FloveChain

Customize(d) favor chains. Smart jobs. Acknowledged peaks management within the flove network









WHY

The more the more lovely actions could be acknowledged, the better  for us and love itself (practices test theories)

The more a user could access (and share as wanted) his-her Activity statistics, the better.

Any use statistics, adding of data and or acknowledgements of that get ranked (as also happening to lovely actions).

Exposing data types ranks transparent design & analitics.

The more that Top down analitcs and Bottom up (input) design tend to a 50-50 equilibrium, the better for both.

= Let’s get to suggest the lovelier actions, the better ranked by us and analisers.

Lovely actions = Merit = Doings + Likes

Likes could be infinetely given by the platform, but like replies, they are finitely given by the user.

The less likes given to the more unrelated, the more valueable they are. 

Finite platform givens to any user can be forwarded to other users (re-issueable token, here: flovens).

Flovens could be pre-conditioned, but users will always also be informally free to both agree to ignore that and or condition it further

All promisory value (condition-property-fungible backing value) finally relies in more or less trust (fiduciary) and can have further fungibility than the one formally estated.

1. Flovens could be pre-conditioned, but users will always also be informally free to both agree to ignore that and or condition it further.

2. The forbidding of a private agreement to exchange legal tender per something else is as costy to enforce as strict it wants to be enforced.

The more the more lovely content adding could be rewarded with the more fungible flovens, the better.

Network self maintenance tasks are the top of the priorities and so can be rewarded with special tokens that are valued even in project’s property rigthts as final backing value (See more: DAOs).

 

WHAT: An oracle for users developing lovely personal, local and social actions to be acknowledged.

We could specify a flove tokens fungibility with (material) time (i.e. Hours). This token called Flove Hours can be further limited (a priori) to certain activities only, i.e. Essential Hours. More easily, it could be added to any Concept (Here: Souls), i.e. TrueLove Hours.

Cases

I didn’t add any data to the TrueLove Concept but i privately exchanged an Hour of it per 10$.

 

 

I made 2 offers to buy 1 LoyalHour

User1: 5$

User2: 5000$

because i am being very criticized (by people i accepted to do so) as NotLoyal (so i have DarkLoyal tokens-hours) but besides getting 1 Loyals won´t delete my trace to that, User1 didn’t accept my 5$/hour and asked me for a +another thing.

 

 

Do for the network (commons), for the network do better for you later

0- Curate content (example)

Get 1 Love

1- Add a definition

(If getting approved with two curators… Get 3 Loves and 2 Dislikes).

2- Add an Opposite

(If getting approved with two likes, get 2 Loves and 1 Dislike)

3- Add a Dislike

Get 3 loves

 

JOURNALISTIC ARTICLE

This is a post valueing and criticizing the centralization focus trend put on acknowledgement for developing decentralized technologies. See the more  proposal, here.

P2P technologies rely in users that are active in the network to become servers of the network, this way the platform has a lesser point-of-failure (no central servers or administrators).

Nowadays there is a lot of P2P development focused in the blockchains (P2P networks focused on acknowledging interactivities). Cryptocurrencies exchanges are updated Stock Exchanges, but they are just a more seeable output of the decentralizing pole of things. Blockchains aren’t decreasing centralization on legal tenders reliance because there isn´t less use of legal tenders overall.

Bitcoin is a very old technology compared with XYZ but leads the CryptoMarket by far, and doesn’t look like this regulaty is going to shift.

Cryptocurrencies Exchangers and or Entushiastic users are giving a lot of their subtle energy to legal tenders and bitcoin. They are giving a lot of their finite trust (caring time) to both of these centralization trends. Regardless of them argumenting that many CryptoCurrencies are technically better than a legal tender or Bitcoin, much of their subtle and macro energy is given to the hope that his-her CryptoCurrency will be as better as more fungible it will be with a legal tender (more «price in $ and or Bitcoin» the OtherCoin has).

Bitcoin is an old technology, and a centralized one within the decentralized world. Many people get to know P2P decentralization thanks to Bitcoin implementation. But by centralizing your hopes and doings for decentralization in bitcoin raising its marketprice you are leaving part of such decentralization intention. Same happens when network stability is paired with $ fungibility. There could be other values to advertise the fungibility of Coins in CryptoExchanges. This sounds ridiculous to any CoinsEnthusiast because (s)he thinks the fungibility with legal tender outstands any other possible backing value of the Coin, saying: Money$ (or Bitcoin) (the value that is more centralised) is the easiest and more robust channel to convey our distinct values. Money$ is the best offer we can give to anyone for exchanging anything we will like from him-her. In our exchanges with Coins we don’t touch Money$, Money$ rather follow us. The more money a Coin costs, the more secure the Coin will be (and the better for the decentralized world overall).

P2P acknowledgements features are centralizing the P2P decentralizing world. 

One resulting flaw here is that with proof-of-work blockchains (i.e. Bitcoin) rise an overloaded competition (with waste of energy and resulting elitism out of it). If the system needs 100 Watts, we only need 100 Watts, but we want to incentivize uncountable Watts more because that is what assures us to reach our 100 maintenance need better. 

This is not only a waste a thermodynamic energy, one wonders here how much this is affecting the environtment ground, because everything we wish vibrates the mesh from below we live in above. Wouldn’t such supplementary Watts be better used for another reason that creates another type of valueable ouput later? Wouldn’t that make us more smart (less stupid) in front of the review of nature?.

There are hundreds of developed p2p blockchained networks, all having the foundational stand of: «Tokenization secures the network«. But such «p2p tokenization» is given because of brute force (mining).

When we focus the ranking of the content by its Brute force and or by its Money$ value, we forget to focus in the ranking of other (some more valueable) contents we daily also interact with.

Too much focus on getting money by brute inputs or speculative strategies don´t let you care about evolving other more lovely inputs. Cryptocurrencies brute materiality (force) inputs needed to maintain their decentralized networks are overflooded, while other (more) lovely P2P features for our livings are underflown.

Brute maintenance is a need, we could have a x10 assurance of it, but the rest of worry should go into evolving better inputs further rather than getting more of the brute ones.

The safety and the overrating of the consensus the legal tenders give us is a distracting euphemism for not facing the more real consensus being based in a «cool wasteful display» and «shared lazyness of developing further decentralized (channels of) values and features for improving our livings». There is more euphemism about this as more trust enthusiasm is given to the CryptoCurrencies, probably because this looks too shamy for a self-believed vanguardist.

Nowadays, is worth for every good idea of a networkable value to have its p2p blockchain. But we need to focus more on contents that should make our livings with materialities more sustainable for all, because putting our decentralization entushiasm in communities that are quite monothematically focused (distracted-stressed) in the thread of increasing their relation with money$, we aren’t really decentralizing very smartly.

Competition for adding more loveliness in the form of structured content is worthier than competition for more brute force tech for getting more money$. 

There are a few popular P2P tools for daily life, while there is an increasing ammount of P2P blockchains. And blockchains are P2P tools that will never probably feature a rich social network, because overrating acknowledgements needs brings a lot of coding load complications.

There are efforts in making blockchains scalable to get to feature whatever computing, but they are still attached to the dubious thought of: «I want a facebook in my wallet» (the wallet-as-a-network architecture thinking), instead of the more logical reasoning of: «p2p crowdthessaurus, with an integrated multicryptocurrencies wallet in it«, altough the more popular architecture approach today is probably the chat-as-a-network (whatsup, wechat, etc).

 

Why we don’t have a rich p2p social network yet

Note: I don’t want to deprecate efforts like holochain, status or akasha projects within ethereum in favor of other more pure p2p based like holochain, secushare or retroshare. I just don’t get their technicallities well enough myself (and haven´t found anyone wanting to implement the flove standards there).

There is not p2p social network (more careless about featuring acknowledgements) very ready to use because there are not enough developers commited to do so. (again: most of the decentralizing developments heat is put on acknowledgment features…).

Many decentralizing features can be done (evolved) with the 1% of the overflood of enthusiasm there is in the p2p currencies, but we don’t seem to care about this flaw, yet.

There are many geeks that have got rich with the cryptocurrencies. There are thousands of programmers doing p2p blockchains, but not even a suffered dozen of people commited to develop an alternative to facebook in p2p.

 

What seems to be happening here is that we don’t care about p2p if there is not dollars-in-the-middle because have a comfortable life with the combination of (warning: sarcasm in):

I like Twitter more than Facebook. We don’t really need yet a better place for our free data to thrive. BigData companies will do that job of improving my networking options by developing more features for me-us. I see the value on storing Money in CryptoWallet, i consider social networking data store much less valueable, so i don’t care that much about decentralizing that store.

We just need to challenge legal tenders hegemony.

Other more «cryptoactivists» could even say or believe that if central money fail, we will have their tokens to be able to exchange things with, without foreeseing that if classical money fails, soon ther will be so much chaod that possibly there won’t be technical networks to exchange CryptoCurrencies with. Or there will be a new CryptoLegal tender with a high Surveilly and Vendor Lock-in design. 

The blockchains are a beautiful breakthru for letting anyone to choose which global currency (s)he is more comfortable with. It also make the Stock Exchanges more safe in the technical side of things. We have to see their lesser predictability (more ups & downs in their value$) as an advantatge. An environtmental pressure for us having to be more caring about what network represents more our personal values.

We need blockchained currencies to exchange daily things with, while we haven’t developed economic alternatives (really smart contracts…) to make the need for exchanging not that much valueable in our lifes (receiving something borrowed or gifted is a better offer than exchange, like more abstract matchy interactions too).

Exchange is the less rational evolutive option between all the posible ones for the transfer of the use of a thing (See it last at floves taxonomy). Apparently paradoxically, exchange being the lowest realm where to pump love from implies that Lovely exchanges should be the most sophisticated actions (because of their higher difficulty to achieve so, that is why we probably give some much attention to it overall).

So we need a p2p network that offers a certain usability focused in developing our more varied inputs of different lovrliness(es), where exchanging to be considered one of the lowest (lovely, less need to acknowledge) action there.

 

 

Curating content

We need curating (moderating) content to avoid sybil attacks and spamming in an environtment that is censorship resistant as any p2p tool by design is.

P2P Networks such as OpenBazaar propose to solve this problem with their own Ethereum-based (OB)Tokens manually distributed among trusted parties-persons. While that could be a decent patch (as moderated and premined tools like faircoin are), we can and have to keep thinking about better ways to decentralize the «curating of content» in P2P networks without having to come to the thought of: «Spammers won’t spam us because it will cost them too much money (in our tokens) to do so«. Some ideas:

-Register/Log in per invitation (looks centralizing, but a social graph could be enough)

-Do some task for registering (seeing this as slavery is a posh appeal to pitty fallacy)

-Curate affinities contents only (As in XS identities in RetroShare…)

-See only content that is curated up to certain ammount

-Watch x time a page, and then is validated as curation

My 2 cents, let’s keep the heat on about the free network we wish to have.

 

SEE MORE

Freed chain

Flovecoin