My question is indeed what is the point of money whether it is crypto or not. I know a little about bitcoin (proof-of-work: evil for climate so far) and Ethereum (algorithmic contracts, good idea as far as I understand, but still PoW).
The idea of a single source of thruth is neat, and would be useful to avoid lies or fakes in a distributed system.
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.
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!
@mouloud @theruran @firstname.lastname@example.org Mastering cyber-powers and cyber-rights models, in a garanteed way, enforcing them, through well designed architectures, allows us to choose and fine tune our models, to in the end reach a peacefull crypto-anarco-communist society, without destroying individual liberties, or human rights. I have always been talking about sustainable and efficient global ballance of powers and cyber-powers. Contrarily to crypto-libertarians.
What I want to write has two sides a) I believe there is a slow, smooth path toward libertarian socialism. Stronger claim, it is the only viable path. I believe a brutal change is not possible. Feeding the "revolution" meme as in the french revolution of 1789 is counter productive. If anything like that would happen, that is again the people sitting at the first row that will be taking advantage of it like bourgeoisie has taken advantage of french revolution.
b) I agree there is a need to THINK about the new system but also the think about path toward that system. It is necessary to DOCUMENT and prove, if not necessary, at least that there is sufficient alternatives. And toward that goal, I am confident that one can not just reboot the system with a new operating system. That is, one need an upgrade path, and step by step hotfix, and swap existing cyber infrastructures with better ones.
I might be wrong, but I consider code to be XXI literacy. We can live without code and go back to caves or something. But if we want to human science, say medicine, to progress with need computers and code.
In other words, yes you can try to convince people with free-form text, and think about new socioeconomical systems. But eventually, people will go back to their usual routine business as usual privative tools.
Toward that goal I have been working on alternative "operating system" that is supported by a DHT.
It will allow to not only copy but also improve the user experience of the www.
So far my work has been concerned about offering better alternatives to mastodon, mediawiki and to some extent google search engine.
I have not touched yet, other aspects like factories, production chains, logistic and many others...
I just feel like there won't be feasible ways of using this hardware in the future. Energy will be scarce, and manufacturing facilities will stop producing critical components such as the RAM. We will have piles of electronics with no manuals/schematics and not enough power to run them but for a short time anyway.
I lost the URL, but there is at least one project that aims to build a minimal OS that would be very easy to port to any hardware. Well, now that I re-think about it there is many such OS.
The conversation went into several direction. One of them is to create new hardware with the idea of supporting a non-kyriarchy.
I gotta think about that some more, but it falls within the scope. The silicon wafer manufacturing process being developed by #LibreSilicon is a key component.
I'm not sure what to do with the old hardware yet. The best I can think of right now is to use it to virtualize the system we propose.
Consider the path of no action - all that hardware will go to waste anyway. e-recycling is shit.
I remind you that NONE of the recent catastrophic computer related events were predicate by movies, gamergate comes to mind.
What things that the CIA or whatever might be supporting is mass diffusion of hollywood production.
Ransomware no predicated.
This is a divide and conquer strategy to inspire FUD about the computers geeks and hackitivist.
Still I will watch the movie.
Case in point, I have an idea for a language where the code is content addressed and can take many syntax or use many natural language.
I agree collectively we can come up with better solution because we have a bigger picture.
Tho, we can not live only in the cyberspace. To run the anarchy simulation we need data from the real world, and the opendata resolution was not applied in most contries.
I learn more from quotes (even out of context) than from movies. Movies are a diversion, those are useful to keep people with low ethics comfortable, and other contained because FUD. So there as useful to have common grounds to discuss with people not aware of what happens for the real in the cyber space.
I will need to watch the movie. I do not think any gov has the computer power to harness the full data stream of the internet. Of course mastodon is a honeypot for those people. But what case can they build against us? For my part, that I try to build software to simulate a better world? That is not a terrorist attack that is independent research.
My use of the words "operating system" may be misguided, even if in the grand scheme of things I would like to get rid of the linux kernel or bsd. I do not have a completely clear idea of that yet.
> Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work.
> Peter Drucker
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!