There is no place for feats, beauty and “heroic deeds” in the modern world

[oventu]

This post is an article of a series of articles about the "The new paradigm" that will be gradually placed on the site. There are few published posts, you can find at the end of this article.

What is your position about the title statement?
What is the relation between this statement and Bitcoin?

I personally believe nowadays there is no place for feat and beauty and heroic deeds. In other word they are “scarce”. I assume you believe in the fact that “heroic deeds are scarce” too.
Isn't “scarcity” one of the features for which the Bitcoin – as a kind of money- is valuable? Obviously scarcity is not the only feature of Bitcoin. There are a few other important factors that we will come back to them later. But for now we will investigate on “scarcity” and talk about a proposal for a new money/monetary system as a one of principles of "The new paradigm".

So what is scarcity?
- the state of being scarce or in short supply; shortage.
- a situation in which something is “not easy to find” or get.
- when the means to fulfill ends are “limited” and “costly”.

So, can we use “heroic deeds” and theirs scarcity as a feature for a kind of alternative “money” system? I think so.
Let me depict that system. Imagine we have a decentralized monetary mechanism (software) and this monetary system daily creates X amount of an imaginary money. This X is fixed, or even better it halving every Y years.
So far we have daily X new coins minting which must be divided between people by somewhat mechanism.
Since we all agree on the fact that heroic deeds are scarce, and it is hard to accomplish a heroic deed, and it impose “external costs” somehow, we can use it as an indicator of competence. Thus we can divide these coins between people who accomplished a heroic deed in proportion of her/his deeds. A simple and straightforward mechanism. More heroic deeds, more appreciate and coins.
The obvious challenge for this system will be; “who” and “how”, “measure” and “evaluate” the “quantity” and “quality” of a potential “heroic deed” of a person, organization or corporation? I addressed this dilemma and its proper resolver game theory in another post, you can find it in “Can we imagine an alternative monetary model to recover our current economic fails?” linked in bottom.
But for now just imagine we have this perfect (or almost perfect) mechanism that can evaluate your deed and returns a number as “heroic” index.
It seems that in order to continue, we need to define what is “heroic deeds” more precisely! Regardless of the eminent and glorious interpretation of the “heroic deeds”, if we “temporarily” reduce the interpretation of the heroic deed to “altruism”, we can make it more tangible, and decrease its scarcity as well. Therefore not only Hercules, but also we -ordinary people- can do some heroic deeds or at least some great deeds. So more people have chance to be appreciated by system in both psychic and materialistic way.
By this new definition of “heroic deed” as a kind of great deed, it can be interpreted like; how much useful is your job for your society, or even better how much useful is your job for whole glob – since we have just one earth and we have to consider the fact that “someone's benefit can be someone else' lost”-. People all around the world can/will join this system in order to help our unique shelter and get benefit of this great job.
More great jobs done by more people results less coins for each participator, but who cares? If the goal is more prosperity for “all” people. Once the whole world be saturated by great jobs of all people from all nations intended for help each other, the human kind will be the most prosper than ever.
Today is the time to start to realize it, since we have the necessary and sufficient tools in our hands. Bitcoin couldn’t accomplish its promises because of its shortcoming in design, mechanisms and its proper game theory. It was the first proof of separation of “money” and “state”, and it doesn't mean it must be the latest one. We are about to make a better one, more promising and more maturate. I am not talking about another sh**t coin at all. “The new paradigm” literally is about new paradigm in thinking about people, their interactions and their value system (moral, cultural, economical and political). We are slave of our fears and stress.
We live in an angry, dangerous, hostile, threatening world, because we afraid. We need to free ourselves. We are afraid of the future. We are afraid of the governments. Even governments are nothing but a group of frightened people. Some of them are corrupted persons as well. But the main point is the “fear”. Entire our systems works based on the fear. We are eating each other because of fear of being eaten. The problem is if one of the evils (supposing a few evils governing the world) dreamed to dismiss bad doing and start to good doing, immediately the other bad doers swallow him. As a result, the world is a place of constant conflict and fight between the forces of evil and worst evils. Our world needs “heroic deeds” in order to convince them or force them to stop being evil. We have to get up from the ground. The strategy will be:

1. reduce the cost of heroic deeds and engage more and more good people in it.
2. increase the chance of resonant, amplitude and synergy the goodwill of all people, all around the world.

“The new paradigm” is a plan to help human prosperity by using new technologies (mainly cryptography and blockchain, alongside other useful tools).

Most of readers, will not read this article till end because the wrong direction of technology ruined our precious skills we achieved by centuries of evolution, thus we just see the short posts. Some will reach this point and most of them will not take this plan seriously. All is ok.
Some think about the “will” of changing instead of “wish” of changing. They will participate in “The new paradigm” and help the whole our beautiful planet.
I gradually add more technical and non technical posts to explain different aspect of the proposal.

Hu


Related posts:

Can we imagine an alternative monetary model to recover our current economic fails?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5305584.0

Redefining “exchange rates” to “excellence indice” in “democracy term”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0

[1714759885]

1714759885

[1714759885]

1714759885

[1714759885]

1714759885

[franky1]

i always like to play around with peoples game theory of their alts, find the flaws and find solutions

so here is a flaw.
rewarding 'deeds' with a daily allowance is just going to fill blockchains up with millions of airdrops daily.
paying out all the daily allowances.
EG

Each cycle (12 hours) the software issues nearly 45 million new coins, and right after minting, the software divides coins between system participators.

lets imagine there are 45mill participants.
every 12 hours =45mill transactions..
thats alot of bloat data to kickout in one go.

heck even if you spread it over 10minute intervals over the 12 hours
=625,000 transactions every 10 minutes.
thats still 141mb of data a block(625k at 226byte)

sorry but thats still alot of bloat every 10 minutes

another issue is then spending
eg if someone deserves 1 coin per 12 hour. for 100 days.
thats 200 transactions of 1 coin (every 12 hours for 100days) and then when trying to spend them having 200 inputs tagged to a transaction. which would be even more bloat because now tx's aint 226byte but instead 30kb tx, to spend all the 200 coins.

so here is a thought.
have a unix time of when the reward is gifted and when the reward should end. and a value index.
EG instead of this person should get 1 coin per 12 hours and make 200 transactions of that.

set a start time of 0:00 january 10th and an end date of 12:00 april 21st. and an index of 1coin
thus the system can work out thats 200 'slots of 1 coin= 200coin reward when time elapses

that way if someone doesnt spend for 20 days they wont see any transactions. but when its time to spend the system knows its day 20. meaning it knows the person deserves 40coins(20x2) and so by just sending a tx the system 'creates' the 40 coins or rewards the person with 40coin spend. and sets the 'change' utxo as only having 80days left

..
i know it changes the game play of your altcoin. but you have to consider your bloat of sending out 45million tx's per 12 hours if there were 45million users.

[franky1]

i read your other topic here is another flaw
about evaluating someone deserves 5 hours at level 6(30). but if you have say 8million people deserving 30coin every 12 hours. thats more then the 45mill 12hour limit


the tweak to the evaluation of payment would be that instead of saying he deserves 5 hours of level 6(30) it would be he deserves 1 coin per 12 hour slot for 15 days
where he can accumilate other projects. where you can either extend the end unixtime or the daily amount

this also helps by not saying someone deserves 30 today. and have 8million people deserving 30(240mill) that day which then is more then the 90mill daily creation you limited to(2x45m). but instead you can stagger the payment over time so that 240mill is spread over 24 days and is only a spend of 10mill out of the daily 90mill creation. all without having the bloat of millions of transactions per 12 hours
because they only claim it when they want to spend it

[oventu]

i always like to play around with peoples game theory of their alts, find the flaws and find solutions

Thanks franky1,
lets review points one by one.
Do you agree the “heroic deed” is really scarce? It is hard to accomplish and it has cost. So it is totally different from “air drop”. Everyone in order to be a participator and get paid, needs at least one hour helping project. To having 45 million participator we need 45 million hour of contribution. It is too big number. Can we achieve this level of participation in one year? Absolutely no. we need at least 10 years to hit 45 million real participator in project.

- What kind of participate, people can do in this software (system or community)?
There is no limit for activities, but intentionally we start from “develop” and over time expand it to wider range of activities.
The “develop” refers to every activities we need to develop our system and its proper community. Some of them are software developing, test, design, documentation, manuals, translate, tutorials and educational stuff, etc...
These kind of activities can be measured and evaluate fairly.

We definitely will solve this problem by 45 million hours of participation of supporters (people in different skills) in next 10 years. This is not our today problem at all.

I still have to write more technical document to explain what exactly happened under the hood. But for now since you emphasize on blockchain space “bloat”, here I want to tell two other facts that even worsen the situation

1. My proposed data structure for recording data is a Directed acyclic graph (DAG) and not a linked-list like Bitcoin! In this design each node can publish unlimited blocks regardless of that famous Bitcoin 10 minute gap between blocks!
2. My proposed DAG not only records transactions, but also records text documents(e.g. decentralized weblogs, wiki, forums), media files (e.g. decentralized podcasts and video channels) and literally every kind of files, all in one DAG.
Considering these 2 features the block-graph will bloat even more rapidly. What is the solution?
First of all, users have to pay for recording data on blockgraph, and nodes get this money in their wallet. The cost of different data type are different. e.g. transaction, wiki page, weblog post or video stream have different prices.
Even if users pay for record data, the blockgraph will bloat fast, but there are solutions too. We can solve it by simple “Supply and demand“ of free market rule.
In my design, data is divided in 2 classes.
A: Essential data
B: optional data
The essential data are the core data about transactions which are compressed and small. They are necessary and each node has to record and maintain these data (either full history of transactions or pruned version is ok), whereas the optional data are cumbersome and each node may record it or not.
BTW if a given node needs some optional data which doesn’t exist on local machine, it can purchase this information from other nodes. The mentioned node can also sell this data to other nodes -if there is a demand for it-. In such a mechanism some nodes may prefer to act like a Long Term Data Backers and making a passive income by selling data, and the others just maintain the necessary data.
It is a free market for data. As we know, the storage nowadays are very cheap, so most probably major percent of nodes prefer to store entire blockgraph (including transactions, wiki pages, weblog posts, even video podcasts) on their passive hard drives and earn money by selling those information.
At this point we can also use CDNs or better calling BDNs to provide fast, reliable, distributed storage over the glob. It will be easy to write a plugin to connect our nodes to any commercial CDN company and vice versa.
Recorded data can have expire date as well, so the recorder may renew the data rent regularly.
Nodes can manage what kind of data to be maintained or not. In addition, some customized application can be implemented as a plugin working on top of our software via APIs. So this app will use blockgraph space only as a proof of existence and they share data in between in form of big blocks of data. For example a supply chain software can be a plugin to software. So this software(plugin) will be installed by business partners and they just record the hash of goods allocations or stats on block chain and the real big data will be transferred via FTP or what else between partners.
At the end of the day the nodes use UBL either for trade real goods and services in smart contracts or for trade recorded data (either encrypted or not) on blockgraphs.
These are just a few naive and today’s practical solutions that we already knew. Definitely we improve and innovate far more solutions to use and manage these mass data as well.

Another point about “coinbase block”. Every 12 hours one coinbase block will be creates by software. It contains “only” information about all participators dividend. Since the system is decentralized and all nodes have same information, rationally all nodes can create same coinbase block. There is no block reward in this system too. So we actually do not need to even broadcast the coinbase block. Each node standalone and independently creates the coinbase block and adds it to DAG. The coinbase block hash will be same for entire network, and outcome for all nodes will be same transactions records and same final balance. The details about this mechanism needs another document which I’ll post ASAP.

The tweak to the evaluation of payment…

Thanks for your “active participation” and not just virtue buzz. Indeed I can say now you are doing kinda “heroic deed”, since the first mission of the system is to be survived and improve itself. I guess you dedicated around 30 minutes up to 1 hour to read my posts and write your notes, so you may now re-estimate the fact that how much hard will be having 45 million hours of participating in system (either technical or non technical) and how long will take this process.
BTW, In my design we spend whole output of an account in one transaction and return back remained amount to a new account (like Bitcoin). In this system there is not a balance for an account. Each address can have Unused outputs(UTXO) or used outputs, Same as Bitcoin. Therefor the “slot” solution won’t work for this system. Meanwhile because of the way system designed, we can have vary different type of transaction simultaneously in a block. That is, while we have M of N multi-signature transaction as a common classic transaction in system, we can have IoT-friendly transactions for micro payments as well as MimbleWimble format transactions and also “in-jar” transactions for more privacy, all in one block. Up to the case (In sense of functionality, transaction fee, privacy and security level, and...), users can chose which type of transactions they want to do. Some of them will be really small and light weight transactions while the other are longer, more secure and costs more. I’ll explain more technical details on this subject step by step.

...more then the 90mill daily creation you limited to(2x45m)…

Again I have to post a separate article only for covering coinbase mechanism, but for now I should admit the system is designed to support entire world population (currently 8 billion) and not 45 million. If you have technical skills (either mathematical, statistical or software development) let me know. I will send you more draft detailed technical document (or even some code snippets) in advance.

[oventu]

Alexander via email:

The most difficult problem is how to distribute coins, and I think your
evaluation mechanism will end up as a ponzi scheme or some mechanism where
I need to pay a fee to some initial, powerful group of people that hold the
most coins, otherwise I will not get my money for my good deeds. I think
the social system will look like feudalism as initial contributors have
more of a say.

Similar to all the middle-men we have today (banks, politicians,
consultants helping with regulation), there will be lots of fees to be paid
to be able to compete, and the people controlling access to good deeds will
be profiting.

Democracy has the advantage that you can actually count the people and each
person can get a share. Capitalism already has a pretty good system for
benefiting those that provide value without the problem of ganging up on
the small man and extorting a fee for participation like I fear your
proposal will lead to.

[oventu]

The most difficult problem is how to distribute coins, and I think your
evaluation mechanism will end up as a ponzi scheme or some mechanism where
I need to pay a fee to some initial, powerful group of people that hold the
most coins, otherwise I will not get my money for my good deeds.

It is quiet possible and I can not guarantee this will not happened at all. In order to nullify this scenario, I proposed multi communities system. What happened if we have thousands of different community with different mechanisms for governing, money distribution, etc?
No one is forced to join to or leave a particular community. People can join to communities that they trust. As soon as smelling “ponzi” or other scams, people will leave it and devaluate their money.
Here I explained it in more details. Redefining “exchange rates” to “excellence indice” in “democracy term”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0
BTW, there must exist one particular community. The initialization community which I establish it. The first mission of this community is developing that software. A free and open source software that provides our needs. And here is the place that no one can cheat or scam. Because it is pretty clear what are the goals. After releasing the software this first community can disappear or can keep continue. It is up to community members and the community achievements.

I think the social system will look like feudalism as initial contributors have more of a say.

Partially true, and that’s why systems are improving and extending. First adapters/contributors burden more risks, so they most be rewarded more. Without these incentives early movers won't exist, and without early movers late movers won’t exist.
A moral thought is how much “more” rewards is fair? While the answer about this question is different from person to person (and depends on her/his favorite ideology), I prefer to follow different road.
I implicitly admit this risk reward must not be too much, meanwhile I suggest to “reduce the risk amount to near zero” and “encourage more and more people join to this adventure”, thus more people will be rewarded. The outcome of this strategies won’t be a feudalism, oligarchy or clans that control system, instead will be collection of thousands different social groups which are formed based on some common interest. They divide power in between. These social groups are participating in governing the system but they have no hierarchical structures.  It will be like two dimensional shapes (different by size and color) that may have something in common or some are totally separated islands and non of them has superiority on the others.
This is my “prediction” and “will” for the first community that I establish. It may/may not happen, But as I told before the first mission is developing the free software and preparing the infrastructure. Later, based on this infrastructure, others can make more excellent communities and monies.
This free and open source software must work totally decentralized, nu-censorable and un-stoppable. Only then we can hope the emergence of great cryptocurrencies that address Bitcoin’s shortcomings.

Similar to all the middle-men we have today (banks, politicians, consultants helping with regulation), there will be lots of fees to be paid to be able to compete, and the people controlling access to good deeds will be profiting.

There will no group that controlling access to good will, instead there will be community members that following community principles (whatever is), and as long as community follow its rules and core values, the community grows and more happy population has.

Capitalism already has a pretty good system for benefiting those that provide value…

That’s not true! The current mechanisms and incentives are flawed. This system main rule is produce just for benefit and not because of someone’s need, and allocate it to whom pays more and not who needs more! And even this simple “free market” rule is not respected by the governments - either US, Russia or China-.
My proposal is a remedy for this situation, where in first place, the software is “product”, “means of production” and “allocation” simultaneously. The goal is communities in which community members decide “what to produce”, “how to produce”, “for whom to produce”, and “why”.
In first step we ship our software, and later we can produce almost everything in a really decentralized manner. I hope and strive for at least one of those thousands future communities realize this system.

problem of ganging up on the small man and extorting a fee for participation like I fear your proposal will lead to.

Sorry but I didn’t understand this part.

[oventu]

Anonymous via email:

I think that currently there is a place for feat and beauty and heroic deeds, perhaps even more than before. We now have social media, and if you save a stray kitten and share it on the internet, your photo could be on news websites, shared across the internet with millions, you could be invited to a TV show or even got some donations from others. People literally get paid for playing games and being entertaining. Or even better, people literally get paid simply because they are beautiful, I mean, the female twitch streamers or youtubers who have a lot of followers and income even though they are not a good player. People literally pay them money so that they will read their names on live stream.

The current financial system is actually based on the concept of individual's "pleasure/profit" from the action/service/product. I might be paying for some computer games simply because I like playing games and someone else might be paying for beauty products simply because they would want to look more beautiful. Now when it comes to the issuance, who is going to define the rules for getting paid and who is going to set the events classified as "beneficial for society"? I could say that I am playing games, entertaining depressive people so I should get some portion from that issued coins and someone else might say they helped a poor person so they should get paid. The issue here is that if I am the lawmaker, I would want to put "art/entertainment" under "should get paid" class, however, someone who has no interest in art/entertainment might say "nope, they shouldn't get paid". That's why every government have different rules and different social structure and laws. In US people get paid $600 because there is covid, and in some other country they don't. In Germany people get paid some money if they have a child (under the name of child support, paid by government) and in some countries no one gets paid for that. And in china, people are fined for that.

That's why, it is really hard to determine what should be considered as a feat, beauty or heroic or socially beneficial and that's why philosophers have been arguing for many many years. One approach here could be "find a peaceful religion, take all the good deeds from that and move on with it", or gather around and define 10.000 different events initially, ask people on the street what they think about each of these events/tasks and how would they rate them. But again, either we would be taking the word of some people who lived in the past, by the rules of past or some random people who are not even going to be part of our community.

So the only option left is that founders of community can agree on the good deeds initially, later make additions or changes to them. But again, this would give leverage to the founders. The response to that would be "no one joins their community then", so the founders have to agree on a fair, and acceptable list for potential future members. But again, this would be unfair to the founders because they have done all the initial hard work and they get no extra credit? It is really a grey area, and a matter of philosophy at this point.

[oventu]

I think that currently there is a place for feat and beauty and heroic deeds, perhaps even more than before. We now have social media, and if you save a stray kitten and share it on the internet, your photo could be on news websites, shared across the internet with millions, you could be invited to a TV show or even got some donations from others. People literally get paid for playing games and being entertaining. Or even better, people literally get paid simply because they are beautiful, I mean, the female twitch streamers or youtubers who have a lot of followers and income even though they are not a good player. People literally pay them money so that they will read their names on live stream.

I think we should define a criteria for “heroic deeds” or “great deeds” to be able to continue on this subject.
Indeed I am using the Hannah Arendt's definition, since we are all modernism’s slaves.
You can find here more about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Condition

[zanezane]

Well, the boomer generations killed the aspirations of the next generation by giving them a hard time finding a job, not profiting from their dream, putting money as if it is the lifeline of every person and perpetuating the dumb archaic ideals. The boomer generation were envious that we will have a good life because we haven't experience shellshock from the wars of yesterday. They even destroyed the idea of heroic deeds by calling them crazy vigilantes, they even created a medal that the only time you will be affirmed as a hero is when you are dead or paralyzed for saving the people.

[gordogordao]

Well, the boomer generations killed the aspirations of the next generation by giving them a hard time finding a job, not profiting from their dream, putting money as if it is the lifeline of every person and perpetuating the dumb archaic ideals. The boomer generation were envious that we will have a good life because we haven't experience shellshock from the wars of yesterday. They even destroyed the idea of heroic deeds by calling them crazy vigilantes, they even created a medal that the only time you will be affirmed as a hero is when you are dead or paralyzed for saving the people.

The Boomer generation continue to believe in the state as a solver of all.