Restarting from scratch the whole computer stack is not possible in a foreseeable future. The thing is even if at the processor level things are broken (heartbleed, et al) not all processors are broken (RISC-V?).
I can not imagine things to change overnight, even if **some** people size the means of production. Like you wrote the whole (software) system is built around domination. Sizing production facilities will, in my opinion, change the people in power, not the system. In particular, it will not change people's minds Earth-wide.
FOSS was a step in a good direction. Because the system is the way it is. FOSS has put another oligarchy in power and created new monsters, but those kind of monsters existed before FOSS. The good thing about FOSS is that it exhibits, once more, that **together we are stronger**.
One can swap a processor with another, given enough work.
One needs to give some existence to an alternative system, and that should be done at every level of the stack.
edit: that should be done at *every* level of the stack
The lowest and medium layers must be fully re-engineered, let's say up to kernel level, and eventually we can easily adapt existing OS on top of this.
You know why I think like this. Hope you did not changed your mind.
This is why I have asked you to participate to the definition of crypto-anarchism & demilitarized technologies. It's a way to adjust goals and clearly remember them, allowing several strategies to reach them to naturaly emerge. Theruran, we've both done a lot of good work toguether with our informal chat on several matters.
We should deepen all this.
yes, we need a decentralized economic system to support the decentralized information system development and stewardship. to the extent possible, these should be designed together.
I sent you a DM earlier about definitions. Lemme know and we can iterate on some things.
can testify that we did a nice work, a conceptual and theorical one, leading to what we can call crypto-anarchism situationism, that diffetenciate itself from classical crypto-anarchism, by the enphasis put both on architectures of all known technological layers and time.
I introduce to you @mouloud who he is more aware of philosophical implication and sometime technical details of the actual the (sort of) system we have been working on.
I forward a very **serious** question from him, since the convo was not federated on his instance yet:
What is the point of money or crypto-money?
My question is indeed what is the point of money whether it is crypto or not. I know a little about bitcoin (proof-of-work: evil for climate so far) and Ethereum (algorithmic contracts, good idea as far as I understand, but still PoW).
The idea of a single source of thruth is neat, and would be useful to avoid lies or fakes in a distributed system.
Money used to be used a means of exchange something of value for the rich that is gold. That by itself shows how dubious money seems, because gold is almost useless in practice. Nowadays, money has mostly only virtual value, because people trust the system, and the people in power somewhat trust each other and they agree through the market on exchange rates.
Anyway, take of instance "carbon budget" of countries, it can be exchanged for money. And they that "carbon budget" can be used to produce new products.
With the money, a low carbon footprint country can bargain to buy some products.
During this exchange the low carbon footprint might have lost value because conditions of the exchanges and the dubbed added value to the products.
It is far fetched, but to me their should be no money, hence probably no crypto-money.
A single-source of truth is helpful, but I am not convinced it is necessary, and is certainly not necessary in a fully cooperative system with no evil.
Thanks including me in the convo.
They have locked down our ability to change most of the architectures because they know that cyber-powers and cyber-rights models are exclusively the consequence of those architectures, and they want to impose us their own models, by forcing us to play with their architectures, protecting their models, and therefore, their political and failing economical system, in essence, capitalism. Doing so, they are preventing a crypto-anarcho-communist revolution.
Here it is.
But in order to implement this at world scale, we obviously need alternative cyberspace architecture that offer the equivalent of blockchain functionnalities in its core, as a service, scalable to billions transactions per second.
And this cannot be clearly achieved with the current cyberspace architecture design and paradigm, not with current digital system architectural paradigm.
In such paradigm, every citizen would have a kind of multi-wallet attached to him, beside standard wallet and bank accounts, to count those credit left for him on those hundreds of "criterias", and he would not have the possibility to "recharge" a specific line with monay. In order to buy a good or service, citizen would be obliged to have credit left on all fields, beside having the money to buy the good or service. This incentively would force citizen to @zig @theruran @emsenn
By the way, homomorphic cryptography would be very usefull to help create a cyberspace architecture allowing to easily handle for each citizen the multi-wallet holding those hundred "credit lines".
It's typically a functionnality that would require to be provided at cyberspace architecture level in order to be scalable. And this is not possible with the current cyberspace architecture paradigm.
Cybernetics of trust cannot be achieved with current cyberspace.
@mouloud This kind of logic I presented you here is anarcho-communist compatible. It would lead to a money less and class less society, without fascism, just with incentive logic, but it can work only if it is incorruptible.
This is because such functionnalities, scalable, real time, can only be achieved with revolutionnary alternative cyberspace architectures, enabling such cybernetics of trust, that we advocate, as crypto-anarchist situationist, to change of
What is hard, and Theruran knows it, is how to ensure those fundamental blocks cannot be "hacked", and how to garantee they will really work as expected with no treachery possible. This is indeed what we are working on. Globaly, this is called cybernetics of trust, but it is also fulyl demilitarized as it is not hackable, there are no backdoors possible of any kind.
Yes, and about code - that is the kind of knee-jerk reaction that people have nowadays and it prevents everyone else from understanding what they are doing. Documentation of every kind is key, unlike the prevailing software engineering practices that lack rigorous conceptual design development phase. Visual documentation is also of course important, and to maximize the utility it must also be an executable architecture model.
Well - if we can theorize another way of achieving an equivalent security model and utility to Bitcoin without the energy consumption, that would be incredible. As far as I know, there is no alternative yet conceived and the energy consumption keeps the system honest. And unfortunately, no one I have met in the fediverse thus far is qualified to theorize such an alternative. There are real engineering constraints and trade-offs that are glossed over in these kinds of discussion, and I doubt that billions of transactions per second is achievable due to laws of physics. It is my expectation that such a decentralized and trustworthy cybersystem will be slower in many ways but is nevertheless fast enough for us to get real work done and not just mindlessly consume Big Media.
P.S. come to hackers.town - we got 10,000-character toots!
@theruran can be achieved when integrating this natively inti the cyberspace architecture itself. Time will tell. I'm still thinking about this and working on it, exploring possible native implementations a lot. I tend to mix DHT concept with PoW in a native mesh cyberspace architecture to do it for the moment, but I am exploring other possibilities too. Will tell if I find something promizing. @mouloud @zig
@theruran things become fun.... And new possibilities for simpler algorithms, and with less energy consumption than classical PoW become possible, to enable many of the current blockchains functionnalities, at rate reaching billions of operations per second. But the technological digital paradigm is radicaly different, we're talking about fully synchronous time sensitive digital systems and cyberspace architectures. So you see, I'm confident. @mouloud @zig
@theruran In such paradigm, simpler protocols, with fully distributed small mining capabilities in each node of a truly mesh cyberspace architecture, and within each microprocessor, can bring the time sensitive trust chain needed to replace the current blockchain implementation, with its energyvore mining. That's what I curently think.
A bunch of technomancers in the fediverse. Keep it fairly clean please. This arcology is for all who wash up upon it's digital shore.