Throwing this idea up for grabs: should we create an ID for machines you own that want to output their (raw) data streams. Maybe an ID is not the right way to go, or maybe it is? Your ideas?
Mostly I want to put forward the idea we should acknowledge from the start that the internet no longer belongs to just human beings. It also belongs to machines.
This can go from industrial maintenance, think IBM or recently GE, all the way to Google buying Nest thermostats to service electricity companies - so they can turn down your heater/AC at peak moments.
The privacy of machines is equally important, because it is linked to the privacy of humans or organisations. I want a Nest thermostat, but I donât want any company, especially not Google putting a remote recording sensor in my house.
For end-users this discussion also extends to biometric devices. Yes, I want a smart textile to record my vital functions all day long. But no, I donât want advertisement companies to buy this data to know when and where Iâm excited.
I reckon right about the time the spooks receive their new âDavid Irvine Editionâ dart boards, the scientists, engineers and mathematicians of this world might grow a pair and consider, how one man on a yacht with a vision, could have come up with SAFEnet
David Irvine: People talk about AI as building larger smarter computers (IBM Watson etc.). My conjecture is that itâs not a large thing you build, it should be like ants. Lots of very small things with very few rules that are easily followed.
Iâm thinking that nothing less than the SAFE cyber brain, can re-engineer the world. That task would be made so much easier, if the debt based monetary system was re-engineered first.
There is a real groundswell of people trying to do just that, but it might take another crappy centrally planned system (IMF/World Bank) before we can break freeâŚbut maybe only 10 years this time.
These centrally managed money systems need to be starved to death i.e they rely on ordinary people going into long term debt. If value based alternatives can be built on SAFE, that are just better, fairerâŚat the least, it shows there is a better way.
Currently a 30 year mortgage is a magicians trick, bringing a persons future value into the present and creating âmoneyâ in the process. Iâm not sure how a new system can achieve the same outcome or if that is even a desirable process any-more⌠it just fuels real-estate speculation/bubbles/inflation (hidden tax)
That is what I meant, when saying that itâs too big a job for the wee Maidsafe team a SAFEOS on mobile and desktop would be the enabler of the cyber brain I expectâŚexcitement building!
Youâre not going to change the economy until you can pay for groceries with your cryptocurrency of choice. If you canât buy potatoes and onions in safecoin it isnât going to be the standard of anything. You need to get farmers and gardners using safecoin (and other cryptocurrencies). You need to make it dirt easy to use for non techies. It needs to be reliable, easy (like grandma can do it or your friend that canât plug in his printer can do it), and safe.
One of the advantages of cash money is itâs simple and tangible. If we could create a cryptocurrency card, not just for safecoin but for all cryptocurrency, and load it with some kind of software that could draw from a userâs wallets and perhaps even do exchanges an all they had to do at the till was swipe this thing then that would be easy. Yes there are companies out there that offer preloaded debit cards but those have huge fees and you deal wth he individual company and only 1 currency. But if you could just swipe, select your currency, select your wallet, enter pin, press ok and go without the extra fees (which require open hardware and software) then that would promote adoption.
Agree that digital money needs to be dead simple, the phone seems to bridge the divide somewhat. I remember 14 years ago in Tokyo, people were swiping their phones for access to the train network.
If nothing changes and we go digital, itâs still the same old parasitic debt based system though.
Keep in mind not everyone owns a cell phone, not everyone even owns a computer or has access to the internet. I myself have never owned a cell phone (and have no desire to) and have only just recently got into tablets.
Yes, but IMO even more precisely, âuntil you ask to be paid in cryptocurrency of your choiceâ.
One of big problems - in addition to those you outlined - is that demands for those coins needs to exist and only then can those with them pay with them if they please.
Todayâs peasant (Iâm using this word in order not to create confusion with âfarmersâ) doesnât need bitcoins because he has no use for them.
If utilities (Safecoin is one, so thatâs great) started accepting payments in BTC, that would solve a lot of problems because close to 100% of households have to pay for electricity.
This might expand into a side topic of itâs own but what you mention here just makes me think of how much solar panals and other forms of rewnewable power would cost in BTC/safecoing (whatâs the acronym for that anyway) and the power requirements for a home, computer, safecoin farming unit etc. If you can set up an automomous safecoin farm that powers itself using solar and wind youâre essentially creating invinite revenue. If your safecoin is sufficent enough you could pay your bills with it or better yet buy solar panels and such to become autonomous yourself. See where Iâm going with this?
Sounds good, assuming cost of outputs would be higher than cost of inputs and assuming the taxman doesnât smell an opportunity to leave you with just enough money for âsubsistence safe-farmingâ. If I recall correctly in Spain home solar producers have to pay value-added tax on electricity they generate themselves for their own consumption. It seems ridiculous, but if you start having tens of thousands of such households sure youâd tax the hell out of them, or the government would anyway.
(The other day I mentioned how I fully expect the telcos to start charging more for high bandwidth consumers if SAFEnet becomes popular, so this is a variant of the same comment. Once something becomes big enough to register on their radar, theyâll come a runninâ).
Yes, sounds good, given the provisos Janitor mentions. Solar cell tech appears to be coming on on leaps and bounds - a paint is now being developed I believe - so you could literally paint solar panels on your house at some point in the near future.
This is why developing mesh nets between safe users is important (meshnetworking is important in general but in this context especially so). A mesh network would not be relient on telcos.
Because pretty much all data given to Apple or Google is leaked to the government maybe? Nevermind actual inherent security issues with the OS itself or the fact the govât can hack your phone and use it to spy on you via the camera. Or the fact if your phone is ever confiscated all your data is on there for the picking. Or the fact a lot of people are CONSTANTLY posting their GPS location with every facebook post and photo they take, or any number of other apps that use GPS data. How does getting a cell phone make you lose anonymity? Seriously?
Theyâd be stupid if they didnât try to tax the operators (whether theyâd succeed thatâs another problem).
Thatâs what I expect them to do.
In the near- to mid-term they even have the right to do that because those Mesh networks arenât self-contained but have âexit/entryâ nodes to the Internet so at least some users are effectively using their subscription to offer internet services to other users which is not allowed (or can be quickly made illegal) in most jurisdictions.
