Re: operating-system or co-operating systems? Re: Coherent (modern) definition of RWW

On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 10:15, Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:

> Quoting Henry Story (2021-05-19 09:55:26)
> > Synchronised clocks are an indeed important part in all read-write web
> > protocols for HTTP from WebDav, Atom to LDP.
> > So that is already how the RWW works.
> >
> > The danger of thinking in terms of Operating Systems is that it leads
> > you to the dreams of global consensus.
> > But as we see with bitcoin, the selection of the next state of the
> > bitcoin state machine, is extremely costly in energy. As a result over
> > 50% of bitcoin mining is now going on in China, and is very far from
> > the decentralised dream people had 10 years ago.
> >
> > Furthermore not every application lends itself well to such a state
> > machine, It can work for purely mathematically based systems like
> > currencies where the whole state can be verified by everyone, but it
> > gets a lot more complicated for empirical statements, where semantics
> > becomes important. I wrote some thoughts on that up here:
> >
> >
> https://medium.com/cybersoton/identity-as-a-graph-or-a-chain-f15940beec81
> >
> > The blockchain is distributed but not decentralised: it requires one
> > view of the truth.
> >
> > In democracies we need to take into account the multi-perspectival
> > nature of reality.
> > There may be one truth - as an ideal - but that can only be attained
> > by discussions among incompatible, often contradictory views of
> > reality. That is why a multi-agent system is the right place to start
> > thinking about these things. Local consensus first, global consensus
> > later, perhaps and only if needed.
>
> Yes!
>
> Even if Safenet is not the solution, their problem description might be
> helpful: https://safenetwork.tech/faq/#what-is-close-group-consensus


There's quite a few approaches to consensus:

https://tokens-economy.gitbook.io/consensus/blockchain-consensus-encyclopedia-infographic

And I'm sure that research will increase over time

It's important that any time oriented consensus system operates in the
spirit of royalty free protocols

Far too often founders will allocate millions or sometimes billions of
dollars of tokens to themselves, in order to 'fund the protocol' work.  The
so-called 'premine' model leads to perverse incentives where you are more
incentivized to speculate with tokens, and make outlandish promises than to
actually build things

This should be viewed as different from creating a token to fund work on
apps or projects etc.  That's in essence is the model of public companies,
too.  No issue with this, just that we should not have royalties, or taxes
at the protocol level -- this rules out many block chain -- we can of
course make our own block chain for the RWW, or make one as a side chain,
the technology to do so will become increasingly accessible


>
>
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private