offers in a garanteed way) are different.
What is hard, and Theruran knows it, is how to ensure those fundamental blocks cannot be "hacked", and how to garantee they will really work as expected with no treachery possible. This is indeed what we are working on. Globaly, this is called cybernetics of trust, but it is also fulyl demilitarized as it is not hackable, there are no backdoors possible of any kind.
Yes, and about code - that is the kind of knee-jerk reaction that people have nowadays and it prevents everyone else from understanding what they are doing. Documentation of every kind is key, unlike the prevailing software engineering practices that lack rigorous conceptual design development phase. Visual documentation is also of course important, and to maximize the utility it must also be an executable architecture model.
Well - if we can theorize another way of achieving an equivalent security model and utility to Bitcoin without the energy consumption, that would be incredible. As far as I know, there is no alternative yet conceived and the energy consumption keeps the system honest. And unfortunately, no one I have met in the fediverse thus far is qualified to theorize such an alternative. There are real engineering constraints and trade-offs that are glossed over in these kinds of discussion, and I doubt that billions of transactions per second is achievable due to laws of physics. It is my expectation that such a decentralized and trustworthy cybersystem will be slower in many ways but is nevertheless fast enough for us to get real work done and not just mindlessly consume Big Media.
P.S. come to hackers.town - we got 10,000-character toots!
@theruran Yes. gonna move to your instance.
Back to what you said before, I never said PoW was to trash completely. I am just criticizing the way PoW, mining, is being used in lost crypto-currencies : To me, every node should mine. Then, regarding billions of transactions per second issue, I think nobody found yet how to achieve it mostly because they stayed encaged in the current cyberspace architecture paradigm. I still think such goal
@theruran can be achieved when integrating this natively inti the cyberspace architecture itself. Time will tell. I'm still thinking about this and working on it, exploring possible native implementations a lot. I tend to mix DHT concept with PoW in a native mesh cyberspace architecture to do it for the moment, but I am exploring other possibilities too. Will tell if I find something promizing. @mouloud @zig
@theruran But to be honnest, the most promizing path I have been following to reach equivalent goals and functionnalities offered by blockchains in the current cyberspace architecture paradigm is definitely the custom designed TSN alternative cyberspaces architectures I have been exploring. @mouloud @zig
@theruran Double spending prevention functionnality offered by Blockchains can also been seen as a lack of accurate secured reliable synchronous timestamps within the current cyberspace architecture paradigm, and this critic can also be extended to current microprocessor based architectures, mostly astnchronous, and were accurate perfect timestamping mecanisms concepts and functionnalities are simply completely missing. @zig @mouloud
@tomosaigon Either I misdescribed or you misunderstood me, but in truly fully synchronous and truly tile sensitive alternative cyberspace architecture the way I am designing them, those propagation delais are perfectly known, controled, and quantized to the global system synchronous speed. That's the advantage of such network. Then, if end-points design does the same, entirely, @theruran @zig @mouloud
@tomosaigon from the motherboard architecture up to the internal microprocessor design, and up to the kernel and OS and top level applications that would be aware of the time sensitive hardware and microprocessor it runs onto, and of the same characteristic for the alternative synchronous and time sensitive cyberspace architecture, the whole fucking meta-system being globally clocked and synchronized with a global clock @theruran @zig @mouloud
@tomosaigon and with all the propagation delays within this alternative cyberspace architecture being known and quantized synchronously to this clock, then, in such fully synchrounous global meta-system paradigm, what I say is truly relevant. I find more intrtesting to design and sexy and usefull to design such thing, than to try ugly ducktape fixes the way blockchains are currently implemented, with other complex @theruran @zig @mouloud
@tomosaigon layers on top of it like lighting network protocol to try to ducktape fix issue from the underlying ducktape issues (Bitcoin blockchain) that was itself at attempt at ducktaping the whole shit that is the current asynchronous shitty and not time sensitive cyberspace architecture, where accurate time and timestamp management are simply missing, same for all the microprocessor based systems (end-points) that @theruran @zig @mouloud
@tomosaigon connect to the current shitty and outdated cyberspace architecture paradigm we (me and theruran) have CLEARLY in mind of replacing completely because we know it is old, poor, backdoored from everywhere, generator of cyber-chaos, and globaly consists of a paradigm where we, the people, have absolutely no control over its applicable cyber-powers and cyber-rights models, and no way to enforce them if we could. @theruran @zig @mouloud
@tomosaigon We are definitely in the mindset and paradigm of designing alternative cyberspace architectures and digital computer systems to allow things that can only be dreamed with today's current digital technologies and cyberspace architecture : Cybernetics of trust.
Bitcoin as you know it being a very smart exeption that was very lucky to be able to exploit blockchains the way it did. But it's still a ducktape fix.
@tomosaigon There are two ways to timestamp : absolute timestamps (asynchronous), which always, by nature, depend on the clock precision, and always carry an error. But there are also quantized synchronous timestamps in fully synchronous systems : In the later, timestamps are quantized, but they carry no error with this quantization of clock, and this is the implementation I prefer.
@theruran This is also a radical critic of current microprocessors inner architectures (mostly internaly synchronous, but externaly seen as mostly asynchronous), and even the current microprocessor concept, that was never designed to be able to securely timestamp in a reliable synchronous way each instruction it was executing, and bringing proofs of such internal timestamping, synchronized with external synchronous TSN cyberspace architecture. @mouloud @zig
@theruran In my prefered meta-cyberspace implementation paradigm, I am sokving such issue, and everything is perfectly synchronous, and accurately tilestampable, proovenly, with inalterability of timestamps stored or exploited. With such angle view, billions transactions per second is achievable :-) @zig @mouloud
@theruran But everything is completely redesigned by me, from microprocessors internal architecture, to such microprocessor based motherboard architectures, and up to the cyberspace architecture connecting such computers toguether, fully synchronous. Accurate synchronous Time and timestamps are the forgotten and missing thing in our computer systems design, same issue for cyberspaces architectures : It's currently imposible to accurately @mouloud @zig
@theruran timestamp any datagram transmission in the current cyberspace architecture paradigm. Attempts that were done with the documents you shown me about TSN over TCP/IP is bullshit. It's complex, and it does not do the job universaly, accurately, and perfectly. Even if it was possible, and I seriously doubt it is, when data reach (enters, as input on the data bus) @mouloud @zig
@theruran current microprocessors, the benefits of such timestamping of every byte is lost. Current mucroprocessors were not design to be TSM - Time sensitive microprocessors - allowing to keep track of each byte timestamp stored in its internal working register. Timestamp chain of data is clearly lost at entering them, even for DSP's even if the situation is a bit better.
But once you have a global digital meta system that is fully TS,
@theruran things become fun.... And new possibilities for simpler algorithms, and with less energy consumption than classical PoW become possible, to enable many of the current blockchains functionnalities, at rate reaching billions of operations per second. But the technological digital paradigm is radicaly different, we're talking about fully synchronous time sensitive digital systems and cyberspace architectures. So you see, I'm confident. @mouloud @zig
@theruran Yes it is. And designing these synchronous systems is not a complex task. It's a KISS approach that don't require so much use of complex crypto, indeed it makes everything much more simple, and would consume much less energy. This is why I always remind everybody that blockchains are not the nirvana, it may be the best implementation possible in the current cyberspace and computer systems architectures paradigm, but we can do much better. :-) With infinite scalabily. @mouloud @zig
@theruran There is an anachist saying that also do apply to crypto-anarchism that says "If it (technology) is not accessible to the poors (masses), it's neither social nor revolutionnary". Accessibility here must be understood both financialy to gain access to a technology, but also to understand how it works... You know, this "Horizontalization of the trust model in the development of free technologies"... This famous complexity overdose that ruins most FOSS benefits... @mouloud @zig
@theruran In such paradigm, simpler protocols, with fully distributed small mining capabilities in each node of a truly mesh cyberspace architecture, and within each microprocessor, can bring the time sensitive trust chain needed to replace the current blockchain implementation, with its energyvore mining. That's what I curently think.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!