This is a post criticizing the monetization dogma trend for developing P2P technologies.

P2P technologies rely in users that are active in the network to become servers of the network, this way the platform doesn’t need central servers or admins. The nonsense here with proof-of-work blockchains is that there is a waste of energy because: “if the system needs 100, we only need 100, but we accept the competition between the 1000 because that is what assures us to be maintained“. It is not only a waste a thermodynamic energy, one wonders here how much this greedy intentionalism is affecting the quantum ground for later bringing us similiar underlying thermodynamic scarcity and greed to our livings, because everything we wish vibrates the mesh we live in above.

This competitiviness won’t either become a problem to resolve at all if we were not still that much slaves of money, or if all or most technologies that we use were P2P. But there are a few P2P tools for daily life, while there is an increasing ammount of P2P blockchains. There are hundreds of developed p2p blockchained networks, all having the foundational stand of: “Tokenization secures the network“. But such “p2p tokenization” is in fact a new form of slave money, because the secure tokenization they talk about is “a new way to surely be able to get centralized dollars from our tokens” in the end. So nowadays, every idea wants to have its p2p blockchain because: “Let’s give some platform tokens (that are convertable into dollars and cost us nothing) to our users in exchange of their maintaining service!“.

Blockchains will never do a feature rich social network, just because it is a p2p technology that it is not designed for that. In the other hand, there is not a p2p social network because there are not enough developers commited to do so. 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 thinking), instead of the more logical reasoning of: “p2p for a network, with an integrated multicryptocurrencies wallet in it“.

I don’t either want to deprecate efforts like status or akasha projects within ethereum in favor of other more pure p2p based like secushare or retroshare. I just because i don’t get their technicallities well enough myself. I don’t know why we need apps that feature smart contracts on a greedy race called blockchain, when they could either be available for use in a similar strongly censorship resistant tool, not necesarily in an additionally complex blockchained API for an app.

 

Why we dont have a rich p2p social network yet

There are many geeks that have got rich with the cryptocurrencies, and more on the way. Also there are thousands of programmers into p2p blockchains, but not even a suffered dozen of people commited to develop an alternative to facebook in p2p. What is really 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:

I like Twitter more than Facebook, and apart of that we don’t really need yet a better place for our free data to thrive. Despite that, we have hope in evolution because we have our geeky blockchains challenging classical money (the biggest technological monster) as an exchange tool.

There is an additional underlying 2 bits of hypocrisy in this stand:

1) They really value their blockchains by the more money that i (the new smart broker) could convert those tokens into. The better transactional featuring or increased community of users is really not the primary point, the primary point is having (or faking) tools for giving confidence to investors (financial sharks), so that will increase our marketcap value at i.e. bittrex.

2) The more activists of them could even say or believe that if money fail, we will have their tokens to be able to exchange things, without foreeseing that if classical money fails, posibly there won’t be internet, or people won’t exchange through the internet: we will either come back to a jungled society or to currencies that will be backed in real Goods, and not in any fiduciary chain.

 

So what is the proposed integrative alternative then?

The blockchains are a beautiful breakthru for letting anyone to choose which globl currency he is more comfortable with. But we need blockchained currencies to exchange things with, while we haven’t developed economic alternatives (really smart contracts…) to make the stingy exchange not that much valueable in our lifes. Never lose the focus that the exchange is the less rational evolutive option between all the posible ones for the transfer of the use of a thing.

So before setting up our desired currency, we need a p2p network that offers a certain usability where exchanging will be considered the lowest love in there. But despite exchange being the action with the lowest love overall, it should be the most sophisticated action, because since it is the lowest love, it needs the maximum effort to make it be the more lovely posible (within its low level love basis).

 

Tokenization for curating content

We need curating (moderating) content to avoid sybil attacks and spamming in an environtment that is censorship resistant. Tokens could help, but definetely it is not the only way to do so. I have to admit that this is the part where i am more interested in learning more about. Despite me not knowing it much, i’d like to have my own adventure with that here.

The tokenizers dogma says: -Give tokens to certain contents, so those contents since they are tokenized in our network, are contents that have a higher value. The pitty here is they say so because that tokenization actions costs “some money” (these tokens are not “free likes”, if they were free likes they won’t serve for the purpose of diferentiating content from spam cos the spammers will be spamming likes).

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, we can and have to think about better ways to “curate content” in P2P networks without having to come to the thought of: “Spammers won’t spam us because it will cost them money (in our tokens) to do so“.

Because if your network can be spammed with money, some super-rich could spam it anyway. We can think in further alternatives, to name some (not well elaborated but..):

-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)

-See 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

Well, as being said already, i didn’t digg in much about how to overcome the problem of Spamming in censorship resistant networks as the P2P are, but i am quite sure that tokenization of content could be a patch if tokens are distributed somehow “manually due to real life trust”, because any automatization of tokens release for securing the network, will imply that the people with lots of dollars could still take on the network by spending their dollars exchanging them for tokens and then spam us all (i can still imagine euro central bank guys or blockchain dogmatics willing to disturb a succesful network that is minimally tokenized). This doesn’t end here, because despite it could happen, at least we will be rich enough to create a better alternative after, but again: we’ll have to do it somehow manually i suspect, which is fine, since we shouldn’t expect technoiogy to cooks us the meal.

So if we have to rely in real life trust chains, we can use them for the registering, or for getting access to premium navigation of the network. And this can be gradually done, so little by little different trust real life chains could be merging as the network will be seen as the definite very nice one.

I fell that this definite very nice one (or killer app in jargon) will be achieved in great part because it would have overcomed its inner desire for scarce money. I just dump some ways to do it, but let’s keep the talk about the free network we wish to have, entirely out or the most beyond money as a tool to combat spamming, please…

See flovecoin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.