|
We had a vision for a crypto anarchist democratic republic very different from bitcoin. The concept subverts the USPTO and the Federal Reserve in a new way. There was lots of work needing to be done before this concept would come to life, including an implementable proof of storage crypto system. We recently made great headway on this problem.
|
|
|
|
How the Middle Class Exploits the Producing Class The intellectual producing class increases the wealth of humanity by removing obstacles that once existed as an inefficiency in the economy. Scientists, innovators, and content creators, produce new wealth for society by using their brains to produce new information that has value to people. Unfortunately, monetary compensation does not mirror wealth creation. Monetary compensation for this type of wealth creation is regulated by the USPTO and the Federal Reserve. Legislation for the USPTO and the Fed are created by a coalition of voters and corporate lobbyists. These groups attempt to divert monetary compensation from producers to themselves for their own self interest. There is a symbiotic relationship between corporations and the middle class: the middle class votes along with corporate lobbyists in exchange for higher paying jobs and more jobs, which corporations can afford by rerouting monetary compensation from wealth producers to themselves. Both the middle class and corporate America are dependent on this system. They have a parasitic relationship with the producing class. The needs of this coalition grow over time, becoming more dependent on money diverted from producers. Intellectual Property laws are on a one way path, squeezing money from individual producers while inflating monetary compensation for production inside large organizations. ... <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTL4qIIxg8A> I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries; a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you. |
|
|
|
|
I like the idea of needing a percentage of coins to open another secret file. That would be awesome because the file could contain a key to decrypt a company wallet or something. This can already be done using some type of encryption where the key is broken up into pieces and distributed. A certain percentage of the keys is needed to decrypt the wallet. (the name I can't remember)
example
A company's encrypted wallet file is broadcast;
the key to decrypt is in a hidden file in the ledger, which requires >x% ownership of the claim specific currency to see
I don't believe this should be the model for information, but it is a good model for how a company can use a submission as company stock, effectively taking their company public. I would include many possibilities in Nemesis for how a submission can be made (private, public, and a mix of both which would require a certain percentage of outstanding shares/currency to see the file). Of course the producer of information should be offered a number of options for disclosure.
|
|
|
|
|
EV for a person who could innovate = (chance you innovate) * (monetary value of innovation) * (1 - chance your innovation is stolen)
|
|
|
|
Criticism of U.S. Intellectual Property One of the flaws in today's society that I want to attack is the privatization of information that belongs in the public domain. Right now there are billions of dollars in trade secrets that are forcibly privatized and censored from the public. This information needs to be public so that the public may be informed and able to use the information to innovate. WikiLeaks did a tremendous job of revealing what is behind this modern iron curtain. Julian Assange's statement, "this is not the liberal democracy we were promised, this is an encroaching, privatized censorship regime" is accurate. One thing that organization did well was create a hit list for the world's most wanted confidential government documents. However, without a credit system, WikiLeak's hit list was little more than a list. They could not credit a person with the disclosure, or provide financial incentive for that to take place. Nemesis has the ability to do this. If the public wants information, and individuals are willing to chip in tiny amounts for it, a real hit list with real bounties will occur on confidential corporate and government documents; while maintaing anonymity for the disclosing party. The USPTO allows corporations to file patents now without listing an inventor. Who should be credited for some of these inventions? An unpaid intern as in my case? An underpaid employee? An employee's family member? If corporations can get away with anonymous inventors so can the public. Let the public anonymously disclose whatever information they like and allow them to be compensated accordingly at the same time. |
|
|
|
Yes this can be done and isn't a bad idea although it isn't perfect. My own philosophy is to oppose this format for a few reasons: How can the buyer know the invention is valuable without seeing it? (short answer: it can't be done) This would mean the seller would have to rely on a reputation system to sell his/her inventions at a decent price, with the price being only based on the quality of previous inventions sold. In my opinion, invention is one of the most egalitarian processes of our society, so relying on a purely hierarchical method of valuation (the reputation system) isn't ideal.
What you propose isn't far off from how many VC's operate today. They look for people with a reputation and history of business success and innovative ideas. This makes it almost impossible for people to have success with their first innovation no matter how good it is. Also, if you only invented one thing ever, and it happened to be the greatest invention of all time, you certainly wouldn't be compensated accordingly. Nobody is going to shell out 100 BTC to some "random" claiming to have reinvented the wheel.
The first message could be a very small fee, it would could be the proof, maybe a whitepaper, video, your own credentials, along with the addresses and price for the other sections of the invention. As you get deeper into the invention the price goes up, until the final piece which at that point the whole thing can be created. If you were doing this with bitcoin, the first message would be a video of a working QT, and the whitepaper, priced at a few pennies. The last message would be main.cpp, priced at thousands of dollars. The other modules would be in there, each at a little bit higher price. Yes at some point someone could get btc to work with their own main.cpp. This is one approach. I think it is close to what I am proposing, but maybe not quite feasible with Bitcoin's block chain, because I've heard there are large fees for storing things in the blockchain. Technical note: storing stuff in bitcoin's block chain would likely add more burden to the system and I doubt the fact that there is data hidden in the block chain with no utility to anybody else because it is encrypted will increase the overall value of bitcoin's market cap. I like how you are thinking. For example: store your credentials as a movie maker, store a trailer for your upcoming film, sell the code/data for your hit film to the highest bidder. This is a fundamentally closed information system. If a person buys the invention, he/she will likely keep the information undisclosed to prevent competition from making his new product, which is completely within his/her rights. Lets assume inventor1 and buyer1 have an agreement that inventor1 will not well sell or give away his invention. This means another inventor cannot come along and improve on the design without inventing the initial invention or owning the invention. Furthermore, there is incentive for a second inventor (inventor2) to invent THE SAME THING and sell the same invention through a completely different transaction to the same or a different buyer (a separate inventor spends his mental capacity reinventing the technology to sell it, after all the invention has never been publicly disclosed). This is basically a complete waste of society's mental resources which are finite. (two investments of brain power, one invention) That second inventor could have used his/her brain power to invent something completely novel. I am striving for an open information system, like YouTube, but you get tradable credits for your submissions. Think back on the arguments for why bitcoin was valuable before people recognized it as valuable (8 months ago or more). One of the arguments was that it was more efficient/cheaper than other electronic payment systems, and as a result, the people who used bitcoin had more money to spend on things by saving from using bitcoin, so they naturally had more money to reinvest into BTC. That's how I want this economy to get its value, through increased efficiency. This increased efficiency was often pennies or even fractions of pennies per transaction. Keep in mind it is over $8000 to file a utility patent with the USPTO once, patents are often filed multiple times before being awarded, and each patent defense lawsuit can cost both sides millions of dollars in attorney fees. Nemesis will eliminate these inefficiencies. You cannot create monetary value out of thin air. An argument for the value behind the USD is that it must be used to pay taxes. It must also be used to pay fees to the USPTO, which is essentially a tax. Citizens of the internet can take this value from government money for their own currency. |
|
|
|
It can't work because there's no easy way to verify it. Look at Bitcoin's proof of work. It's very hard to find a block, because it takes a ridiculous number of hashes to do so on average, but it takes only one hash to verify that someone has a correct block. Similarly, proof of storage would have to be the same way, that is, easy to verify. However, how do you do it? If you just ask for a hash of the data the node is being paid for storing, then that node can just store the hash of the data and keep getting paid. The only way to verify that a node is storing something is to have the data yourself and have that node send it to you, every byte, and compare it against what you have. Therefore, you have to do the same work as the node to verify the node is doing what it's supposed to.
Thanks I follow you. So POStorage maybe out of the question. I wonder if it would be possible to send a message to another address, which can only be unlocked after paying a certain number of coins. So for example: 1) Party1 sends message (+ network fee) to Party 2 (The fee could be based on size of message and/or assigned monetary value) 2) Party2 receives encrypted message and ask. Party 2 sends requested coins back to Party 1. 3) Party1 sends private key to unlock message. 1 and 2 happen via manually intervention. Part 3 would happen automatically as part of the client/network. this would be good, however, if your message was really valuable then the first person to unlock might just host it on his/her own, maybe even selling it to recoup whatever they paid to get the message unlocked in the first place, effectively taking money from party 1 I do think this model is applicable for advertising space within Nemesis. Say Nemesis is hosting a video, and sells advertising space with 0 hour contracts for the video, payable only in Nemesis stock. Then an advertiser has to purchase Nemesis stock from the general public or through proof of work to sell back to Anarcorp's wallet (where the coins are removed permanently) to advertise alongside content. This will be a major source of demand for the Nemesis stock, causing its value to increase a lot. There can be two types of advertising slots. 1 in a common area, that is paid for with Nemesis general stock, and one within a claim-specific area that is paid for with claim specific coin. That way if you submit a good movie and there is lots of advertising revenue from it, the submitter of the movie, who owns most of the currency for that submission, will get most of the advertising revenue (due to increased demand for the currency to pay for advertising). Agreed it may not work as you stated here. I was more or less thinking of putting plans for some invention out there as an encrypted message, imbedded into the blockchain. You could target them to someone specific, or put them out there for general consumption. For instance, lets say I have a new invention for a fuel cell that runs a laptop for 1000 hours at a time. I would break the plans out into 10 parts, and then put them into the block chain encrypted. Each part of the whole plan would be priced at higher ask, with the first message at 1 btc. Then the final one at 100, or whatever. If someone wanted to pay me the full price for all parts and then make them freely available, so what? I already got my ask. Yes this can be done and isn't a bad idea although it isn't perfect. My own philosophy is to oppose this format for a few reasons: How can the buyer know the invention is valuable without seeing it? (short answer: it can't be done) This would mean the seller would have to rely on a reputation system to sell his/her inventions at a decent price, with the price being only based on the quality of previous inventions sold. In my opinion, invention is one of the most egalitarian processes of our society, so relying on a purely hierarchical method of valuation (the reputation system) isn't ideal. What you propose isn't far off from how many VC's operate today. They look for people with a reputation and history of business success and innovative ideas. This makes it almost impossible for people to have success with their first innovation no matter how good it is. Also, if you only invented one thing ever, and it happened to be the greatest invention of all time, you certainly wouldn't be compensated accordingly. Nobody is going to shell out 100 BTC to some "random" claiming to have reinvented the wheel. |
|
|
|
It can't work because there's no easy way to verify it. Look at Bitcoin's proof of work. It's very hard to find a block, because it takes a ridiculous number of hashes to do so on average, but it takes only one hash to verify that someone has a correct block. Similarly, proof of storage would have to be the same way, that is, easy to verify. However, how do you do it? If you just ask for a hash of the data the node is being paid for storing, then that node can just store the hash of the data and keep getting paid. The only way to verify that a node is storing something is to have the data yourself and have that node send it to you, every byte, and compare it against what you have. Therefore, you have to do the same work as the node to verify the node is doing what it's supposed to.
Thanks I follow you. So POStorage maybe out of the question. I wonder if it would be possible to send a message to another address, which can only be unlocked after paying a certain number of coins. So for example: 1) Party1 sends message (+ network fee) to Party 2 (The fee could be based on size of message and/or assigned monetary value) 2) Party2 receives encrypted message and ask. Party 2 sends requested coins back to Party 1. 3) Party1 sends private key to unlock message. 1 and 2 happen via manually intervention. Part 3 would happen automatically as part of the client/network. this would be good, however, if your message was really valuable then the first person to unlock might just host it on his/her own, maybe even selling it to recoup whatever they paid to get the message unlocked in the first place, effectively taking money from party 1 I do think this model is applicable for advertising space within Nemesis. Say Nemesis is hosting a video, and sells advertising space with 0 hour contracts for the video, payable only in Nemesis stock. Then an advertiser has to purchase Nemesis stock from the general public or through proof of work to sell back to Anarcorp's wallet (where the coins are removed permanently) to advertise alongside content. This will be a major source of demand for the Nemesis stock, causing its value to increase a lot. There can be two types of advertising slots. 1 in a common area, that is paid for with Nemesis general stock, and one within a claim-specific area that is paid for with claim specific coin. That way if you submit a good movie and there is lots of advertising revenue from it, the submitter of the movie, who owns most of the currency for that submission, will get most of the advertising revenue (due to increased demand for the currency to pay for advertising). |
|
|
|
If you're suggesting a proof-of-storage mechanism, it's not going to work.
Enlighten me on proof of storage I've never heard of it. I don't think thats what I'm proposing. Proof of storage is basically where you would be paid for storing information, rather than doing work. My first priority is a crypto ledger that replaces the role of government money and government intellectual property. Proof of storage looks pretty awesome, I wasn't sure it existed, but I think it could be a good piece of the puzzle. Thank you. You should be credited for your submission So why can't it work? Could the proof of storage, be an encrypted message, where the sender sets the price? Only the sender can decrypt for free. Everyone else has to pay with POW, or POStake. It can't work because there's no easy way to verify it. Look at Bitcoin's proof of work. It's very hard to find a block, because it takes a ridiculous number of hashes to do so on average, but it takes only one hash to verify that someone has a correct block. Similarly, proof of storage would have to be the same way, that is, easy to verify. However, how do you do it? If you just ask for a hash of the data the node is being paid for storing, then that node can just store the hash of the data and keep getting paid. The only way to verify that a node is storing something is to have the data yourself and have that node send it to you, every byte, and compare it against what you have. Therefore, you have to do the same work as the node to verify the node is doing what it's supposed to. Its very exciting seeing you guys brainstorming on the subject. This is where real innovation happens. |
|
|
|
About the Author vintagetrex was the Xbox Live gamer tag of a 12 year old semi-professional Halo 2 player. Considered a prodigy by some due to his lack of online experience with Halo 1, vintagetrex was known for aggressive bxr combos and stylish head shots with the sniper rifle. As an adult, the author has continued developing a unique skill set, including a freakish combination of logic and creativity. The author's perceptual organization index tested at 99.7%, but he also draws immense creative inspiration from an onset of bipolar disorder. After vintagetrex's first invention, which occured under the influence of LSD as an independent at age 19, he was forced into an unfair game dominated by corporate greed and lobbyists. vintagetrex was crippled in his ability to promote his own invention due to the steep price of patent filings, legal fees, FDA trials, and getting non disclosure agreements signed. All of these results stemmed from an intellectual property system claiming its sole purpose was the promotion of innovation. Analyzing his own possibilities, he realized he had been thrust into a game where the only winning option was not to play. "Write your inventions in a book and don't tell anyone about them." The game had been made by greed to enslave young, creative minds; squeezing value out of them to boost corporate profits. vintagetrex vowed to remake the game and turn greed against the oppressors of innovation. He vowed to make big business the new slaves. His creation was Anarcorp. +1 Sounds like the rest of the damaged human race There is beauty in broken things . We are definitely more interesting. Ive still got a couple of winners the nsa guys didnt get . , youve got to learn to throw lots of fakes . Which is kind of , now I look at it, your writing style. I dont want to personally make anyone a slave , " big business" is just a sum of its parts. The banking / financial system is just a premine scam , but in a way the ultimate , imagine this forum was full of ignorance regarding all things cryptocurrency , BTC got 100% pre mined ( as opposed to the inequitable state it is now) But everyone was too dull to notice ... Then the BTC preminers encouraged by the ignorance created .... "Bipple" in which btc was only ever Loaned into existence . Everyone thought thats pretty good ..... A few year's go by and pretty soon the BTC preminers own all the media , all the political structure , and wield good control over the army , due to control of all the " liquid" of trade . Say you wouldn't do it if you had of thought of it early enough ? Thats a good, logical analogy. I don't think I would. Its against humanism and evolution in my opinion. Every time I embarked on a new invention project I had the benefit of the human race in mind. I always thought that gave me clarity. It is very difficult for creators to get paid now because the USPTO has been lobbied in such a way that the biggest determinant in making money through intellectual property is whether or not you already have money. If you don't have money, you can go through venture capital, but then all kinds of things come into play such as how good you are at marketing, your connections, and your personal character, none of which has anything to do with the quality of your innovation. If you are a talented inventor with no money, you shouldn't be forced to give all royalties to a corporation or build your own business to get paid. Being a good inventor and being a successful entrepreneur aren't related at all. Let someone else build the business. Someone whose niche is building businesses not someone whose niche is inventing. I really believe our current system has made a logical fallacy in thinking that resources means financial resources. The primary resource of capitalism is human capital, including the brainpower of a population. It should be as easy to make money off of the investment of your brain power (exactly what I'm doing when I decide to start a new invention) as it should be to make money off of the investment of money. You make a lot of good points. I spiced things up with rhetoric to try and compel people who feel strongly about these things to support the project. I have other winning inventions too, but I can't make money off of them if I can't get them made through an agreement with a business and most large businesses have adopted a policy of never making these agreements. If I post my inventions on the internet for free, they can get made but I won't get royalties. Thats why I invented this concept. It bothers me that they sit in a closed book where they can't be of any value to the world. I want inventors to be able to post their inventions on the internet in exchange for a credit in a crypto ledger, let someone else make the business, and still have the inventor get paid. |
|
|
|
|
Optimal Strategies / Balanced Range
A balanced range is a set of occurrences with neutral expected value.
Decision making against a balanced range is indifferent.
As a result, a balanced range is game theoretically unexploitable.
Whatever action is taken against a balanced range has neutral expectation.
An unbalanced range is exploitable.
An exploitable strategy is not optimal.
The current American economic climate is unbalanced.
The expected value of an invention that takes place within an organization is higher than that of a similar invention invented outside of an organization as a result of legislation forcing independents to play a cooperative game. (while organizations are able to play a non cooperative game through lobbying to change the rules of the game)
This means the current economic climate is exploitable by providing a non cooperative game for the people playing the game (citizens).
|
|
|
|
|
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ONzcY2a_0w>
advertisement song^^^ to listen to while reading
|
|
|
|
Nemesis' Game Theory The best strategy is to change the rules to your advantage RulesThe object of the game is to have more value than your competitor at the end of the game 2 parties (partyA, partyB) are in direct competition Each party has a message (MA, MB) with respective values (VA, VB) PartyA has a number of constituents NA PartyB has a number of constituents NB Once a constituent has been exposed to a message there is no way of proving the removal of the message from the constituent Competing parties are allowed to pay a competitor's constituents to disclose a message Constituents can disclose a message to a competitor If a message is disclosed, the chance a given constituent disclosed the message is 1/N where N is the number of constituents exposed to that message by the party Constituents make decisions based on the options with the highest expected value governed by the equation: EV = Summation from i=0 to n of (Pr(i) * reward(i)) Strategy: the more constituents a party has, the more likely the party's message will be disclosed |
|
|
|
|
// Getting Familiar with the Concept //
Nemesis is an encryption based proposal for a cipher space hosting corporation backed by the inherent value of useful information (inventions, software, movies, music)
- a new claim specific currency is generated for each data submission, a portion of this currency is transacted to the submitter's wallet, the rest is transacted to public wallet, where it is paid out over time to the proof of storage miners, storing the submitted information
- each data submission is timestamped to prevent forgery (information can be copied but the date cannot be reproduced)
- each submission (claim) can be linked to (cite) a number of previous submissions
- Nemesis has a user interface with two types of advertising space: the first is advertising in a common area, the second is advertising in an information specific area
- advertisers compete for advertising space with bids of the respective currency to the respective wallet with 0 hour contracts, the highest bidder wins
- claim specific currency can be transacted for general use currency at the market price (these are effectively two types of stock: A and B)
- claims (data submissions, new software) can be voted on to elect new source code
heres a few ways of thinking of the Nemesis concept:
1) a combination of bitcoin and pirate bay/megaupload
2) a polymorphic program enacted by voting parties
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9vGMMPM5Lg>
|
|
|
|
|
x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x
:::-:::+:::-:::______ ____ _________ ____ ___ __________ _________ ____ ________ :::-:::+:::-:::
:::-:::+:::-:::| \ | | | ______| | \ | \ | ______| | ______| | | | _____| :::-:::+:::-:::
:::-:::+:::-:::| |\ \ | | | |_____ | \ | \ | |_____ | |______ | | | |_____ :::-:::+:::-:::
:::-:::+:::-:::| | \ \ | | | _____| | |\ \ | |\ \ | _____| |______ | | | |______ | :::-:::+:::-:::
:::-:::+:::-:::| | \ \| | | |______ | | \ \| | \ \ | |______ ______| | | | ______| | :::-:::+:::-:::
:::-:::+:::-:::|___| \_____| |_________| |___| \____| \__\ |_________| |_________| |___| |________| :::-:::+:::-:::
x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x=+=x
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you should be engaged in mining all 3 of Anarcorp's mining networks. Use extra memory to store the claims you like, take advantage of the anonymity/pseudonymity provided and submit your favorite movies/songs/etc, use your extra processing power to perform the traditional mine and help secure Anarcorp's transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
wow this is disgusting.
As an independent inventor I have my fair share of qualms with the patent system and those who attempt to abuse it. I would like to say, it is possible that Feigelson has a provisional patent (a placeholder in line at the patent office) that goes back to December 2010... I would recommend finding prior art before this date to make sure.
On the other hand, his intellectual property will be software or code allowing anyone to make "bit bills," the code will be ripped and stored into the Anarcorp block chain, allowing everyone to use it anonymously, while paying the crafty bugger who ripped the code to Feigelson's precious "bit bills".
His lawyers will send letters to Anarcorp, telling them to take the infringing work down, and Anarcorp won't give a damn because thats Anarcorp's business model... suing Anarcorp would be as difficult as suing Bitcoin, it can't happen
|
|
|
|
|
Yes those amazing investments from Zimbabwe are going to push BTC through the roof!!!
jk lol
Invest in innovation, invest in the world's first cryptographic corporation: Anarcorp
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree and thats the way it should be with bitcoin. However, there is this one system that has 3 mining networks, making it capable of 3 party voting.
|
|
|
|
|
vintagetrex, creator of the first and only crypto anarchist corporation: Anarcorp
Seriously tho, that^ guy was doing his own brand of finance with his own theoretical mining networks
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
