Using the SAFE network without money

[smacz]

@nicklambert

seamlessly decremented when you use services

That will be the interesting bit to accomplish.

[janitor]

@anon81773980

Ants are communist

Hilarious!

Spiders will be present in this ecosystem and they’ll come on their own.
Along Comes a Spider!

@luckybit

Ants use stigmergy, it’s more like ant democracy not communism. Communism isn’t based on nature at all, is entirely man made

And democracy isn’t?
I think Grizmoblust’s comparison stands.

AI:

@luckybit

It doesn’t have to be programmed to survive. It doesn’t have to be separate from us. It can merge into us, it can exist only on the Internet, with no ability or desire to want to leave the island.

All I can think of is those insects controlled by a parasite in their brain.
Or Agent Smith.

[Anders]

@fergish

But if it’s we’re “all taken care of by machines of loving grace”, we’re essentially livestock . . . and slaughter is just around the corner.

That’s a Matrix machine world scenario. Could happen, but I believe we will be able to prevent that. Ray Kurzweil has explained how people very quickly adapt to new technology, even with accelerating progress. New inventions like smartwatches almost immediately are treated as something ordinary, when in the past it would have been Dick Tracy science fiction.

So the transition into a technological singularity will be a smooth ride except for economic and political problems arising due to the disrupting power of technology.

[Artiscience]

@Anders

So the transition into a technological singularity will be a smooth ride except for economic and political problems arising due to the disrupting power of technology.

Yeah…except…except that this particularly the core problem. Ever wondered why most futurologist live in rich countries and are socialy privileged? With growing mediatization people have already become more and more dependent on infrastructures and less individual. The rise of AI is in any way disruptive. It doesn’t matter whether a supercomputer will kill humanity, to me that’s a dystopia from the perspective of the last millenium. AI is just one more technology to take away sovereignty of humans in dependencies on it, that is: the poor and powerless. And yes it comes smooth and silently so moat people won’t see any way to resist.

[Blindsite2k]

@Artiscience

Which ones?

Seriously have you not read or watched anything by Dan Pink?

RSA ANIMATE: Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

95% of Managers Follow an Outdated Theory of Motivation - I DONE THIS

http://news.monster.com/a/business/the-real-reason-employees-quit-f5a93c

@luckybit

I wouldn’t particularly want Google City particularly because it is centralized. Generally though the concept you’re thinking about is called Cybership, and it was popularized by Joshua Harrs and Buckminster Fuller also talked about spaceship earth. I suggest you look into these concepts:

I haven’t heard of Joshua Harrs or Buckminster Fuller before but the concept of a decentralized "cyber"city is familiar as I’ve looked into the Venus Project before.

The Venus Project

@dirvine

And more than that, but I feel we have not yet evolved to a position where we can just yet. I personally feel money will become less of an issue like weapons (increasing numbers in civilisation do not need to carry weapons any more, for the better, arguably). Today we still value things including success in cash terms, which I feel we will evolve out of, but we need a minimum level of comfort to exist. When we all realise we do not need 15 bedroom mansions and 12 cars each then we will improve. At the moment unfortunately money is a great barter system, but who knows in the future when we are all doing what we love and contributing something then all that may change.

I like this. Most of the time I don’t feel the need to be armed but I would still argue that I should have the right to be. Similarly a lot of the time I’d choose to help someone voluntarily but that doesn’t mean I don’t want the option to charge for my services or be able to carry cash and buy something from time to time. Does someone need a whole armory filled with weapons of every description? Meh maybe maybe not but should they have a right to own them? Yep. Similarly do they have a need for 5 mansions, 12 cars and a yaucht? Meh probably not. But should they have a right to own such an excessive abundance of materialism? Yep, if they can afford it. But the point here is to get oneself to a point where one doesn’t feel the need to own an armory or 5 mansions in order to be fulfilled. You know what I’m saying? Instead of saying “You can’t own that much because it’s too much!” Think and say “Why don’t you feel safe or fulfilled with less?” Treat the spiritual and the material will follow.

[Anders]

@Artiscience

Yeah…except…except that this particularly the core problem.

I should have clarified. It’s the adoption of new technology by the general public that will be a smooth ride. In the near future we will have a bumpy ride I assume. Especially unemployment in the developed world will be a huge problem. Donald Trump said that the actual unemployment in the U.S. is over 20% and he has even heard over 30% and over 40%. Bernie Sanders said that the unemployment for young people in the U.S. is over 30%.

As for the developing world, I have to use what Ray Kurzweil (here I go again with my Kurzweilian ideology, sigh) said when asked if only rich people will benefit from the new technology. He replied: Yeah, like cell phones. His point is that when the technology is new, then it’s very expensive and doesn’t work very well. Then later the technology becomes ubiquitous, very inexpensive and much more powerful.

[Artiscience]

@Anders

His point is that when the technology is new, then it’s very expensive and doesn’t work very well. Then later the technology becomes ubiquitous, very inexpensive and much more powerful.

A) cell phones are not at all ubiquitous
B) ressources needed for cell phones in third world countries are heavily exploited by first world population
C) if at some point cell phone infrastructure(!) will be ubiquitous, there will be other technologies that mark an even stronger difference between people who control ressources and those who are dependent.

What matters is not acccess to certain cultural goods since you can perfectly live without a cell phone. What matters is the degree of dependence. And it’s mostly people from westwrn countries like Kurzweil who want to sell you the dream of growth and development while all statistics show how scarcity of ressources is growing dramatically and cost of growth is distributed to people all over the world.

Tehnological advance is not necessarily helpful and often fosters existing social structures.

[Anders]

@Artiscience

Tehnological advance is not necessarily helpful and often fosters existing social structures.

“Some scholars have argued that technological change will bring about a third wave of democracy.” – Democratization of technology - Wikipedia

[Artiscience]

@Anders

“Some scholars have argued that technological change will bring about a third wave of democracy.” – Democratization of technology - Wikipedia

What are you trying to say? That you found a sentence on Wikipedia that somewhat contradicts my statement (which it doesn’t)? Have you even bothered to check the reference? It’s from 2000(!!!). Actually you can measure the prognosis to what happened to the internet since 2000 and it didn’t lead to democratization. When people cheered for the new wild west, crowd sourcing (ie Wikipedia), crowdfunding and prosuming large private enterprises and “security services” took over. Even though the technology was always there to provide people with pricacy, we are currently under global surveillance. Brought to you by technology. So that’s exactly what I said before: technology is not at all a saviour. It can be and it can also be directed against the vast majority. Look who cheers for technological development like Ai and askyourself why its mostly people from western countries who fall in love with the idea. #privileged

[gmason]

I think that the MAIDSAFE team had actually a really not bad idea. In order to really use actively (as opposed as a passive consumer) the network, you have to help it. The price, etc, is regulated by the network itself, thus making it adaptatve and resilient.

It might seem simple, but I consider it as very well thought and very clever.

[janitor]

@gmason

I think that the MAIDSAFE team had actually a really bad idea.

@gmason

It might seem simple, but I consider it as very well thought and very clever.

So which is it, bad or good?

[gmason]

Ha, ha! I meant NOT a bad idea. I am correcting. Sorry.

[Anders]

@Artiscience

What are you trying to say?

Technology will improve democracy around the world. A lot. The reason for why this hasn’t happened yet in any big way is that the old power structures cling on to their control. And from a practical perspective the technology is still too primitive to really be able to replace the centralized forms of control. Bitcoin has been a major leap forward. The SAFE network could be another such leap. We will see what happens. If it’s really simple for people to buy safecoins directly with their credit/debit cards or smartphones etc, then that would work I guess if the data storage is dirt cheap, and it probably will be. So for example if someone with a smartphone can buy safecoins directly and very conveniently with the SAFE app that would be good enough even for the general public I think. So I could have been wrong about the need for being able to use the SAFE network without money.

[davep]

@anon81773980

Money is the root of all evil.

I believe it’s love of money that is the root of all evil. The difference isn’t insignificant.

[Anders]

Hey! I came to think of how data storage will be so cheap that for ordinary personal use it will be easy to just buy some safecoins and then start to store personal data which will then remain to be stored on the SAFE network forever for free. Compare that to Dropbox or Google Drive where I guess you need to pay a monthly fee, forever! That totally sucks. Not only that, your data would be stored on a cloud silo, with centralized ownership and control. So if the cloud owners decide to change the terms of service, or change the price or even delete your data because of some violation, they can do that! And you would be screwed.

Requiring safecoins for storing data prevents much of the abuse with registering multiple accounts and spam, etc. And also, some people may love to use and earn safecoins, while others may only use their safecoins for storing personal data, so using the SAFE network can be done without needing to bother much about safecoins, while at the same time DAOs and services like that can use safecoins heavily. That’s pretty integral, meaning both/and instead of either/or. I like that.

[gmason]

You seem to get the point.

[janitor]

@davep

I believe it’s love of money that is the root of all evil. The difference isn’t insignificant.

How does it concern you if someone loves money “too much” (and by whose standard, anyway?)
Those you make you believe they are entitled to decide things for (you and) others are the root of all evil.

[Backseat]

@dirvine

unfortunately money is a great barter system

David, don’t forget that money and capitalism are not inherently good or bad, it’s what you do with it. Capitalism is a democratic economic system, you vote with your money on what products you want to see in the market.

And money is simply put the valued exchange rate between services.

David please elaborate a bit further on this future you see, but I cannot understand why it’s considered “good” to get rid of the monetary system. I’m interpreting what you’re saying as you would like to replace the monetary system with some other system based on shared contribution. But again please elaborate, this is very interesting.

---

In terms of this topic’s title:

I think to start with, a charity app can be set up.

Users who want the network to grow (farmers, application developers, etc) can donate extra coins to the application, which hands out a small amount of coins to users who sign up and are verified with a mobile phone number (the only way I see right now to avoid the abuse of generating tons of new accounts). They verify their number and the coins are sent to their account.

The idea here is not to destroy their anonymity by verifying their phone number, but giving them a reason to get involved and learn about it without risk. This is incentivized market-education. Giving people a reason to get involved.

The reason I think this will work so well is because a similar education play has worked with bitcoins at MIT: http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N22/bitcoin.html

You could go further and have a referral system set up. So if I sign up, verify my number, and get my free coins to play around with, I can then invite a friend, and when they complete the process (and receive their coins), I get a kickback for spreading it.

[dirvine]

@Backseat

David please elaborate a bit further on this future you see, but I cannot understand why it’s considered “good” to get rid of the monetary system. I’m interpreting what you’re saying as you would like to replace capitalism with some other system based on share contribution. But again please elaborate, this is very interesting.

I see a fairer future with money, but question that given enough resources will we get to a society where money or the need to measure personal input be so important. So I cannot see how we can currently live without money, I see the resource based society issues and think, that would be great, but I don’t feel we can cope with it as a society just yet.

I hope we are en route to a society where the few cannot control the many with such vigour than we currently have. I would also like to see a minimum level of resource for everyone and that resource to be able to take everyone out of the stress of life or having ones life removed and flung on a heap.

Perhaps this answers your question a bit, it’s a thought experiment and not a vision I can outline or specify, I just feel we are evolving past greed, but with so much ability for greed and avarices then it’s hard. With a position where we have money as a measure of a persons value then I feel we are on a wrong path and must look into it.

That may be allowing monetary value to be correctly measured (very very difficult, value a teacher or nurse etc.) or in fact removing the monetary part and using some other measure, or hopefully in my dream a society where we don’t need to measure a person at all.

Then the value proposition we live by is all up for debate and pontification, but at this time it is all pontification.

@dirvine

'm interpreting what you’re saying as you would like to replace capitalism

No I would not replace this or support capitalism/communism or anything in between as a single way for everyone to live. I feel a mix of values are important. Like we need a plus and minus in math we probably need socialism capitalism etc in society. I just don’t like the labels so much.

Left and right are good descriptions of politics, but I think in life you need both left and right on the path to a better place, not a single mechanism.

[Backseat]

David you are a fun person to bounce ideas off of, I had a few interesting ones as I was reading your response.

@dirvine

I see a fairer future with money

I totally agree. The way I see this happening is by disrupting the current oligopolic industries (auto/power/finance). As self-driving cars mature in 2019, the need to buy a car is reduced (corporation-owned ride sharing), damaging the market value of Ford/General Motors (and hopefully reducing their “strangle hold” on transportation).

@dirvine

but question that given enough resources will we get to a society where money or the need to measure personal input be so important.

This will and somewhat is happening now. Success in different circles is divvied out differently. Yes, in common society we admire and call the rich celebrities successful, however as a converse example; within scientific circles, the successful are the most dominant minds that publish papers upsetting their niche scientific community.

I’ll also disagree and say that measuring someone’s input is important and it’s a big part of the idea of success: that you had a unique contribution that made a big impact.

@dirvine

or in fact removing the monetary part and using some other measure, or hopefully in my dream a society where we don’t need to measure a person at all

Not measuring a person for any reason seems to disagree with human nature and doesn’t seem realistic.

I will mention the idea of measuring key traits of a person continuously overtime as a comparison of their previous self. Are you in better shape than you were last month? Have you made an effort to be more open to new ideas? What new skill(s) have you been accredited for, etc.

A system to replace the monetary one might be a “benefits you benefits us” one. Maybe you will be flat out given a property/service for a defined purpose, as long as it benefits the whole of society. As a small example: “Hey, our citizens spend more money, do more business, and create a better economic climate when they can communicate quickly. Let’s make sure everyone has a smartphone free of charge so they can text and make more transactions, then we will all benefit from the better economic climate.”

That doesn’t sound too bad actually.

@dirvine

we probably need socialism capitalism etc in society. I just don’t like the labels so much.

I agree, in some aspects (socialist healthcare) different support is required and I full agree that we should mix and match the elements that work the best.