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.
Why re-engineering everything, and eventually create an ad hoc adaptation layer, allowing to reuse apps and OS ?
Theruran, do you remember my justification of why everything should be re-engineered ?
Taking these issue with the prism of "FOSS" only approach is clearly not enough. FOSS is not a goal, it's a mean.
@zig @emsenn @theruran But FOSS was a mean to reach certain goals. We both know that these goals were almost never reached. Maybe they were a little bit more in the past, but in the recent years, we clearly realized it was a global failure, and that some cyber-powers that be have been very clever at militarizing things, with clever strategies, preventing the initial goals to be met.
Firgetting the goals means loosing what direction to follow, how, and
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.
@theruran Fully agree. Different angles are of course welcome !
Zig : There are many ways to reformulate these goals we have been working at : All the following declarations are reformulations of what I think is being the same goals.
But before listing them to you, I wanted to tell you something which has been one of the results of my own studies on crypto-anarchism, I will not verbose the whole demonstration this time, but here it
As I am advocating for crypto-anarchism, I've been also studying crypto-libertarianism, and my theorical studies on these topics, defining and studying what I call "cyber-power and cyber-rights models" of any digital system, studying all known technological layers architectures, has lead me to understanding, and later demonstrating, that there is no crypto-anarchism in the current cyberspace architecture's paradigm,
with current architectures of all know technological layers composing the digital systems, "computers as we know them", or microprocessor based systems, composing such meta or complex digital system called internet, i.e the current cyberspace architecture.
All what we thought being crypto-anarchist efforts, in the current technological paradigm, always lead and serv at best radical crypto-libertarianism, and at worse, some
kind of smart crypto-fascism, with cyber-imperialism. The crypto-libertarian scene being mainly composed of these too big families.
From here, I have been able to refine my studies to caracterize what would lead, architecturaly, in all known technological layers, to reach true forms of crypto-anarchism.
The end results of this quest were very surprizing. I was the first both surprized, but also disapointed at first sight,
because I had demonstrated that all known technological layers architectures should be completely reworked from scratch, except maybe the top level ones in some few specific implementations, but more importantly, that reaching these crypto-anarchist goal and keeping them alive over time, so that they could not be canceled, instrumentalized, denatured, deviated, corrupted, over time, was implying a full dynamic process implying
our ability to fully restructure, modify, to the maximum extend possible and understandable, the whole architectures of all known technological layers composing this new digital architectural paradigm.
Statism of everything, the weight of architectural legacy, understanding that up to known standardization processes had to be completely reworked, revolutionnized, and that even them should be something fully dynamic.
And that current standardizations processes, including the way those standardization were architectures and working, was definitely not adapted to the kind of dynamism required to be able to maintain such digital systems goals meet over time.
I had just finaly integrated that all what we consider or demonstrate as true or valid was actually valid for a very small amount of time,
and that the efficiency of all known architectural choices to meet specific goals and/or constraints was therefore themselves very limited over time, as that in order to have resilience in reaching these goals over long period of time was implying the ability, the agility, to rework or fully recompose constantly over time all the architectures of all known technological layers composing such digital paradigm.
It's the theory of chaos applied to digital systems. A small change of a tiny thing, or simply time passing by and bringing new discoveries in mathematicscor physics could have huge repercutions of the overall actual final goals of digital systems.
Therefore, the statism and addition mode that mainly caracterize the way we have been engineering digital systems so far would always lead to cyber-chaos.
That being said, the different angles we have been trying to reformulate our goals were :
• Demilitarizing and keeping demilitarized over time digital technologies and systems.
• Controling and enforcing in the present and over time what we call "cyber-powers and cyber-rights" models, in a garanteed and proven way.
• Controlling and enforcing in the present and over time the whole data flow rules set in digital systems.
• Fighting and stopping cyber-chaos in the present and over time, which was also reformulated with another concept that was introduced, the digital systems paradoxal nature with the meatspace. The paradoxal nature being of a digital system being defined as the impossibility to fight simultaneously chaos in the meatspace, and cyber-chaos in a given cybersoace architecture or a given digital system architecture.
All these sentences I listed are somehow normaly strictly equivalent, but expressed with a different view angle.
The more angles we have to express them, the better we are able to understand or visualize the dynamics at play at all levels.
All what I have told you may sound abstract as it is new, and there are a lot of definitions missing in my post, but Theruran who has been participating to these discussions for some time
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.
@mouloud Hello. Welcome to these informal crypto-anachist related talks and think tank.
Ecology is one of the key "constraints" we have for long added into our work. It has many implications, in many technical fields we work on, on manufacturing processes, on the fight against programmed obsolescence, on electrical consumption, matters (rare ir not) usage, repartition, and ultimately on economical models.
In your post, you have mentionned 3 issues / questions :
• Are money / crypto-currencies / functionnalities offered by blockchains, relevant for ecology in a crypto-anarcho-communism paradigm ?
• Blockchain electrical consumption not sustainable.
• Money can alter the benefits of carbon emussion accounting market logic.
These are all very interesting topics.
Here is my point regarding them :
@mouloud In the current digital technologies paradigm and cyberspace architecture paradigm, the most critical technological layers, the lowest ones, are completely fixed, non mutable. They are these integrated circuits, microprocessors, hardware, and network protocols. Because they are fixed and cannot be changed, many things we want to implement therefore require ugly implementations, and cannot be secured as we would like or at a cost that is huge ecologicaly. @zig @theruran @emsenn
@mouloud But these limitations, due to statism, are also the consequence of selfish capitalistic or cyber-geopolitical interests.
NSA with USA want to cyber-dominate the world and have cyber-imperialism rooted to their ways.
Bill Gates doesn't want to loose its position on the market and has interests to keep the current statut quo, even if I am sure he perfectly understands the work we are doing.
Bezos doesn't want to change the statut quo etiher because his Amazon
economical model mainly relies on consumerism and programmed obsolescence.
In other words, our radical critics of the current system, that is completely blocked, fixed, is the consequence of selfish capitalistic interests that prevent digital systems from evolving in the way we recommand.
This is why they have somehow enforced, for example, this stupid standardization model that cannot handle dynamism as our approach would require.
This is why, alos, they have voluntarily compartimented scientific matters in the digital technologies, as hardware and software, protocols, so that it would prevent folks to think out of the box of radicaly new architectures and system design methodologies. They have educated us in a biaised way so that any major change to these architectures, in all known technological layers, especially lowers ones, would be almost impossible to do.
We have already talked and debated all these aspects, and it is clear that there are underlying strategies from them to prevent any change of architectures where it matters most. They have formatted us so that it would be almost impossible for us to conceive such architectural revolutions. They have preserved their selfish interest, first, at all cost. That's all.
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
@zig @emsenn @theruran The new classes of exploits depend on the behaviors of micro-architectural features that transcend instruction sets: the fact that cache line refill takes time to complete, or speculation across privilege boundaries, and so on. RISC-V, ARM, x86, etc. doesn't matter. Most are susceptable to most exploits, even if we don't know how just yet.
@zig @theruran I especially mention this because RISC-V is only an instruction set spec. Individual implementations, such as Rocket, BOOM, or my own KCP53000 will have varying degrees of susceptability to things like Spectre, et. al.
My core is built like a 6502, so it has no cache, pipelines, nor out of order execution to speculate with; it's very resistant to exploits. BOOM has all of these features *and* is superscalar; it'll be exploitable with enough effort.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!