vitalik on sancutary tech
vitalik buterin on sanctuary tech
via michel bauwens tweet [https://x.com/mbauwens/status/2101253979078299773?s=20]:
A concept you should know about:
* Sanctuary Technology , https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Sanctuary_Technology
= “free and open infrastructure that allows people to live, work, communicate, and collaborate in ways that are resilient to external pressure.”
rather.. free/open enough that there is no pressue.. aka: none of us are free ness
legit freedom will only happen if it’s all of us.. and in order to be all of us.. has to be sans any form of measuring, accounting, people telling other people what to do
Holochain explains:
< “The goal is de-totalization — to create digital islands of stability in a chaotic era. To enable interdependence that cannot be weaponised.” > (Vitalik Buterin) t
to me (warning ness).. this is why we need tech w/o judgment.. because only way to not weaponize (khan filling the gaps law et al; maté trump law et al) is if it’s for all.. for all.. needs to be legit unconditional.. from the get to.. ie: nonjudgmental expo labeling
He calls this *“sanctuary technology” — free and open infrastructure that allows people to live, work, communicate, and collaborate in ways that are resilient to external pressure. **Not financial freedom alone. Structural resilience.t The architecture of a world where no single actor — person, corporation, or state — can gain total control over others.”
*not legit sanctuary – aka: bachelard oikos law ivia baan leave law and gershenfeld something else law.. if still talking fin and resilience.. if still talking any form of m\a\p
notes/quotes from holoventures – lead author Cameron Burgess:
Decent Infrastructure in an Authoritarian World – Building the Walk Away Stack
/ 00 / Preface
The first step in resolving any problem is recognising there is one.
rather/too.. getting to the the center of the problem.. ie: gupta roadblock law et al.. so that it’s about everyone without everyone having to understand/state/define it.. rather.. every heart groks it.. just covered/lost/missing to varying degrees
findings from on the ground ness deep dive on why we need tech w/o judgment
ie: the dance won’t dance unless/until it’s 1\ all of us 2\ legit free
nothing to date (ever since that day) has gotten to that root of problem
The internet was supposed to decentralise access to information. It briefly did, then consolidated into five companies that discovered that capturing peop.. Social media was supposed to democratise voice, and for a moment, at least, it did; then the platforms discovered narcissism and outrage drive more engage t
rather.. it never did.. either.. any .. nothing to date has been legit for all of us – berners-lee everyone law et al
Cryptocurrency was supposed to decentralise finance; to t
fin as cancerous distraction.. not something we would want for all
And now artificial intelligence is somehow supposed to democratise productivity and intelligence. tYet three companies This is the enclosure of thinking itself.
1\ productivity and intell both cancerous distractions to the dance
2\ need tech w/o judgment to do the thing we can’t seem to do ie: all the voices (in whatever idio jargon style)
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance
ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)
all the voices (in whatever idiosyncratic jargon style each itch-in-the-soul speaks/utters) et al..
Cory Doctorow memorably calls it enshittification — the predictable trajectory from serving users to serving advertisers to serving shareholders. He’s right that it’s structural, not accidental. We’d go one step further: it isn’t even a trajectory. It’s the architecture working as designed. The entities at the centre always extract from the periphery. This is not a law of nature. It’s a consequence of building systems with centres.
dgi – doctorow & eno – 12 8 25 et al..
nothing to date has been built w/o center ness
the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance
ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition
otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness.. perpetuating survival triage.. for (blank)’s sake..
..They are arguing about who sits at the centre, not about whether there should be a centre at all.
if still arguing at all.. even if about whether there should be a center or whatever.. huge red flags we’re not legit free..
The convergence of centralised AI, surveillance infrastructure, platform monopoly, and concentrated capital into a single system of control — documented in detail by Prof. Francesca Bria’s research project, The Authoritarian Stack — is not a future risk. It’s a present reality.
francesca bria et al
present.. and ever since that day
hari rat park law et al
Vitalik Buterin, whose credentials as a co-founder of Ethereum require no introduction, named the counter-position precisely:
The goal is de-totalization — to create digital islands of stability in a chaotic era. To enable interdependence that cannot be weaponised. Vitalik Buterin
vitalik buterin et al
He calls this “sanctuary technology” — free and open infrastructure that allows people to live, work, communicate, and collaborate in ways that are resilient to external pressure. Not financial freedom alone. Structural resilience. The architecture of a world where no single actor — person, corporation, or state — can gain total control over others.
This is what Holochain was built to deliver.
again.. nothing (holochain.. whatever) to date has gotten to the root of problem
this is why we need tech w/o judgment
And in the face of the mounting centralisation of power and wealth (that “decentralisation” has ironically perpetuated), we keep asking the same question we’ve been asking since the beginning. Not because we’re stubborn (although we are), but because the problem we set out to solve has gotten worse every year, and nothing else in the market seems structured to address it.
The question we continue working to answer is:
What will it take to build economic infrastructure that doesn’t reproduce the value capture dynamics we’ve all been trying so desperately to escape? t
rather.. simply: what are the conditions for all us to be legit free
ie: bachelard oikos law via baan leave law and gershenfeld something else law
ie: whatever for a year.. a legit sabbatical ish transition
otherwise we’ll keep perpetuating the same song.. the whac-a-mole-ing ness of sea world.. of not-us ness.. of part\ial ness.. perpetuating survival triage.. for (blank)’s sake..
ie: imagine if we listen to the itch-in-8b-souls 1st thing everyday & use that data to connect us (tech as it could be.. ai as augmenting interconnectedness)
the thing we’ve not yet tried/seen: the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
[‘in an undisturbed ecosystem ..the individual left to its own devices.. serves the whole’ –dana meadows]
there’s a legit use of tech (nonjudgmental exponential labeling) to facil the seeming chaos of a global detox leap/dance
Most of the industry asked a narrower question: how do you get a network of untrusted strangers to agree on a single version of the truth? That question leads, inexorably, to global consensus — and to the capturable centre that comes with it. We asked something different: *how do living systems coordinate at massive scale without a single version of truth — how does a body, a forest, a language stay coherent with no central ledger and no one in charge? The answer is not global consensus. It’s local coordination that scales globally. That changes the architecture. And the architecture changes everything.t
*spot on.. but if legit w/o single version of truth.. then need tech w/o judgment
This paper is *written by the people building that architecture — the teams behind Holochain (the peer-to-peer application framework), Holo (the bridge that makes Holochain apps reachable through an ordinary web browser), and Unyt (the accounting engine behind HoloFuel and other mutual-credit currencies). It describes what exists, what we got wrong, what we got right, and what becomes possible now that the infrastructure is shipping. It’s not a fundraising document. Nor is it a whitepaper promising a revolutionary yet unknowable future. **It’s an honest account of where we’ve come from, where we are, and where we’re going next..t
*dance won’t dance (ie: all you just said about no single version of truth) if ie: written by people; accounting; credit; currencies; descriptions.. et al..
**how is that not a version of truth?.. ie: history ness et al.. predict\able et al.. as cancerous distractions to the dance
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
______
be you. 
