|
The growing impact of automated process in all sector of society has been studied for a few decades already, but we are coming to an era where the question of the legality and ethic applied to information technology cannot be easily brushed out.
To take simple illustration from science fiction authors, it can be interesting to cross the laws and situation that asimov describe in the robot saga with how different droid are designed employed by the two faction in star war universe.
Especially episode 2 and 3 which depict the rise of the trade confederation with an army of droids, but more generally in star war universe it's easy to see the difference of droids or technology made by the empire or used by the 'rebels'. Even rogue one depict the story of the engineer who built the death star with the backdoor inside and the moral question behind designing technology.
It could be very easy from the star war universe to classify the function of certain droids as being unethical.
Maybe the more common example is the imperial probe droids who are present in the whole saga whose main function is to track certain person, and send crypted information about their location to the imperial command.
It's easy to see how in real world most technology of cryptography and tracking are often developed by fascist regims.
It can be then obvious to conclude that any program based on tracking and identifying certain person based on profile or database, and transmit it in a crypted manner to a centralized server in sort that the said person don't know what information is actually stored and sent on them would be only really useful in the context of a fascist regim.
Application like facebook can easily slip to this category of software, made to categorize people based on hidden/non public algorithm, and send them in a crypted manner to a centralized server.
The very fact that they spend good deal of effort to make those data 'secure' between the clients and centralized server show that they are perfectly aware that this information represent a certain value, or a certain power, and the fact that they hide this information to anyone else but themselves show they are intentionally taking this value and power away to a centralized structure.
This information can only be accessed to the person that are registered as right owner on this information via friend list, group or other, but the access to this information still depend entirely on non public algorithm on which they have total control.
Unfortunately, it's very easy to realize when digging the rabbit hole that most informations technology used today originate from a intention of control and power, IBM sold bar code machin to the nazi camp, and maybe it could be said to be the first real case of automatized architecture in the fordist utopian dream of worker city.
First networks were built by secret services, as well as most cryptographic algorithm (DES / GHOST etc).
The opposite faction would be GNU, free software fundation, who tried to balance things out with the idea to have all software developed in collaborative manner with open source and GPL principles, but even linux kernel 2.6 embed Linux SE which was developed by nsa that most linux user and admin have hard time to really grasp.
The other aspect of paternalism / fascism is the concept of 'protection'. In history all the entities who advocated themselves as 'protection' where always feudal regims, or fascist regim who need to protect their population against the evil neightboor.
How much of this thinking is rooted in computer technology ? Actually a lot.
The whole intel 386 multi tasking architecture is based on this idea of memory protection, segmentation, pagination, rings level, and kernel have been built extensively with this paternalist approach to 'protect' the system through a pyramidal attribution of resources and actions that application can do, and all interaction between application or hardware has to go through centralized “ring 0” kernel software, who reside in 'protected' region of memory to 'protect' hardware from application errors.
And the intel concept was still originally developed for the US ARMY, and they even managed the exploit to make them give up on the double sources close which was supposed to be AMD (hence all the bitterness from AMD to intel).
All 'high level' language are based on the paradigm that everything can be 'typed' and that all operation on the data should be determined/judged based on the type, which can easily lead very stereotypical way of thinking about problems, that would be easily categorized as fascist or ultra nationalist if this method of thinking was applied to human society problem.
And this sort of hard categorization and type matching would necessarily be the hearth of the imperial probe droid to match one type of data with record in a database to determine the categorization of the object or person.
Even the principle of CCTV have this sort of ethical problem, because they are storing information about other persons, in a way that the persons can't have access to it, and the way the information is treated and analyzed is totally occult to the general public.
Maybe the more ethical manner could be that CCTV archive would be stored on mobile devices of person who are being filmed.
But the bottom architecture is same thinking than facebook, with collecting valuable information on the population, and keeping a total control on it, with right of exploitation for any end or purpose.
It's very easy to see that company always take great deal of effort to crypt information that are in their interest, like credit card, phone SIM card, social security card, and leave user data most of the time in clear form or under government or other entities control for big brother feature. In this companies fail their customer in a true liberal 'market driven' environment.
The last apect is about the use of cryptography to hide content, and in history, this sort of technology is always used in conjunction with an 'us vs them' mindset, that has been emulated both by americans corporations and communist block, and based on an idea that certains category of person have the right to access this information, and developed by paranoiac minds, especially when it's to hide information about other persons.
Cryptography should only be used in the context of unique information that is either created or biometric, in order to create the concept of 'information ownership', but not by a third party who crypt information between two other party in a way that only the centralized third party have a true cryptographic ownership on this information.
Concept in blockchain that solve these ethical problems imo are :
Node and all data is fungible on the network. There is no way at the network level to distinguish a transaction from another, a node from another, and there is no categorization or tracking/matching that is required for the network operations.
Blockchain are trustless, users control their own private key, and there is no 'trusted third party' who grab the ownership of the information between two party interacting through network. This benefits is mitigiated by the fact that most transaction happen through centralized exchange who retain this feature that the centralized site control the private keys, and the cryptographic ownership of the information. But blockchain node allow to transact between two party without third party.
They only use cryptographic signature software, all the data is public, and nothing is 'hidden' or 'protected by an obscure centralized system' like facebook, banks, and most application made by corporations, who only take power away from user to protect them from their own mistake and irresponsability.
|
|
|
|
|
One day i will explain you the trick to turn your contact less credit card into a cell phone ! (You need multi core credit card to have vidéo chat though :p)
I studied zoology, I know about specy theory and all this, it's clear cell phone and credit card are same specy, or they have a common ancestor, even if it's never very clear how this stuff really works. Cell phone are self powered credit card, in sort they can do more processing without being connected to an external power source.
They just need to find a way to have very low consumption for mobile device , ex solar powered, and limit their processing to very simple operations to communicate with wireless distributed systems, and zero boot time + no cache to only power then when they are used, or with acpi power up. And if possible without 3gb of update everyday.
|
|
|
|
|
One of the main interest of mobile device is low power consumption, no heat/fan/noise with ARM cpu, it's their main interest.
If it's to be used with high power non mobile device, then better solutions can be found easily to have bigger screen, more multi tasking core etc
But probably we'll see sooner or latter more mobile device that are more like fully driveless terminal devices, with very limited processing power to be used mostly as sophisticated programmable remote control , with tactile buttons interfaces instead of mechanic ones.
But also tablets paradigm emerge from smart phones, and it's still with this idea of a mobile device to connect a wireless service, and only storing/accessing personal informations related to those service, who will already have their own data center and service side process, rather than being really comparable to full desktop or even laptop computers to have lot of processing power and complex application run stand alone on it.
It's clear to me a tablet without internet is quite useless in itself. It's useful to have social media, or news, or streaming music, without having to be connected to a power source, connected to data center via wifi =)
In the absolute, the only thing mobile device should store are personal accounting information to access remote services, and should not really be seen as stand alone computers.
|
|
|
|
600watt shared this thought provoking article on the topic of the evolution of civilization and accounting and how it relates to bitcoin. The author Daniel Jeffries appears to be a science fiction author, engineer, serial entrepreneur, and now bitcoin commentator which makes for an interesting combination. I'm looking into this http://iamcicada.com/cicada-deep-dive/it looks super cool  |
|
|
|
I will take example with turing machin and OO programing, maybe it will be clearer what i'm talking about =) As the concept of entropy is quasi inexistant with turing machine, and like this we know we are not talking about something mystical  And i think it can interest also shelby because he is into this sort of problematics with language design lol The problem is this conceptions from metaphysics to organize the world based on fundemental 'objects' with properties, and 'entelechy' , which is abtracted with the OO semantic of having class of objects with properties and 'entelechy' through the alteration of its state by its methods. So far good, but then the problem is when you want to program interaction between all the different type of object that can be present in the world, with OO programming generally it become quickly a design problem. ... Either you do a visitor class for each pair of objects, and then each time you add a new type of object, you need to add visitor class for all the combination that the new object can interact with, but it's still bogus from metaphysical point of view because it mean the interaction between the object are not contained in the object themselves, but applied from the exterior through a visitor class that visit the two object in questions.... This whole design of hard typed object make emergent property very hard to program and conceptualize. ... I would agree that in Turing machines the concept of entropy is quasi inexistant. Most of the time it is entirely absent. Turing machines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machineIn his 1948 essay, "Intelligent Machinery", Turing wrote that his machine consisted of:
...an unlimited memory capacity obtained in the form of an infinite tape marked out into squares, on each of which a symbol could be printed. At any moment there is one symbol in the machine; it is called the scanned symbol. The machine can alter the scanned symbol, and its behavior is in part determined by that symbol, but the symbols on the tape elsewhere do not affect the behavior of the machine. However, the tape can be moved back and forth through the machine, this being one of the elementary operations of the machine. Any symbol on the tape may therefore eventually have an innings. (Turing 1948, p. 3[18]
The underlined portion is the key reason for both a lack of emergence and subsequently the lack of conceptual entropy in Turing machines. In a standard Turing machine the symbols on the tape do not ultimately change the nature of the machine (even if those symbols have been previously read). This is because the typical Turing machine draws from a finite table of instructions which are ultimately fixed and invariant. Thus the Turing machine with a fixed and finite table is a simple system regardless of how complex and long that table may be unless you allow the table of instructions to be dynamically and permanently altered based on the tape readings. As programming languages have a fixed set of basic code they are simple Turing machines. However computer programming language in general is something more and represents a complex system. The programmers using them are the equivalent of a tape that applies dynamic updates to the instruction table. Thus over time we have seen the progression from assembly language to C++ as discussed in your links above. I am not going to be helpful in a technical discussion of how to add emergence to a programmed system as I am not a programmer but I will address one of your points. You appear to arguing (in the bolded section above) that if the interaction between objects are not contained in the objects themselves but requite an external observer/visitor state then the system is not valid from metaphysical point of view. If I understand you correctly you are arguing that a programmed system must be complete to be metaphysically valid. Completeness is never possible. For a discussion on this point I would refer you to an excellent write up by Perry Marshall: The Limits of Science and Programming“Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy.
Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics.
Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything.”
-Leibniz The example with turing machine is to show you can have non determinism without the concept of entropy Emergent property are example of non determinist algorithm who can run on turing machine. It's more that if you want to take a physic model to apply it with coding algorithm, and there is no algebric solution but only algorithmic ones, after it's hard to find the 'correct' model to represent the interaction to have still a minimum of consistency in the high level definition of the thing. |
|
|
|
But for me need to distinguish between chaotic function, predictibility and entropy... In a way this whole distinction between self organisation and entropy is very subjective, and mostly in the eye of the beholder Maybe the whole universe is in a process of self organisation and there is not one particule or quanta in the whole thing that is not participating in this auto organisation.
... Chaos theory are also different from entropy, in the sense with chaotic functions, the functions is already supposed to be unpredictible to begin with, so there is not really a concept of entropy as how the function result will deviate from expected outcome. ... Even if most of the time i guess what engineers will measure as entropy in a system will mostly be emergent properties, quantum stuff, etc it's mostly a concept that apply to linear system because linear system are never accurate in physics, which can make one wonder why it's even called science to begin with, it's interest is mostly for industrial economy. After you can see a tree or a child as just noise (actually children are often just this ), compared to the beautifully dystopia the megalomaniac in goldman sachs are trying to concoct A parking is certainly 'less entropic' than a forest IadixDev I would actually agree with your description of the universe above but would also argue that it is incomplete as it focuses only on self-organisation and neglects the other aspects of complexity. This is a similar objection to the one you raised against the term entropy. I take the position that the entire universe is in a process of ever increasing complexity and there is not one particle or quanta in the whole thing that is not participating in this growing complexity. Anonymint the author of the essays linked in the opening post is a self described anarchist and focuses on emergence, entropy, and freedom. You seem to view the world more as a process of self-organisation. I believe both of these conceptions can be brought into harmony under the broader umbrella of complexity. Complex systems exhibit four characteristics: – Self-organization – Non-linearity – Order/Chaos Dynamic – Emergence Informational entropy provides a way to empirically measure emergence but emergence is only one aspect of complexity. Self-organization can be looked at as a process that actually reduces entropy yet it undeniably also increases complexity. The chaos in this context is a observation of system dynamics. Systems exist on a spectrum ranging from equilibrium to chaos. A system in equilibrium does not have the internal dynamics to enable it to respond to its environment and will slowly (or quickly) die. A system in chaos ceases to function as a system. A system on the edge of chaos will exhibit maximum variety and creativity, leading to new possibilities. The field of complexity analysis is new and still in its infancy. “God chose to give all the easy problems to the physicists.” —Michael Lave & Jim March, Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences I will take example with turing machin and OO programing, maybe it will be clearer what i'm talking about =) As the concept of entropy is quasi inexistant with turing machine, and like this we know we are not talking about something mystical And i think it can interest also shelby because he is into this sort of problematics with language design lol The problem is this conceptions from metaphysics to organize the world based on fundemental 'objects' with properties, and 'entelechy' , which is abtracted with the OO semantic of having class of objects with properties and 'entelechy' through the alteration of its state by its methods. So far good, but then the probelm is when you want to program interaction between all the different type of object that can be present in the world, with OO programing generally it become quickly a design problem. Either you will add a member function in all class to program the interaction with each other class with specialized functions for each type, but then it mean either you have make the interaction in double in each class, or then one class doesn't know or contain the interaction it can have with the other class, which is bogus from metaphysical stand point. Either you do a visitor class for each pair of objects, and then each time you add a new type of object, you need to add visitor class for all the combination that the new object can interact with, but it's still bogus from metaphysical point of view because it mean the interaction between the object are not contained in the object themselves, but applied from the exterior through a visitor class that visit the two object in questions. Even to program physic simulation like bullet physic it's not a small problem, when need to compute mutual gravity from two object for example, and that's only a simple case. And even if there is no entropy in turin machine, it's easy to see if you run complex real time physic simulation two time, you will never have the same result at the end, but it's not really entropy, neither really chaotic function , it's not fractal or strange attractor, only plain linear newtonian physics. I think the 3 body problem of gauss run into this problem. This whole design of hard typed object make emergent property very hard to program and conceptualize. Past days i've been digging more into haskel, already through reading the discussion of shelby on the git, i'm starting to get where they want to get at, because in fact in haskel there is this concept of monad, which are generic base object that can be used in generic code 'type classes' and can be specialized into pretty much anything, and the language allow to do meta programing very easily based on monad interactions, which allow to write generic code that can apply to any type, and i think i saw somewhere they are doing stuff to be able to handle emergent property kind of things based on type class like this. http://www.haskellforall.com/2012/08/the-category-design-pattern.htmlBut it's the same principle i wanted to get at with my framework, to have generic place holder for holding reference to meta typed object with monomorphized access function in sort that the code is independant from the type of the data it manipulate as long as the node can convert it's data to the type required in the code. It allow to manipulate collection of heterogenous objects and apply generic function to them without having to do specialized function that apply to each specific combination of class. I'm not sure if typeclass are considered as being turing complete language before they are compiled/monomorphized to concrete type, but if they are turing complete already it mean it could allow to program things based on runtime dynamic data and emergent property between them, and it would probably lead with unpredictible result in the end, even if it's not chaotic functions or entropy, but in the realm between the turing undecidability and mutual interaction problem in physic. http://number-none.com/product/Predicate%20Logic/index.html , http://number-none.com/product/My%20Friend,%20the%20Covariance%20Body/ https://books.google.fr/books?id=HBZADQAAQBAJ&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=haskell+monad+emergent+property&source=bl&ots=Rk20Gl6GEy&sig=iJyXEi8DbY4LuTgFjmFNgeOxpgo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_r9iIusrUAhWMKMAKHbThAEcQ6AEIKjAF#v=onepage&q&f=false |
|
|
|
Well the concept of entropy is mostly relevant in the context of engineering, where one build a system, and has to consider that what matter in term of right or wrong is that the machine work as planned / wanted by the designer, and in this perspective, the entropy is always something unwanted, or defined negatively as a divergeance from the expected /wanted result.
...what is to be considered as good in environment is things that works as planned by a designer, and 'chaos' is seen by definition as something to be avoided / deconsidered, or as some kind of waste of energy that make the system not as efficient as it should be to full fill its purpose.
This is because we have until very recent focused our engineering efforts on creating predictable or "dumb" devices. In the context of the discussion upthread the goal has been to accomplish a fixed task and then maximise the self-organisation of the system ideally driving emergence to zero aka minimising informational entropy. In this context entropy represents loss or misdirected efforts. However, if we want an adaptive machine capable of responding to unanticipated environmental changes or improving over time then we need a component of emergence and thus Shannon entropy. This can be seen when looking at one of the more famous new machines Google's Go playing machine AlphaGo. This machine must respond to unpredictable responses from opponents and still win in a game that is to complex to simply play via simple brute force. Christopher Burger who has a Ph.D in machine learning wrote this interesting analysis of how AlphaGo works. https://www.tastehit.com/blog/google-deepmind-alphago-how-it-works/AlphaGo uses a Monte Carlo Tree Search. Monte Carlo Tree Search is an alternative approach to searching the game tree. The idea is to run many game simulations. Each simulation starts at the current game state and stops when the game is won by one of the two players. At first, the simulations are completely random: actions are chosen randomly at each state, for both players. At each simulation, some values are stored, such as how often each node has been visited, and how often this has led to a win. These numbers guide the later simulations in selecting actions (simulations thus become less and less random). The more simulations are executed, the more accurate these numbers become at selecting winning moves. It can be shown that as the number of simulations grows, MCTS indeed converges to optimal play. Yes i saw this kind of discussion with non deterministic algorithm But for me need to distinguish between chaotic function, predictibility and entropy =) I saw a good in depth video about this kind of algorithm, but i will never find it back lol but it was digging very deep into core science philosophy to show how determinism like newton is always based on analysis of components of a system, and defining a system as sum of its part,and seeing each part as somehow immutable and ideal, but it fail to integrate emergent properties, whereas these new kind of non deterministic algorithm are more holistic, and more consider the informations as a whole without trying to fit it to predetermined template or structure. It's more something that is result/reward driven to estimate the efficient of the algorithm rather than something based on some kind of pre determined ontology and induced properties like newtonian physics. In a way this whole distinction between self organisation and entropy is very subjective, and mostly in the eye of the beholder Maybe the whole universe is in a process of self organisation and there is not one particule or quanta in the whole thing that is not participating in this auto organisation. But it's a bit the philosophical problem i have with newtonian based theories in general is that they tend to see everything in term of what is understood by the person, and it's very easy to fall into the intellectual trap of categorizing things as entropic or self organized based on if you understand its purpose and how it serve you. Basically if you can understand the purpose of something and how it serve you in a predictible manner, it's not entropic, if you don't understand it, or if it get in the way to have predictible positive outcome, then it become entropy. But it's all very subjective in the end. Chaos theory are also different from entropy, in the sense with chaotic functions, the functions is already supposed to be unpredictible to begin with, so there is not really a concept of entropy as how the function result will deviate from expected outcome. Even high degree of variation due to complexity is not really to be called entropy. Entropy can actually be quite regular. If you take wheel spinning on it's axis, the entropy would be how it's not exactly spinning in circle, but the variations will still be statistically simple. Even if most of the time i guess what engineers will measure as entropy in a system will mostly be emergent properties, quantum stuff, etc it's mostly a concept that apply to linear system because linear system are never accurate in physics, which can make one wonder why it's even called science to begin with, it's interest is mostly for industrial economy. After you can see a tree or a child as just noise (actually children are often just this ), compared to the beautifull dystopia the megalomaniac in goldman sachs are trying to concoct A parking is certainly 'less entropic' than a forest |
|
|
|
Source: http://www.coolpage.com/stopped reading there. The market will adjust just like it always has, just google how many market panics there has been since centralized banking alone as well as the shifting of the job market and labor force in regards to employment and implementation of new technologies. What happened during the industrial revolution when a huge % of the labor force shifted from agrarian to industrial? Or when the industrial companies of the U.S all got outsourced to 3rd world countries for cheap later? The market and labor force adjusted again and we saw a huge rise in the service industry. Or when now IT and newer/lower-education level medical/care-taker jobs are being a larger % of the labor force? Robots will never totally replace humans and vice versa. It isn't a competition and never has been. Can anyone list any SINGLE precedent in which a fundamental new technology "devastated" ANY labor force much less what the biggest fluctuation was? People, the market, supply, demand, and the education/skill needed for the labor force at large is always adjusting within any dynamic system such as a labor market. More technological advancement has ALWAYS meant higher standard of living in the longer run. The cotton gin invention didn't outlaw slaves but made more people realize it wasn't necessary and more of a burden and "way of life" than an actual long-term feasible commodity. Every labor advancement from the assembly line to the internet has made it easier for human beings and we've adjusted what our duties are and the duties that are no long necessary because of technology in every scenario. This was written by some crank on some obscure website "projecting" something that will happen in 2033, 15 years down the line. Who could have predicted bitcoins increase to peak 3000 even 3 months ago? The problem imo is not that much technology, but the whole obscurantism surrounding it, with the whole lot of proprietary closed technology, deceptive marketting, it leave its understanding benefits and operation / decision piwer etc under selected hands. Assange explain well how feudalism always emerge from control of technology who increase production that become vital to sustain a certain population, it was with windmill in middle age, same goes with cpu & IT now. |
|
|
|
In the same time i completely get what he mean, it's just the term of entropy is not necessarily the best to employ to describe what he talks about lol It's seeing the issue from the wrong side IMO lol You can't get a positive definition of the process of individuation if you only see it as entropy as how it deviate from socially expected behavior I am actually somewhat sympathetic to this position. Ideally it would be Anonymint here defending his definitions but he is boycotting the forum at the moment after getting his most recent incarnation banned so I will do my best to defend his thesis in his absence. Emergent properties can be predicted, sometime they are not entropic But entropy is only mesurable against expected behavior from a constructed system to measure how the data fit the theory behind the design of the system. This connection between emergent property & entropy works for properties emerging from a designed/constructed system, not for measuring "natural" behavior out of the context of a fabricated system. It's only entropy if it's measured as a difference with predicted outcome. Let's dive into the definitions and see where that takes us. From the papers I linked above:. Emergence can be understood as new global patterns which are not present in the system’s components. Self-organization, in its most general form, can be seen as a reduction of entropy. Self-organization is the complement of Emergence and a metric of order and regularity. Complexity comes from the Latin plexus, which means inter-woven. something complex is difficult to separate. Complexity represents a balance between change (Emergence) and regularity (Self-organization), which allows systems to adapt in a robust fashion. Regularity ensures that information survives, while change allows the exploration of new possibilities, essential for adaptability. In this sense, complexity can also be used to characterize living systems or artificial adaptive systems, especially when comparing their complexity with that of their environment. More precisely, complexity describes a system’s behavior in terms of the average uncertainty produced by emergent and regular global patterns as described by its probability distribution. So where does entropy come in? Information entropy is a deterministic complexity measure, since it quantifies the degree of randomness. If we can measure degree of randomness we also quantify emergence with some limitations As you said entropy is only measurable against expected behavior in a constructed system. The complexity of different phenomena can be calculated using entropy-based measures. However, to obtain meaningful results, we must first determine the adequate function to be employed for the problem. In the case of "natural" behavior out of the context of a human fabricated system this becomes problematic as we don't know the underlying function. I believe it was Gödel who said, the world is either a perfect order of God, or chaos. The difference is in the belief that infinity comes before entropy. If we go with infinity then we can assume that some underlying function exists for all systems including "natural" ones. Lacking an understanding of the system we may not be able to measure the the entropy and the associated emergence but we can assume the relationship persists outside of our knowledge. What you call the process of individuation is not just about maximizing emergence aka maximizing entropy. The "process of individuation" is the maximization of emergence while maintaining overall self-organization. It is the long term maximization of the complexity of the system. Well the concept of entropy is mostly relevant in the context of engineering, where one build a system, and has to consider that what matter in term of right or wrong is that the machine work as planned / wanted by the designer, and in this perspective, the entropy is always something unwanted, or defined negatively as a divergeance from the expected /wanted result. In the overall i'm not big fan of newton theories lol I prefer liebniz =) Newton is ok if really limited to experimental physics, but the second law of thermodynamics already it show where it want to get at, and meaning that what is to be considered as good in environment is things that works as planned by a designer, and 'chaos' is seen by definition as something to be avoided / deconsidered, or as some kind of waste of energy that make the system not as efficient as it should be to full fill its purpose. There are the social theories with social darwinism who say that even so before it was fitting to law of nature that was driving evolution, but then since maybe rome or so, it's more social selection, and how one will fit into a culture or another that will be driving force of evolution, or even now how he fits into economic agenda, which can give this sort of sense of 'ideal individual' in the context of social or economic development, and that society has to shape it's citizen to fit this ideal, and like if human being were just passively waiting to be programmed to exist as a person, and anything that popup from a person not being programmed is seen as entropy, as seeing individuals as only target for social engineering. |
|
|
|
IMO if you are waiting on other people to build a structure you agree to be free, you are never really free at all Society, tradition, religion, all about volontary bondage I am not really following you here. If you are arguing that absolute freedom is impossible then I agree. The best we can do is minimize the restrictions on our our collective freedom. If you are interested in my thoughts on how we can best accomplish this I have outlined them here. My idea is more that freedom is more to be though in term of capacity or skill rather than in term of if other people or system is cooperative with your own aspirations Budha said things along those line that real freedom it's necessarily a path of loneliness, it's kinda close to Jung concept of individuation on the personal level, how you need to get rid of archetypes and limit from society to become more unique and individuated. And by definition it's by getting out of the copycat behavior, or learned behavior, that you become more individuated. In the same time i completely get what he mean, it's just the term of entropy is not necessarily the best to employ to describe what he talks about lol It's seeing the issue from the wrong side IMO lol You can't get a positive definition of the processus of individuation if you only see it as entropy as how it deviate from socially expected behavior "Reducing the human mind to an electric signal is a perversion" You must understand that all of our Freedom is an illusion. We use crypto currency today and believe that because of it we are not available for decentralization and free in our choice. But this is not so. If you completely understand all the subtleties of Bitcoin structure and how it all was created, then I would not be surprised that in this question there were the comma structures that control everything and everywhere. In a way it can be told that realization of freedom goes through concept of efficiency, and we are at a stage where centralized structure are not efficient because of too diversified population and needs, and with democratisation of computers and internet, it will probably become more optimal that life organize around small specialized structure, rather than in big national scale collective and objective, the society of today become much more multi polar, and there is not one big corporation or organisation who can be efficient for everything. https://hermetic.com/bey/quantum Quantum Mechanics & Chaos Theory
Anarchist Meditations on N. Herbert’s Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics
By Hakim Bey
1. Scientific worldviews or “paradigms” can influence — or be influenced by — social reality. Clearly the Ptolemaic universe mirrors theocentric & monarchic structures. The Newtonian/Cartesian/mechanical universe mirrors rationalistic social assumptions, which in turn underlie nationalism, capitalism, communism, etc. As for Relativity Theory, it has only recently begun to reflect — or be reflected by — certain social realities. But these relations are still obscure, embedded in multinational conspiracies, the metaphysics of modern banking, international terrorism, & various newly emergent telecommunications-based technologies.
2. Which comes first, scientific paradigm or social structure? For our purpose it seems unnecessary to answer this question — and in any case, perhaps impossible. The relation between them is real, but acts in a manner infinitely more complex than mere cause-&-effect, or even warp-&-weft.
3. Quantum Mechanics (QM), considered as the source of such a paradigm, at first seems to lack any social ramifications or parallels, almost as if its very weirdness deprives it of all connections with “everyday” life or social reality. However, a few authors (like F. Capra, or Science-Fictioneers like R. Rucker or R. Anton Wilson) have seen Quantum Theory both as a vindication of certain “oriental philosophies” & also as prophetic of certain social changes which might loosely & carelessly be lumped under the heading “Aquarian.”
4. The “mystical” systems evoked by our contemplation of Quantum facts tend to be non-dualist and non-theocentric, dynamic rather than static: Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, Tantra (both Hindu & Buddhist), alchemy, etc. Einstein, who opposed Quantum theory, believed in a God who refused to play dice with the universe, a basically Judeo-Protestant deity who sets up a cosmic speed limit for light. The Quantum enthusiasts, by contrast, prefer a dancing Shiva, a principle of cosmic play.
5. Perhaps “oriental wisdom” will provide a kind of focusing device, or set of metaphors, or myth, or poetics of QM, which will allow it to realize itself fully as a “paradigm” & discover its reflection on the level of society. But it does not follow that this paradigm will simply recapitulate the social complexes which gave rise to Taoism, Tantra or alchemy. There is no “Eternal Return” in the strict Nietzschean sense: each time the gyre comes round again it describes a new point in space/time.
6. Einstein accused Quantum Theory (QT) of restoring individual consciousness to the center of the universe, a position from which “Man” was toppled by “Science” 500 years ago. If QT can be accused of retrogression, however, it must be something like the anarchist P. Goodman's “Stone Age Reaction” — a turning-back so extreme as to constitute a revolution.
7. Perhaps the development of QM and the rediscovery of “oriental wisdom” (with its occidental variations) stem from the same social causes, which have to do with information density, electronic technology, the ongoing collapse of Eurocentrism & its “Classical” philosophies, ideologies & physics. Perhaps the syncresis of QT & oriental wisdom will accelerate these changes, even help direct them.For me it's more a thing along this trend that large scale organized structure stop to be really efficient to facilitate development, opposed to decentralized solution who are coming more and more. Bitcoin is only partially a good thing for this imo, because it's not really modular, and the code is quite monolothic and not that easy to adapt, and to really to do something useful with it buisness wise, need also other things like web servers, and other applications, which make it still quite hard for it to reach it's advertised goal of decentralization/fungibility to maximize fluidity in utility for trading or other, for the moment it still stay quite centralized. But it's already a completely novel approach, in the sense the node implement both server & client side, and it's already a completely new way to see distributed application development, with shared data validated in trust less manner, and RPC api to exploit the data in third party application. Already it switch from centralization of all the data in data centers, with all the monopoly and exploitation of the information it leads to, and it's mostly milking user driven content, even sometime without really their full consent lol Whereas the cost of processing / storage / bandwidth is becoming quite low, and there is lot of operations that are done by data centers who could be done in decentralized manner. It's why i'm working on my solution which i think can help a lot to really be able to run blockchain based application more complex than just wallet and miner with HTML5 in an all in one node, with much more modularity and script engine to be able to customize everything easily to tailor it to reach more the full objective of decentralized trading and decentralized application. |
|
|
|
IMO if you are waiting on other people to build a structure you agree to be free, you are never really free at all Society, tradition, religion, all about volontary bondage I am not really following you here. If you are arguing that absolute freedom is impossible then I agree. The best we can do is minimize the restrictions on our our collective freedom. If you are interested in my thoughts on how we can best accomplish this I have outlined them here. My idea is more that freedom is more to be though in term of capacity or skill rather than in term of if other people or system is cooperative with your own aspirations Budha said things along those line that real freedom it's necessarily a path of loneliness, it's kinda close to Jung concept of individuation on the personal level, how you need to get rid of archetypes and limit from society to become more unique and individuated. And by definition it's by getting out of the copycat behavior, or learned behavior, that you become more individuated. In the same time i completely get what he mean, it's just the term of entropy is not necessarily the best to employ to describe what he talks about lol It's seeing the issue from the wrong side IMO lol You can't get a positive definition of the processus of individuation if you only see it as entropy as how it deviate from socially expected behavior "Reducing the human mind to an electric signal is a perversion" |
|
|
|
Thanks that is helpful. Yes it appears we are more or less talking about the same thing. Information entropy or Shannon entropy is simply a way to emperically measure and quantify what you are calling emergence. Here are a couple of papers on this if you are interested in reading more. Measuring Emergence, Self-organization, and Complexity Based on Shannon Entropyhttp://journal-cdn.frontiersin.org/article/244727/files/pubmed-zip/versions/1/pdfWe present a set of Matlab/Octave functions to compute measures of emergence, self-organization, and complexity applied to discrete and continuous data. These measures are based on Shannon’s information and differential entropy. Examples from different datasets and probability distributions are provided to show how to use our proposed code.
...
Complexity has generated interest in recent years (Bar-Yam, 1997; Mitchell, 2009; Haken and Portugali, 2017). A complex system can be understood as one composed by many elements, which acquire functional/spatial/temporal structures without a priori speci cations (Haken and Portugali, 2017). It has been studied in several disciplines, as one can try to measure the complexity of almost any phenomenon (Lopez-Ruiz et al., 1995; Bandt and Pompe, 2002; Prokopenko et al., 2009; Lizier, 2014; Soler-Toscano et al., 2014; Haken and Portugali, 2017). us, there exist a broad variety of measures of complexity where Shannon’s entropy and its generalizations have played a crucial role (Haken and Portugali, 2017). Information Entropy As a Basic Building Block of Complexity Theoryhttp://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/9/3396/pdfAbstract: What is information? What role does information entropy play in this information exploding age, especially in understanding emergent behaviors of complex systems? To answer these questions, we discuss the origin of information entropy, the difference between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy, the role of information entropy in complexity theories, including chaos theory and fractal theory, and speculate new fields in which information entropy may play important roles. Emergent properties can be predicted, sometime they are not entropic But entropy is only mesurable against expected behavior from a constructed system to measure how the data fit the theory behind the design of the system. This connection between emergent property & entropy works for properties emerging from a designed/constructed system, not for measuring "natural" behavior out of the context of a fabricated system. It's only entropy if it's measured as a difference with predicted outcome. |
|
|
|
In information theory, systems are modeled by a transmitter, channel, and receiver. The transmitter produces messages that are sent through the channel. The channel modifies the message in some way. The receiver attempts to infer which message was sent. In this context, entropy (more specifically, Shannon entropy) is the expected value (mean) of the information contained in each message. 'Messages' can be modeled by any flow of information.
In that case, the input is the original message, the output is the transmited message, and the entropy is the unpredictible difference the two,on the level of entropy is how much it fit with expected values. your concept of "emerging properties" which you need to define for us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmergenceIn philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit. Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry, and psychological phenomena emerge from the neurobiological phenomena of living things. In philosophy, theories that emphasize emergent properties have been called emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the lower levels.[1] Emergent properties and processes[edit]
An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective. If emergence happens over disparate size scales, then the reason is usually a causal relation across different scales. In other words, there is often a form of top-down feedback in systems with emergent properties.[21] The processes from which emergent properties result may occur in either the observed or observing system, and can commonly be identified by their patterns of accumulating change, most generally called 'growth'. Emergent behaviours can occur because of intricate causal relations across different scales and feedback, known as interconnectivity. The emergent property itself may be either very predictable or unpredictable and unprecedented, and represent a new level of the system's evolution. The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities, and might in fact be irreducible to such behavior. The shape and behaviour of a flock of birds [3] or school of fish are good examples of emergent properties. |
|
|
|
Hello IadixDev welcome,
Sounds like you are involved in some coding project. What are you working on?
Originally the project was iadix.com, but the guy who was into the ICO plan parted away, so i made another plan i will come back soon with the new site and more detailed explanation, but the global idea is to replace the usual triangle of database / webserver / script by a single node who use the blockchain as database, with a system of service based on portable binary modules and RPC/CGI interface export, and a system of script to generate HTML5/js web pages based on the node/blockchain data like php would do with database, and generating html in the page for the HTML5 app with in browser crypto, transaction signing and staking, and some test with raytracing and distributed web database and HTTP api for HTML5 applications. Your post above raises a number of deep concepts I will address some of them below. 1) Regarding the metric of entropy. You argue that the concept of entropy does not make sense to use in a system without a clear purpose and mesurable input/output. You also argue that the human mind and presumably the social systems that derive from it have an unknown/undefined purpose thus making the concept inapplicable. You are making deep metaphysical assumptions when you argue that the mind and thus humanities purpose is unknown which I would challenge but let's set that aside for now. Metaphysics aside there are reasons in information theory to doubt your strict interpretation of entropy. Here are two post you may find interesting. Entropy is InformationEntropy and FreedomThe first is a discussion on the relationship between entropy and information by Anonymint that is informative. The second is an excerpt from the book Knowledge and Power by George Gilder where the relationship between entropy and freedom is explored. The above post seem to be confusing this concept of emerging properties and entropy =) In the context of thermodynamics, the level of entropy is measured as defect from the expected output. 2) Regarding misconceptions about freedom. I agree that many people whon claim to seek "freedom" are really seeking to escape responsibility and deny the consequences of their actions. I also agree that ascesis is a necessary and vital part of maximizing freedom. What is also needed, however, is an overarching organizational framework to build freedom upon. Some organizing principles are superior to others. I outlined my thoughts on this issue in the following post. The Nature of FreedomIMO if you are waiting on other people to build a structure you agree to be free, you are never really free at all Society, tradition, religion, all about volontary bondage 3) Regarding the association of marxism with state power.
The association of marxism with state power is simply an observation of the reality of marxism when actually applied.
Marxism is all about no class, no horizontal organization, no religion (other then marxism), and redistribution for the "common good".
However, class, horizontal organization, and religion form naturally based on merit and free association. Thus marxism can only achieve its aims via suppression of these things which requires a state to control/eliminate the anti-marxist thinking.
Well the problem is that historically, the people who called themselves 'marxists' were all more or less soviet agent, carrying their own subversive agenda to out throw certain regimes, and it was all about centralization toward moscow, but it's what in technical term after people call more leninism, which when a nomemklatur of people decide everything without counter-party, but in the end capitalism is also some form of leninism but with different economic theory to justify the power of some people through investment and different priorities for society. In capitalist / fordist society, all decision power come to stake holders which can be pretty much like a nomemklatur, and it's not like corporation love freedom and decentralization that much. |
|
|
|
iamnotback you have not made the case that an absolute truth cannot exist though perhaps you made this argument somewhere I am not aware of. In your essay The Universe you instead made this claim.
This kind of topic has been covered in whole length by plato, following on socrates, "I know one thing it's that I know nothing"  The question is not even if there is absolute order in the universe, the notion of truth also come with a sense of perfect sentient understanding of this order by human mind, and plato demonstrated in whole length how this idea of monic truth will always escape the grasp of rationality. Can only be reached by honest philosopher as in the realm of idea akin to gnostic principles. Godbel is a very rigorous and laborious demonstration of this. |
|
|
|
Hello Ive been reading the last pages of this thread, as im done with my coding im going to troll à bit going to come back with cool stuff soon Already one thing that always disturb me is this view of marxism from usa who seem to be really aksew lol like equating marxism with state power whereas marxisme originally is all about no state, no banks, no class, and horizontal organisation, self détermination, believing in social progress through work and rationalism. Marxisme never say about all controling state. When I see this kind of view on Marxisme it give me same feeling than seeing ignorant islamophobics equating Islam with daesh lol kinda same propaganda fabric made in usa I guess lol The other thing is this concept of entropy and conflating rules of thermodynamics with social motion is a bit fallacious, the concept of entropy make sense in the context of designing system with a clear purpose and mesurable input/output against which you can measure the entropy being unpredicted fluctuation in the system performance, but the purpose of the human mind being unknown, this concept of entropy applied to social system is a bit moot. Like comparing libértarian motion with entropy in a system is already considering human in the perspective that it has to fit into a pattern against which it's performance can be measured against an expectation. Like David hume and his case about what "ought to be" . But there is no definition of what human mind ought to be so this concept of entropy is kinda moot in this context. Power is an illusion anyway lol There is a good book also about free will from neurology perpective, it shows interesting insights about what people are after when they seek freedom, is it escaping responsability, denying conséquences of actions, unfortunately both socialism & religion become more thing to cling to in order to avoiding facing one own inability to reach it's needs, and one can never be really free from external influences throught matérialisme, it's why the stoïcs were right since the beginning about the only real way to get freedom: mental strength, ascétism, self discipline etc to be as free of possible of external influence and maximizing will power to realize moral actions. This whole concept of political power, cultural influence and sorting people out based on their culture of origin is already from this same perpective of seing freedom as entropy. Aka thinking outside of the box is so inside of the box |
|
|
|
Ok so i have some good news and some bad news lol The guy who was driving the ICO left the project, basically when i told him after month and month, once again, to make a timeline, and clarify his vision of the project beyond the ico funding rising, he told he left the project, i'm not sure i really understand his vision and motivation anyway, but we don't agree on too much things i guess and he left the project. Well on the other side it doesn't matter too much, to explain shortly the situation, those two guy never made a website of their life, basically they are not developers, it took me 4 month to make them do the most basic CSS with many sweating and hard pushing, they have no experience in developing anything, and i struggled for month to try to get them to work on real roadmap and timeline and objective only to get same deflective answer .. Basically this whole ICO thing was their plan, i was not super fond of the idea since the beginning, but they pushed me into it with their plan of ICO and investment and stuff, and then now he leave the project =) But well it's why i took a break to re orient myself, because the only reason i came to this forum to begin with is because he told me about this ICO stuff, that it's easy, just copy paste wave website and paste some technical word and a non sense white paper and get investement without engagment, responsability, timeline, roadmap, most of the vauge text on the website is wrote by them, well i knew there was very little chance for this to be realistic but could always try, the time i develop the thing i wanted to get at with distributed application, could always try to do an ICO thing, but it didn't work has he planed, and now he leave without explaining anything too much except we don't agree or something =) Well i will see what my plan is, it's why i took a bit a break to think things out, because now i'm alone on the project
But i still advanced more, reworked lot of the code, and cleaned the api to start working on the script engine, and it start to get good Much clearer code on the C side, and normally soon all the coin high level function should be made with the script. And i also added system to create dynamic html page from node variable with the script, like this it's total killer to make html5 dynamic app. with purenode.site file in the root web folder, and raw html template for page structure, node variables are added via the %% tag in the html_js opcode to generate the script for the page, and the script format the html and insert the value in the tags from these variable in the browser side. It use the purenode block.js api and keys.js api.
let NODE_JSON_ARRAY stylesheets = `[
"//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans:400,300,600&subset=cyrillic,latin",
"/assets/plugins/bootstrap/css/bootstrap.min.css",
"/assets/css/style.css",
"/assets/css/headers/header-default.css",
"/assets/css/blocks.css",
"/assets/css/footers/footer-v7.css",
"/assets/plugins/animate.css",
"/assets/plugins/line-icons/line-icons.css",
"/assets/plugins/font-awesome/css/font-awesome.min.css",
"/assets/plugins/brand-buttons/brand-buttons.css",
"/assets/css/theme-skins/dark.css",
"/assets/css/custom.css",
"/assets/plugins/sky-forms-pro/skyforms/css/sky-forms.css",
"/assets/plugins/sky-forms-pro/skyforms/custom/custom-sky-forms.css"
]`
let NODE_JSON_ARRAY scripts = `[
"/assets/plugins/jquery/jquery.min.js",
"/assets/plugins/jquery/jquery-migrate.min.js",
"/assets/plugins/bootstrap/js/bootstrap.min.js",
"/assets/plugins/back-to-top.js",
"/assets/plugins/smoothScroll.js",
"/assets/plugins/sky-forms-pro/skyforms/js/jquery-ui.min.js",
"/assets/plugins/sky-forms-pro/skyforms/js/jquery.validate.min.js",
"/assets/plugins/sky-forms-pro/skyforms/js/jquery.maskedinput.min.js",
"/assets/plugins/scrollbar/js/jquery.mCustomScrollbar.concat.min.js",
"/assets/js/custom.js",
"/assets/js/app.js"
]`
let NODE_JSON_ARRAY metas = `[
{"viewport":"width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"},
{"description":""},
{"author":""}
]`
page blocks = `
push stylesheets,"/assets/css/plugins/blocks.css"
push scripts,"/assets/js/plugins/datepicker.js"
push scripts,"/assets/js/blocks.js"
html_head "PURENODE BLOCK EXPLORER"
html_block "templates/menu.html"
html_block "templates/blocks.html"
html_scripts
html_js
jQuery(document).ready(function ()
{
App.init();
App.initScrollBar();
Datepicker.initDatepicker(function (selectedDate) { blk_page_idx = 0; tx_page_idx = 0; txs = null; blocks = null; list_blocks(selectedDate, blk_page_idx, 0); list_txs(selectedDate, tx_page_idx); });
lang = 'en';
api_base_url = '';
site_base_url = '/purenode.site';
blk_page_idx = 0;
tx_page_idx = 0;
txs = null;
blocks = null;
selectedDate = $('#inline').datepicker({ dateFormat: 'yy-mm-dd' }).val();
list_blocks(selectedDate, blk_page_idx, 0);
list_txs(selectedDate, tx_page_idx);
});
end_js
html_block "templates/footer.html"
page address(addr,page_idx) = `
push stylesheets,"/assets/css/plugins/blocks.css"
push scripts,"/assets/js/blocks.js"
html_head "PURENODE BLOCK EXPLORER ( ADDRESS )"
html_block "templates/menu.html"
html_block "templates/address.html"
html_scripts
html_js
$(document).ready(function ()
{
App.init();
App.initScrollBar();
site_base_url = '/purenode.site';
api_base_url ='';
currentAddr = '%addr%';
page_idx = parseInt('%page_idx%');
lang = 'en';
$('#imp_addr').val(currentAddr);
list_addr_txs(currentAddr, page_idx);
});
end_js
html_block "templates/footer.html"
`
page wallet = `
push stylesheets,"/assets/css/plugins/blocks.css"
push scripts,"/assets/js/blocks.js"
push scripts,"/assets/js/ecdsa_bundle.js"
push scripts,"/assets/js/jsSHA-2.2.0/src/sha_dev.js"
push scripts,"/assets/js/keys.js"
push scripts,"/assets/js/md5.min.js"
html_head "PURENODE WALLET"
html_block "templates/menu.html"
html_block "templates/wallet.html"
html_scripts
html_js
jQuery(document).ready(function() {
App.init ();
lang ='en';
api_base_url ='';
site_base_url ='/purenode.site';
ec = new EC('secp256k1');
$('#addrlabel').val('new address');
get_accounts ('my_address_list_table');
});
end_js
html_block "templates/footer.html"
`
 Those scripts are executed by the node, and have full access to the blockchain api modules, and can insert node variable in the javascript generation with the %% tags. Like this it will become very easy to program distributed html5 apps. For the moment i'm finishing this script and polishing the API, after it will pick a new name, and make yet another website lol But this time with real documentation, examples, download, sources etc more technically oriented, now that the API is getting cleaner and the script parser is version 0.1 i can start to write more focused documentation. With the script it will be also easy to add the mempool and the p2p managment, so probably i'll end up running a beta coin in POW with it in the end lol I will see, anyway i'll create a new thread with a new site and new plan in the coming weeks ! |
|
|
|
Like if nodes being in the same subnetwork would share some kind of tx cache specific to this subnetwork, who would only br visible on this subnetwork, until it need to be used or accessed outside of the subnetwork, and the equivalent of "routing" The tx would be to synchronise subnetworks cache when they need to access to data between each others with a system of authoritative answer on address like dns.
You can only do this if you delegate authority and trust, in other words, if you build hierarchies with power and enforced trust. The DNS system is a hierarchical system, where the top nodes have a lot of power ; but in a no-double-spend system, this power becomes financial. If you need a hierarchy of trust that you will get the correct information that Jack, who is trying to pay you, has NOT double-spent, how can you know that this hierarchy is not colluding to make you think that indeed, he didn't, while in fact he did ? How can you be sure that one is not HIDING this former spending of his, the time that you accept the payment ? How can you check that nobody is putting more coins in circulation than is officially announced ? If you have to trust specific hierarchical entities to tell you about that, the decentralized and trustless system is out of the window. The whole problem of a truly decentralized and trustless system, is that you are not to depend on ANYBODY to be able to check the validity of the payment one proposes you, and the amount of coins in circulation. It means that anyone, at any time, must be able to check this independently if he wants to. This is not possible if there is a hierarchical system in place, because in such a system, you are DEPENDING on these centralized authorities, that can tell you whatever they want. Yes, you can think of a system with different hierarchies of COINS, where you have a master coin that is the reserve currency of master nodes, who each of them are in a constant exchange rate with sub-coins of a different nature which can themselves be the reserve currencies of still other nodes with sub-sub coins. However, if there are random payments from sub-sub-coin A of subcoin B, to owners of sub-sub-coin C of subcoin D, then, if you want this to be trustless and distributed, the users still need to have all these chains, to be able to check the right-to-spend of coin A, the right to exchange to coin B, the right to exchange to the master coin, the right to exchange of coin D and the right to exchange of coin C. Yes, you might think that you don't have to bother about subcoins F, H, J etc.... but even that is not true, because you want to check their quantities in circulation. So in the end, if you want this to be trustless, this is just a different way of organizing the transactions, but in the end, you have to know all of them, if you want to check the total liquidity. I have been trying these kinds of things for quite a while, and I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no real way to have a system that is truly decentralized and trustless, and at the same time, scales without having an increasing burden on the individual user, who has the choice between delegating more and more trust to central authorities, or having more and more technical costs. Well, there IS such a system, which I'm favourable for, but I'm not sure it is stable: that is: many small *independent* currencies, with floating exchange rates, and connected through decentralized exchanges. But my fear is that speculative forces will put a hierarchy into these currencies, bringing us back to the current situation. Nevertheless, at least, that is a system where the burden per user doesn't increase with adoption: a user decides to use just a few small crypto currencies. If he needs to pay another user, he has to find a way through exchanges to get his coins, with several intermediaries, converted into the tokens of his counter party. That's clumsy, but at least, it scales, because the number of steps is logarithmic with the number of users. The dns equivalent can be decentralized ont the blockchain too. In a way it doesnt matter that much if the authority have huge amount of trust, as long as it's recognized as such arbitrarily by all nodes, it's the version that is the authority. With the system im thinking, there can be a single coin, but dns-like system works to know which node has authority on which address, and this indexing can be decentralized on the blockchain too. The thing is for most use case, you dont have to know all the chain to assert the validity of a transaction/operation. With dns you can already delegate authority of a subdomain to another dns server who has authority on the subnetwork domain zone. |
|
|
|
The pb with sidechains is the address they manipulate cant be accessed from outside, operation on their data cannot be "routed" to them from outside, and they operate on whole different chain that has no real indexing outside of the "subnetwork" I guess there can be different approaches After all, we are discussing whether it is possible to make a payment network internally scalable conceptually and how to implement that approach in practice if it is proved possible, right? If these sidechains cannot be accessed from outside, they cannot be called sidechains at all, as I see it. If what you say were true, that would essentially mean that they should remain impenetrable from other such sidechains as well. But that, in its turn, would effectively mean different networks, not "subsets of the whole set", i.e. not integral parts of the payment network Sidechains are like black accountability/shadow banking like keeping track of assets motion on a sidechains in a private network, the motions on the sidechains are not useable from main chain until they are "settled down". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
