intro’d to Arthur – i guess the earliest – contactcon..
so mostly via Venessa.
then re-intro’d via Kevin‘s desktop regulated state
What is happening with the metacurrency project?
now 4 agile learning centers
alc mosaic as one
Arthur et al
1:02 – how to solve all the problems at once. hard to communicate that. so we were in the shadows figuring out how to communicate that.
1:07 – how do you explain stuff. we figured out we’re better at building it than documenting it for someone else to code.
1:09 – ceptr – like having an underlying language capacity – that then gets assembled into ie: english.. fundamental capacity out of which all protocols are built – a grammar for creating grammars… our basic memory unit is a semantic tree
creating programs that operate on meaning..
1:14 – we’re basically doing a fundamental change in the computing stack.. so ie: we couldn’t build this on top of bitcoin, but bitcoin could be built on top of this… it’s got the multi instant
1:22 – not just about changing money – we’re seeing things we don’t think are possible.. we’ll be able to self-organize in ways we ought to be able to – instead of having power struggles..
when we see this it’s like – whoa – we have to do this.. but then how to explain this.. a difficult story to tell
so – perhaps – model another way .. no?
2011 at occupy wall street:
36 min – currencies that make themselves obsolete – a prop till we get back to us ness
42 min – we have a lot already – we just suck at sharing it.. the better we get at sharing – the less of the grip ie: banks have on us.. you start to turn the system upside down. we have ridiculous abundance already
43 min – a key place to start – where are the flows blocked.. haves/needs. how can you reveal that flow.. what do you need to say to reveal it. the wealth that comes from an unblocked flow – the wealth of now rather than from currency/et al.
expressive value – to see what’s right in front of us – and what is the grammar underneath it. figure out an underlying grammar to state all meaning. a brand new expressive capacity that’s a bigger shift on the planet than was the arrival of language.
“Stop the Nonsensus! (Nonsense Consensus):Systems will never scale if you require global consensus for local actions by independent agents
perhaps design flaw lies in not realizing/acting upon this opportunity to disengage from consensus .. (jo freeman understood – perhaps – if i’m understanding right. and.. broken record here.. i know. but .. can’t not.)
That adds an overhead of ridiculous complexity for something which needs to follow the principle of pushing intelligence and agency to the edges rather than center.
exactly… to any consensus or measurement or validation..
Bitcoin and blockchains are built around authorized tokens embedded in every transaction/record, which embeds unnecessary complexity and limitations for scalability into every interaction. Tokens are not what makes a decentralized system work,
cryptographic signatures and self-validating data structures are.
i don’t know… why does anything have to be validated..? ie: if we stop to validate.. that takes our time.. and then others spend time looking at our validation and us at there’s. perhaps better to just let the tech/blockchain.. leave a trail (unvalidated in the sense we use/know today)
But today we have self-validating data structures like hash-chains and Merkle-trees which leave evidence of tampering by breaking structural integrity, cryptographic hash, or counterparty signatures when the data is altered. This makes it possible to distribute the storage and management of data and ensure that the people holding it can’t tamper with it.
what if we make this.. not even about not being able to tamper with.. and more about.. not having a desire to tamper with.. ie: gershenfeld something else law. seems we’d save a ton of time/energy with that. (may sound crazy impossible but isn’t trying to resist tampering moreso..? – starfish ness…)
you could be an authority to show your own account balance, yet not be able to tamper with your account history.
imagine the time/energy saved… if we weren’t dealing with any type of account balance. perhaps we just try.. a nother way.. with no measuring of transactions.
What you need to distribute in a system of collective intelligence is the ability to distribute reliable processing according to shared agreements. *Consensus then becomes something used for to ensure the integrity of the processing, rather than the medium upon which processing is executed. This approach, lets you confirm that your copy of the process is valid, so you can rely on it to work according to the agreed upon rules and proceed authoritatively without having to wait for the rest of the network to validate, verify and update itself with your state.
*or perhaps consensus is no longer needed.. tech connects us.. rather than makes us efficiently decide the same thing/rule. we have the capability for 7 billion curiosities dancing together daily. why would we hold that up with consensus. 95% of dna junk dna (entropy ness et al) if we spend time labeling/deciding it so…. perhaps instead we spend our energy listening to and being its rhythm.
One of the beautiful outcomes from this is such a massive reduction in the processing and storage requirements that it becomes feasible to run a full node on a mobile phone instead of requiring specialized mining hardware.”
Arthur’s above excerpts from his meta currency project postings on medium:
If you only read one article on going Beyond Blockchain, read this 1 on Simple Scalable Cryptocurrencies, on CEPTR, ow.ly/PNRF300OfrY
article is from march 2016 – and is linked to image above – collection from meta currency on medium
In the MetaCurrency project we started with a different goal. Rather than trying to make one global, anonymous, digital cash (“One ring to rule them all…”), we are interested in the resilience that comes from building a rich ecosystem of *interoperable currencies. We seek to empower communities of all shapes, flavors, and sizes to organize themselves and their flows of resources more effectively. Our different assumptions and design requirements has led us down a different path toward implementation.
*imagining a nother way – where we focus on interoperable people/ideas.. rather than currencies..
- A currency does not have to be money. It may be a reputation currency, or data used for identity, or naming, etc.
reputation currency.. data for identity.. i don’t know.. still measuring/validating us
You might optimize for anonymity if you think of cryptocurrency as a tool to escape governments, regulations, and taxes. However, if you think of it as a tool for building and sharing wealth inside communities, or if you want to establish and *manage membership in new kinds of commons, then identity and accountability for actions may turn out to be necessary ingredients instead of anonymity.
*manage/membership.. don’t seem fitting with concept of commons
*Managing consensus about a shared reality is a central challenge at the heart of all distributed computing solutions.
*managing consensus..? perhaps could call it that.. i’m thinking more.. redefine decision making and disengage from consensus .. ie: bring people of like ideas together when needed.. rather than getting people in space to come to consensus.. et al
Blockchain is about managing a consensus about what was “said.” Ceptr is about distributing a consensus about how to “speak.”
a nother way about facilitating dissensus & connections (people w/selves/others)
- Empower every node with full agency (the ability to execute processes to transform itself).
This allows each node that intends to be honest to be sure that they’re running the same processes as everyone else. So when two parties want to do a transaction, and each can have confidence their own code, and the results that your code produces. Then you treat it as authoritative and commit it to your local cryptographically self-validating data store.
? how is that diff.. can’t we disengage from validation..?
As long as each transaction (link in the chain) has valid linkages and countersignatures, we can know that it hasn’t been tampered with.
imagining a world where we regain energy.. we keep perpetuatingly losing.. from thinking we have to validate.. or that others will tamper with.. ie: gershenfeld something else law..
Either the node has the credits or it doesn’t. I don’t have to refer to a global ledger to find out, the state of the node is in the countersigned, tamper-proof chain.
thinking: either the being is human or it isn’t. if alive/free.. people will only seek that which is their art. cuts out all our fears/obsessions w countersigning/tamper-proofing..
Just like any meaningful communication, a protocol needs to be established to make sure that a transaction carries all the information needed for each node to run the processes and produce a new signed and chained state. This could be debits or credits to an account which modify the balance, or recoding courses and grades to a transcript which modify a Grade Point Average, or ratings and feedback contributing to a reputation score, and so on.
whoa. imagining a world that doesn’t cling to that kind of info.. that doesn’t cling to measuring transactions.. validating people.. et al…
It turns out when you focus on distributing process first you end up with even more greatly distributed data. This is because each participant holds only their own data. In contrast, blockchains store everybody’s transactions in a single database that every node verifies and copies. The underlying foundation of distributed process enables deeper distribution of data and parallel architectures. Ethereum and smart contracts, are doing this the other way around — layering processes on top of a global ledger.
Ceptr enables a developer to focus on the rules and transactions for their use case instead of building a whole framework for distributed applications.
imagining framework simple enough for all of us..
Blockchain cryptocurrencies are fiat currencies. They create tokens or coins from nothing. Bitcoin does this through mining, allowing the miner who completes a complex processing task first, to commit the next block of transactions to the chain along with a transaction that creates a bunch of new coins. These coins are just “spoken into being” (the meaning of “fiat” in Latin) by the node committing the new block. Thus begins the challenging task of tracking all the coins that exist to ensure there is no counterfeiting or double-spending. You wouldn’t need to manage consensus about whether a cryptocoin is spent, if your system created accounts which have normal balances based on summing their transactions. Sounds simple, right?
There’s a name for this completely peer-to-peer approach to issuing managing a currency supply: mutual credit. In a mutual credit system, units of currency are issued when a participant extends credit to another user in a standard spending transaction. Picture a new mutual credit currency with all accounts having a zero balance.
So, that brings us to what we’re really building in Ceptr at the MetaCurrency Project…
We are not building a currency. We ARE building a platform for the decentralized evolution, deployment, and operation of many currencies and other distributed applications.
Most will be non-monetary currencies, tracking ratings, feedback, reliability, timeliness, or other dimensions of reputation. Some will be monetary tokens for exchange of value. All need an infrastructure that doesn’t require a mountain of venture capital to launch and an army of geeks to maintain.
We believe this is the foundation of the next networked economy. And we *want to ensure we’re not carrying over the same broken assumptions and patterns in the currency that perpetuate structural problems of inherent inequity. We can’t just replace the banking elite with a geek elite. We need to be able to build *using the same organizational patterns as living systems.
*same broken assumptions… ie: tracking ratings, reputation, exchange value, .. anything that measures us.. compromises us.. no?
** where in nature/living systems.. are transactions measured.. et al..
perhaps.. you can’t have community if you’re measuring transactions in any form…
jan 2017 – future is not govts
One person can’t actually represent many
public consensus always oppresses someone
It will need to a P2P, fully-distributed, digital democracy that will be so different from how we think of government, that it may better be thought of as a kind of social network. You jump on, scan your feed, participate in conversations you’re interested in, weigh in with “likes” or other similar feedback, etc.
the cells in our body figured out how to do extremely sophisticated self-governance on scales of trillions. Fully P2P governance. No cell is President or Dictator of the system.
- All people willing to leave old pictures of government behind and experiment with new self-governance
For the technology side of things, please check out Ceptr and how you might be able to participate there. For the reinvention of governance, check out the Art of Governance site I’m building this week.
Representatives can’t represent us.
agile/adaptive governance approaches outperform structures which focus heavily on the decision-making process. When we minimize the cost of trying something, learning from it, and changing it if we didn’t get it right, then we’re leveraging human intelligence in the learning, rather than in predicting an unknown future.
data taken out of context is not information, it is misinformation
science of people ness
This inaccessible jargon is an unavoidable part of “compressing” the massive complexity of a problem into sentences we can actually speak
idio jargon – use to our advantage.. dance freely
The hidden benefit of the current crises happening in numerous governments is that people are loosening their irrational faith in the system, and opening to new possibilities they couldn’t have considered even just a year ago.
art of gov site:
via arthur fb share
my concern is that this system of governance will collapse BEFORE we have the infrastructure and a solid enough foothold in solving real/practical problems with these new tools. If that happens, people grasp out of desperation and alternatives, and they’ll take the one offered by the same people who crashed the system, or the one that the oligarchs who have been running the old one extend.
kind of what we’ve been living for many yrs.. no?
Said differently, we’re not nearly as good as our cells at this multi-cellular organism thing. In biological terms, the apex of our accomplishment — the corporation — the zenith of modern efficiency and markets is structurally a CANCER. It is a subsystem which is structured to use its resources for its own growth at the expense of its host.
We blame politicians. We blame CEOs. We blame the 1%. But collectively we made these social organisms, and we’d better get a hell of a lot better at doing so, and fast.
That’s what happens with the arrival of fully distributed Social DNA.
esp if based on structure that’s already there so an uncovering.. which would make many things irrelevant.. ie: money.. measuring of transactions..
17 min – orland: us secret service says this about u.s. dollar/econ/empire.. greatest risk to national security is not terrorism.. it’s whether we believe the money is real or not.. if we think it’s not real.. the empire collapses.. this is the biggest national security threat of our age.. not nuclear war/terrorism.. but the global belief that someone else’s authority have power over our lives..