In the previous installments, I started with a series of rules on which an idealistic metaverse in anarchy called TAR is built.
TAR is a planet of similar dimensions to Earth, but in which the habitable surface for human beings is made up of 10,000 islands of 10,000 km2 each, on each of which only 10,000 people can live.
We continue today with rule 5 referring to communication via the Internet.
RULE NR. 5- Internet in TAR. There is a network of interconnected computers in TAR that make up a fully distributed network. To analyze the difference between "centralization", "decentralization" and "distribution" I wrote a post some time ago that can be seen here.
Let's quickly review the concepts.
Centralized Network. In a centralized network, all nodes are peripheral, except the central one. These nodes can only communicate through the central node and its channels. If the central node suffers a fall, the rest of the nodes stop having flow. The centralized network is governed by the principle of knowledge, that is, the receiver knows the sender's message. If the centralizing node falls, the entire network will inevitably break down and disappear.
Decentralized Network. In a decentralized network, there is no single central node, there is a collective center of various regulatory connection ports. When one of the regulator nodes goes down, one or more nodes of the network as a whole are disconnected, but the network continues to function. In other words, all nodes are connected to each other without necessarily having to go through one to several centers.
Distributed Network. Absence of an individual or collective center. The operation may seem a bit chaotic, but you should not worry, since, in a distributed system, everything that happens is really in the hands of smart contracts that do not have room for double interpretations, or misunderstandings, or acts of corruption, or emotional disruption. The nodes are linked one to another in such a way that none of them has the power to filter the information transmitted in the network, consequently, the idea of center and periphery, basic characteristics in centralized and decentralized networks, disappears. If any node were to go down, it would not disconnect any other, therefore, it makes it a practical, robust, and efficient network.
Decentralization is not an exact state but offers a wide range of possibilities. That is, no blockchain network is completely centralized, decentralized, or distributed. Networks generally have centralized, decentralized, and distributed aspects, all built into their architecture. Although many blockchain systems are more decentralized than centralized, their level of decentralization varies from protocol to protocol. Some networks have even been accused of hiding behind the veil of decentralization despite being relatively centralized. But we must conclude that a distributed network is the best possible state to respect the spirit of the crypto-sphere. We could consider the distributed network as the most extreme case of a decentralized network.
However, it is very important to differentiate between "decentralization" and "distribution", because many times they are named interchangeably, as if they were the same, and we saw in the previous graphs that this is not the case.
In TAR, the distributed network lacks any kind of hierarchy. Each individual computer or terminal is its own server, with all the necessary functions to be part of the network and operate in it, be it communicating, storing, or participating in governance formats. The basis is blockchain technology to manage all the information necessary for the community, be it production data, stocks of raw materials, availability of professional services, power generation, hygiene, personal data, stock of machines and tools, stock of food, clothing stock, the list is long.
If a farmer from a TAR island used, for example, the services of a veterinarian to cure one of his/her horses, there should be a smart contract that would establish this event on the island's blockchain. The validation of the operation would be in charge of the user, the intervening professional, and an adequate number of nodes who would act as validators. (PoW and PoS don't make sense in anarchy, but we can probably think of another consensus algorithm like PoP, proof of planning, as I'll describe later.) With what incentive would the validators work? With the incentive that the development of the community is sustainable for centuries. Remember that there is no money in TAR.
Image by Michael Robinson from Pixabay
There is currently a lot of discussion about the differences between web 2.0 and web 3.0. The one we are widely familiar with is web 2.0, which allows interoperability between users, but is highly centralized. Large corporations manage both the central servers and the information of the users, so that, if they want to press a button and make all the applications disappear, in theory, they can do it, although this event seems to have a probability of occurrence very close to zero.
The change that the concept of web 3.0 produces precisely operates on the back-end of web 2.0, leaving the front-end practically unchanged. Web 3.0 deals with distributing information management, using blockchain technology. In this way, the possibility that few corporations manage the entire operation of the system is eliminated, and, above all, that they sell our data, make fortunes with it, and do not share anything with us at all, just as banks do with the money they receive from depositors on a daily basis.
But if TAR operated with a concept of "decentralization", it would not be operating in anarchy. In a decentralized network it is shown that, although much of the information exchange process occurs outside the central trunk, always, at some point, the algorithm will take us to the centralizing trunk. This architecture does not match the spirit of anarchy. That is, we need a distributed network in TAR, without any kind of hierarchy. A network that is functional to the island in question, and that is not thinking about global issues. The inhabitants who want to know global issues that occur far from their islands may do so if they wish, requesting entry to the corresponding blockchains of the various islands. But the concept of "global internet in the cloud" does not exist in TAR for all the inhabitants of the planet to communicate. Because this is a double-edged sword and an invitation to the participation of corporations that, with the excuse of "big data" take control of information, as is the case today.
One of the most popular “decentralized web” projects these days is Dfinity's ICP, misnamed distributed. ICP caused a great revolution with an apparently “novel” concept to change the Internet through blockchain technology. And the truth is that neither the concept is new nor seems to be all the distributed that it proclaims.
ICP says it wants to create a gigantic computer under the concept of “cloud computing”. And the truth is that everything "giant" terrifies an anarchist. The TAR model cannot be that of ICP, which confuses the terms of decentralization and distribution. And by the way, what does a Foundation do in the middle controlling ICP? Couldn't it be done without a Foundation? As far as I know, Foundations are created either to control a process or to avoid paying taxes. How can the concepts of a distributed network (as ICP calls its project) and a Foundation that controls it be compatible?
ICP creates a neural network called Network Nervous System (NNS) whose name per se terrifies, and with this, it intends to replace the Internet and destroy the monopoly of large technology companies such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon, which today control the Internet at will. But watch out, aren't we replacing a brontosaurus with a tyrannosaurus rex? According to Dfinity, NNS is an open algorithmic governance system that "controls" the computer protocol of the Internet.
We don't want controls. If we oppose taxation and on the other hand let an algorithmic governance system control us, we are being highly incoherent.
ICP is a hierarchical block-building network, generating rewards for nodes. In TAR, there is no money or economic incentive in the sense that current political systems give it, which refers to the accumulation of capital and/or power. We don't want that for TAR. Also, as much as I investigate and reread the ICP concept, I cannot find differences with other projects such as Polkadot or Ethereum itself.
Lending computational power and disk space is nothing new. But turning it into a "gigantic computer" sounds a bit like centralization, a problem that Ethereum also has.
The problem is still size.
As I said at the beginning of this series on anarchy, anarchy can develop in small communities, and as urban agglomeration grows, the sense of mutualism and long-term preservation of the community begins to lose. TAR intends that all its islands have their own blockchain that takes care of making available to all the inhabitants of the island, all the information necessary for its harmonious and sustainable operation. All the applications that the island's developers want to do to make this work more efficient must be mounted on the island's blockchain. Let us remember that the inventions of the inhabitants of the island can be saved as private property on the island's blockchain. (RULE NR. 2).
I have nothing personal against ICP and Dfinity, but I don't think it can be taken as the definitive solution for a distributed Internet, at least as it is presented so far.
Instead, TAR proposes the PoP or Proof of Planning.
Each inhabitant over 18 years of a TAR island must present a PoP once a month in the system. This consists of a description of the food needs for himself/herself or his/her family group, needs for raw materials and/or accessories, professional needs for his/her job, and a description of all the work that he/she will do in the next month. To issue a plan like this, he/she not only have to take into account his/her actions but that of all the inhabitants of the island in the next month. That is why TAR in game theory is a collaborative and non-competitive game, that is, it seeks the Nash equilibrium in terms of the well-being of the community and not just the individual.
What information must a TAR inhabitant have for his/her planning test? Much, among other things, stock of raw materials today and production estimated for next month, which will have to subtract the needs of other players. Also the stock of tools. Also the number of animals and vegetables on the farms. And much more. If all the inhabitants are planning every day every 30 days, an increasingly precise curve of the fulfillment of the plans is expected. Of course, it will be necessary to take into account the necessary corrections for the youngest and the oldest.
A fully distributed open-source blockchain, without any hierarchy, that anyone can consult at any time, and only managed by the smart contracts that compose it, must evaluate the fulfillment of the plans from the upload of the daily information of what was consumed and accomplished. The incentive of the inhabitants is to plan well, in order to ensure the sustainability of the ecosystem for centuries.
Taking into account 8 hours of work, 8 hours of leisure, and 8 hours of rest, the forester will have to plan the amount of wood needed, the builder the amount of wood and stone to build according to the demand of the inhabitants' plans, the mechanic must repair the machines entrusted to him/her in care, the sanitary installer must place the toilets in the houses, the architect project new houses and/or factories, the veterinarian must provide himself/herself with medicines manufactured on the island for the animals, the chemist will have to produce these drugs, and so on. Small communities are fascinating to see in action. There are several computer games that work with this format, but without too much precision and without being mounted on a blockchain. In TAR, not being precise can cause the extinction of human life on the island. And this is not a game.
Image by TheOtherKev from Pixabay
(To be continued)
As usual, none of the things written in this post are financial advice and are not intended to replace personal research.
Thank you for reading!
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to leave them down below
You can also contact me at email@example.com