Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - luckybit

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 195
181
General Discussion / Re: Philosophy Discussion: Privacy vs. Openness
« on: November 28, 2015, 09:09:44 am »
If someone knows exactly how you will vote, they'll offer you carrot or stick to change your vote. You vote the way they like and you are rewarded, and you against their interests and maybe taxes are higher for you, and prices rise in stores for you, and friends stop being your friend.

Votes have to be secret to have any value or to be free of coercion. At the same time you don't need votes if you have machine intelligence which can decide based on your criteria.

In a transparent society all we would have is algorithms. Democracy becomes impossible.

Don't those things happen anyway?  Don't people buy votes indirectly or directly?  And is vote buying really bad? 

Question as it relates to DPOS:   Would you rather know Bytemaster is controlling a huge proxy vote and gives reasons for voting one way or the other or some anonymous entity with the same influence that keeps quiet and whose votes are secret?

In a world without secrecy why would your vote matter at all? They can say vote for them or else. Vote buying take place because of the fact that the wannabe dictators don't know who you voted for or who votes for who so they have to provide incentives.

In the case of DPOS I would prefer anonymous entities. Current DPOS is vulnerable to coercion as well as MITM attacks. Bytemaster may or may not be in control of his private keys, his voting power, etc. Whomever controls Bytemaster controls how he votes, and if we don't know who the voters are then we actually have better security because COERCION RESISTANCE is essential for voting.

I prefer anonymous organizations as proxies specifically because every individual is corruptible or can be coerced by other more violent warlike institutions or individuals. For now Bitshares hasn't had much of a problem because the market cap isn't high enough for it to be much of an target for organized crime, but that will eventually change. In Bitcoin organized criminals already target large holders and we don't even know to what extent.

182
General Discussion / Re: Philosophy Discussion: Privacy vs. Openness
« on: November 28, 2015, 07:41:02 am »
If someone knows exactly how you will vote, they'll offer you carrot or stick to change your vote. You vote the way they like and you are rewarded, and you against their interests and maybe taxes are higher for you, and prices rise in stores for you, and friends stop being your friend.

Votes have to be secret to have any value or to be free of coercion. At the same time you don't need votes if you have machine intelligence which can decide based on your criteria.

In a transparent society all we would have is algorithms. Democracy becomes impossible.

183
General Discussion / Re: Philosophy Discussion: Privacy vs. Openness
« on: November 28, 2015, 07:20:26 am »
My post was a bit long but the point, I don't think human beings currently are psychologically, culturally, or socially prepared for total transparency. It would be like giving nuclear weapons to a toddler and then expecting something good to happen. You either have to somehow make the toddler think as an adult, or you have to augment the thinking of the toddler with algorithms, using machine intelligence.

I don't think we have enough time to somehow make the toddler into an adult. So if we are going to give the toddler the God's eye view, we probably should augment the toddler by giving the toddler decision support, so that every human being can overcome bias, make rational decisions, follow science, factor in the results of the latest studies and experiments, etc.

But I do not think the current humans who make decisions on how it feels, or based on a holy book, or based on "gut", or anything similar to that, should be judging other humans based on this. Unfortunately  the vast majority of humans aren't enlightened, aren't aware of their own ignorance, aren't educated (and the United States in particular doesn't even value education or critical thinking), and you end up with a society of people who are proudly ignorant, who are asking for more transparency, so they can apply religious morality or other biases on everyone.

Consider that the majority of people are of certain major religions. Consider that a lot of people do not make decisions based on the perceived consequences, but based on whether or not their religion, or a book from thousands of years ago, says it's good or bad. Consider most people don't keep track of the latest results in neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, or anything else, and consider that the United States has more prisoners per capita than any other country?

Do you feel confident that the average United States citizen could handle the amount of information which will be made available without using it for political or social or psychological persecution? If we had an enlightened citizen maybe I could have more faith, but currently we do not and you can just look around and see that. There also is not a trend toward enlightenment or education.

184
General Discussion / Re: Philosophy Discussion: Privacy vs. Openness
« on: November 28, 2015, 07:09:14 am »
I heard what Bytemaster had to say and honestly I've spent years thinking about the same issue. There is a book called the transparent society and even a video on total transparency (futurist perspective).

Secrecy is NOT privacy

First, secrecy is NOT privacy. Privacy is access control while secrecy could mean no one other than yourself can access it. Private information could be what you don't want your wife or parents to know, while secrecy is something only you know. Your inner most thoughts are usually considered secret, while private could be your social security number. Most people don't have much of an ability to keep secrets, and privacy could be your Google search history for the last 10 year,s but you might not be responsible for keeping it private because Google is.

Who opens up first?

The issue isn't so much that humans beings are bad at keeping secrets (even though we are), and the issue isn't a matter of privacy vs security either because in many cases privacy enables security. The question ultimately evolves into who opens up first?

Everyone is going to look pretty bad when every moment of their life is logged and people who hate them are able to pull out of context every ignorant thing they said, every questionable thing they did,  etc. The problem with our society and our people which prevents us from having an easy time going into a transparent society is what I call "judgement culture". Human beings like to judge each other on every aspect of life, all the time, with wildly divergent moral or social norms, some of which aren't based on anything other than fear, or some other emotion.

Who opens up first?


Again who opens up first? People in authority in my opinion have a reason to be transparent, but for people who don't have any authority over anyone, who aren't in any sort of position of trust, it's not the same. When you give everyone access to everyone's information then you're expecting or requiring everyone become responsible with information and as we know the majority of humans aren't. A lot of humans abuse information which does not belong to them, using it as a weapon, and the term "information warfare" evolves from that.

How do we make the transition without violence?

So the problem is ultimately the transition. There is no easy transition to a transparent society. The other problem is how transparent do you want to go? For some people they would agree to a society where everyone can read each other's thoughts and scan the inside of each other's bodies. If society is totally transparent then eventually your thoughts will not be private, and that is the logical outcome of the transparent society that isn't promoted in books. Once privacy is lost you can't get it back, it's just gone, and many people alive today would rather die than give up their ability to have private thoughts and feelings.

Humans are currently too ignorant, irrational, and psychologically confused to handle transparency

I'm not a person who believes that the current group of people are rational enough, or psychologically capable, of handling a transparent society. It's sort of like the power the church had back in the day, giving that power back to the general public again, but the problem here is people will likely seek to police each other's thoughts and actions, until no individuality is left. We see it now with "political correctness", "censorship", and etiquette, and we will see even more of it if we immediately transition to total transparency. The witch hunts will become the main focus of society because people tend to do that when they know too much too soon.

The small town analogy doesn't work because what people who use that analogy aren't realizing is that the mind is the only real border in the digital world. In a small town where everyone is made to live the same, the small town becomes the mind, the hive mind will ultimately be what society becomes. I don't think most people who push for the transparent society understand that the outcome will be a  bunch of hive minds, not unlikely the borg, or the ultimate communes, arranged by algorithm.

At the same time I've also come to recognize that these are trends and the total transparency trend is winning out over the privacy trend. It is likely that in 2025 or sooner, we will have a total surveillance society as in the Youtube video, and when you also add in sousveillence, AI and BCI (brain to computer interface), eventually not even thoughts will be private unless humans reverse the trend.

My own current solution to the problem is, in my opinion we are not going to be human anymore once this is over. We should embrace transhumanism, and do everything we can to brace for impact of technology, we should redefine "human" as we learn more about ourselves, and we should seek to swap "human judges" with either cyborgs or AI. Cyborg judges would be humans augmented with abilities to make wise, sapient decisions, with enhanced rationality and objectivity. This trend is already in motion, as doctors already use machine intelligence to help diagnose people, but as humans become more transparent I do not think the human brain will be capable of handling all that information and either algorithms will have to assist humans to make decisions, or we will have situations where groups like ISIS or religious morality inform human judgement, which should scare anyone who is seeing a trend toward transparency.

Total surveillance society video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjwzhPkzfp0
The Transparent Society: Secrecy vs. Privacy, Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0AX79lT4_c
The Transparent Society: Secrecy vs. Privacy, Part 2: https://youtu.be/8oz2CZgrm8k
Moral panic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

185
General Discussion / Re: Stop using the word "Chinese Community" please!
« on: November 28, 2015, 05:54:28 am »
From my own research the Chinese "demographic" is against gambling. For that reason gambling cannot be a part of Bitshares.

Even if we do not call it Chinese "community" we have to accept that Chinese have different needs even i fits just for legal and cultural reasons. There is a different risk/benefit ratio for a Chinese participant and we cannot ignore that.


186
General Discussion / Re: Fee Backed Assets (FBA)
« on: November 27, 2015, 03:59:35 pm »
There are lots of different business models that will get the job done.

Pick one that doesn't violate any of the tests that governments routinely use to determine if something is a security.

I'm intrigued by the applicability of the Uber model for a privately operated taxi.

Build 100 robotic software taxi cabs that deliver private packages for hire.
Program them via blockchain logic to take turns delivering packages.
Sell the cabs to the network in exchange for a set of tickets good for rental minutes on a cab.
Resell/trade those tickets on the open market.
This way, anyone can rent time on any of the limited supply of "cabs" and earn fees for performing delivery services.

So the STEALTH FPA could represent all available minutes on a network-owned fleet of robotic taxi cabs.

Buy up as many minutes of their time as you want and you have your own revenue generating business with no counter parties.

Meanwhile, the GUI for doing STEALTH transfers doesn't need to reflect any details at all about how the transfers are taking place metaphorically under the hood, whether by robotic cab or C++ function call.  They just specify the amount and destination and pay the fee and their funds are automagically teleported somewhere else. 

Poof!

@Stan I think what we need is for you or someone like you to create a document, pamphlet, or file, which can be passed around, where people can see some examples of business ideas which can be started on Bitshares using the FBA. I think what potential entrepreneurs need right now is inspiration and ideas.

I'll put an idea out there. Why doesn't someone develop a Bitshares computer? The most secure computer design, tamper resistant, storage in the cloud? Simply take the design from: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/designshift/orwl-the-first-open-source-hardened-computer

And modify it to have Bitshares and associated apps pre-loaded. Work with Cryptonomex on it so that witnesses can use this computer in some unique ways. Sell the Bitshares computer and reward by letting fees go to holders.




187


Reality is absolute, our understanding or perception of reality is not.

Luckybit is that what you meant?

Reality is not absolute. Reality is a matter of probabilities. Nothing is absolute.
We aren't absolutely certain about whether this universe is the real one or some virtualized simulation running on a multiverse computer. We don't know if the universe is a hologram or not.

We don't know if the universe is "real" or not because our only means of determining what is or isn't real is very limited. We basically use math and logic to try to determine what is or isn't real, and ultimately the only reason something is real is because the probability of it being fake is statistically not likely. The concept of real and fake, and trying to determine what is real in the absolutely sense of the word, is something which you cannot prove.

You ultimately end up relying on perceptions, on mathematics, on logic, but you don't have the kind of certainty that is absolute.
 
Truth is absolute, our perception of truth i not. The world is the way it is, regardless of how we understand it.

What way is that, and what are we? You have to know yourself before you can even answer the kind of questions you're trying to ask, and honestly the quality of your answer depends on the quality and structure of your question. If the universe is a computer, then it can compute, and we can compute along with it, but it doesn't tell you why, it doesn't give you any absolute truth, there is no absolute truth so far that we have beyond the mathematics which are notoriously uncertain.

I'm no mathematician but I know enough about quantum physics to know there is no absolute truth on the quantum scale. What is absolute reality?

The statement "truth isn't absolute" is making an absolute statement of truth, which makes it a self-defeating statement.
Reality are just probabilities. That is all reality is on the quantum scale. So when someone says they know there is an absolute truth, how can you know that when on the quantum scale it looks like the universe hasn't decided on that?

From what I know if a decision is made, it happens at the collapse of a wave function, if you would even want to think about it as the universe making a decision to solidify reality. When I say we don't have certainty I mean based on our current understanding we don't. When I say we don't have an absolute truth I'm basing it on my philosophical interpretation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aowYf44gDRY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

188
General Discussion / Re: Fee Backed Assets (FBA)
« on: November 27, 2015, 02:37:13 am »
I hope you guys are finally coming around to what I've been probing you guys on.  Of course I think inevitability this Fee Backed Asset will have to be used.  Augur is one of the first to do this in the Bitcoin 2.0 iterations.  Can Bitshares follow the same act succesfully?

Flashback:

This is very long, but I think a very good discussion question to see how BM, Stan, and Dev Core are approaching the referral system.  I think it has great potential.  But I see the referral system having more longwithstanding success if smart contract developers can earn referral fees for the contracts they make.  My concern is in the long-run, initial referrers don't provide innovative developments as much as developers do.  Referrers can just squat on the capital effort that brought them all the users in the first place and still earn fees without providing any new value-add as compared to a developer.  They in some ways get the public to squat as many accounts as they can for them.  At least that's one way this would work. 

Last week BM spoke about specialized contracts being made for BTS.  This will allow curation and through testing and takes a "soft update" each time.  And afterwards, Cryptosile brought up a good idea that I've been pondering myself.  In one of the posts he asks:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17801.0.html
"I'm curious if we could provide these two things:
1.  Allow a specific smart contract to pay 10% of fees to the creator of said smart contract.
  - This would incentivize a lot of developers to submit smart contracts and compete for inclusion into the blockchain."

To me this would spur use of smart contracts, experimentation and new products for the general public.  Sure it would be in the interest of the first referrers to create new types of contracts.  But I see this as further incentivizing development on the Bitshares blockchain and bring tools and smartcoin programs that mesh in the bitshares network.  A pie in the sky hypothetical example: someone wants to build a decentralized Uber on Bitshares can do so and profit.   But in short, incentives and rewards are further brought together.

Not to mention it would allow the little guy to profit for bringing something new to do table.  He will be able to build a  better business model to compete with the veterans and not be squatted out like the current method has it. 

Is this something that is currently being discussed or considered?  Do you think this is feasible or even possible for Bitshares under the current structure of the referral system?

Market based innovation, if people can profit from successful features in the form of fees then it definitely helps Bitshares become more adaptable over time. More importantly it promotes innovation.


189
General Discussion / Re: Fee Backed Assets (FBA)
« on: November 27, 2015, 02:35:16 am »
Featureshares?

190

Below are my opinions on the nature of reality...

Reality isn't absolute. There is fuzzy logic. Meaning the numbers between 1 and 0, true and false, or the percentage something is true or false.

Our reality is made up of consensus. A scientifically recognized fact is only a fact because of scientific consensus. A computer can and does use logic to determine true or false, and that logic is the closest we can get to proving anything in life, as it's accuracy is more accurate than any other tool we have.

So you can prove something is logically true. 1+1=2 is logically true. When you're dealing with something which cannot be proven in that way, like what happened during an event, now you've got many perspectives who have to report in and you deal with a percentage of true and false. The true outweighing the false makes truth in that case which means consensus.

A computer can prove theorems, it can do math, it can do logic and reasoning, and depending on the strength of AI it can use it's abilities to find facts. This doesn't mean a computer at this time can reveal the nature of reality, or tell you what happened at a sporting event. It could give you probabilities about which team should or could have won, but ultimately only the oracles can tell you who won.

You can have an AI or something similar watching the game through people's cellphones, it might be able to determine who won, but at this time prediction markets with blockchains are the closest human beings can get to determining truth. Truth isn't absolute in any case, there are always percentages, even with logic, even with reality, and it's only true or false because of logic, and computers happen to be good at logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_theorem_proving

191
On this topic...

Quote
Enigma’s computational model is based on a highly optimized version of secure multi-party computation, guaranteed by a verifiable secret-sharing scheme. For storage, we use a modi-fied distributed hashtable for holding secret-shared data. An external blockchainis utilized as the controller of the network, manages access control, identities and serves as a tamper-proof log of events. Security deposits and fees incentivize operation, correctness and fairness of the system. Similar to Bitcoin, Enigma removes the need for a trusted third party, enabling autonomous control of personal data.
For the first time, users are able to share their data with cryptographic guarantees
regarding their privacy.
@bytemaster  It might be a good idea to add the same functionality that Bitcoin will have (Enigma) to Bitshares. The ability to do big data analytics is extremely powerful when combined with privacy. Suddenly people could sell their data to be computed and used by algorithms without any loss of privacy, and they could be in complete control of which algorithms could access it, or possibly even revoke access.

Of course this would require Bitshares have either the ability to compute data or that would have to be outsourced via UIA, but if we had these abilities it could help both users and developers know how to improve Bitshares, or to be used for FollowMyVote (most of politics is about knowing the voter and how they think).

192
You failed to address the central points of my skepticism, which are extremely important. The quote dealt with practicalities but I raised the issue of who decides what is true.

Any Tom Dick or Harry could put up a semantic website with disinformation, so how is a machine to decide if it is accurate or not? THAT is the key concern I have.
The blockchain logs the truth. There wasn't a blockchain before so you had no way to log what is true. A blockchain is a way to have a unified source of truth.

Perhaps through AI / neural net intelligence coupled with big data a statistical guess can decide reasonably accurately what is true or correct.
Computers already use algorithms to decide true and false. Anything a computer cannot deal with, a human could be paid to deal with. Once it's confirmed true either by human, computer, or a combination of both, then it's on the blockchain.

For example prediction markets allow humans to determine true and false. Oracles are the mechanism you'd want to look into, and distributed oracles are basically how Bitshares currently determines things like the price of Bitcoin. How do we know the price in the price feed is the true price? The fact that multiple oracles all agree that it's true, the fact that the humans agree it's true.

The same would work for a sporting event. Is it true or false that a certain team won a game? A prediction market would let humans try to predict which team won, but then you'd have humans who would report the result with their reputations on the line. Those humans of course would get paid to report correct results, they are the oracles of truth.


Tapscott rightly says big data is not the way to go, it is counterproductive to a free society b/c it violates privacy, an essential ingredient for a free society.

Big data is the way to go. It doesn't violate privacy when it's decentralized and private. For example Enigma the MIT project may in fact be able to do big data on the blockchain, without violating anyone's privacy. You can also do big data to private information in other ways, possibly through homomorphic encryption for instance. It is a myth that big data is counterproductive to a free society.

What matters for a free society is access control. Privacy is access control. You probably don't care if AI or algorithms can access your data and compute it, as long as no human beings can access it. So as long as the results of that computation are under your control, then you don't really lose anything but you do gain the ability to do serious analytics on your own data. Finally you could use different methods like homomorphic encryption or the Enigma method to do analysis of everyone's data without any way to determine the identities of the individuals or see the data.

My own opinion is, I'm absolutely and unequivacally in favor of big data. I do not believe you must sacrifice privacy to achieve security when you can find ways to increase both in the same solution. I do not believe you must lose privacy to analyze data and fully homomorphic encryption shows that you do not need to, as well the method of just using the blockchain to anonymize and chunk the data so that it's computed across many non-colluding computers all over the world. The ability to bring big data analysis to the masses is the holy grail, allowing for all kinds of powerful machine learning and apps.

http://enigma.media.mit.edu/
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/09/a-darpa-director-on-fully-homomorphic-encryption-or-one-way-the-u-s-could-collect-data/

193
General Discussion / Re: What happened to Moonstone.io?
« on: November 26, 2015, 07:18:10 pm »
Can someone explain the benefit of having these developers work on another GUI when the current one still needs developers to improve it. As I see it, moonstone.io offers no added value.

The value is an alternative, decentralization. Having just one UI is of less value in the long term.

Besides, they've already been paid, and they are going with a different technology.

194
General Discussion / Re: What happened to Moonstone.io?
« on: November 26, 2015, 07:01:14 pm »
Are they making the Bitshares 2.0 interface?

https://moonstone.io/
Not the "official" one .. or let's put it that way: They seem to develop an alternative to graphene-ui

Any proof? Where is the github?

195
General Discussion / Re: What's going on with LimeWallet?
« on: November 26, 2015, 06:56:16 pm »
https://github.com/limewallet/limewallet/graphs/contributors

Doesn't seem like anyone is working on this for the past month.

I loved the design @cass did for them and wish we could have an open BETA soon...if it isn't dead.
Moonstone.io took a lot of people's money and what happened? Vaporware?


Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 195