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 is with proof-of-work blockchains that rise an overloaded competition, meaning a waste of energy performed by the more rich who can acquire better hardware mining tools. The idiocy is to maintain «if the system needs 100, we only need 100, but we accept the competition between the 1000 because that is what assures us to reach the 100 (and so be maintained)«.

This 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 from below we live in above.

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.

A blockchain is a blockchain because sets its mining to be automatically performed within certain rules that shouldn’t be changed, and people is free to change tokens from a blockchain for any other tokens or money that another person is open to buy. This buyers bidding, more than the machanics of mining, is what rises the price in dollars of the blockchained token.

So nowadays, every good idea is worth and 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 the service we want to set up. Let’s not just give them per service, let’s sell them per dollars per stakeholding«.

This multi global currencies trend democratizes the centralizing problem of the nowadays stoke exchanges, but doesn’t help us much in making us all less slaves of money. We need more other networking contents, apart of plurality of global currencies, that should make our livings with materialities more sustainable for all. In this sense, P2p tools are the more perfect technologies for achieving a democratized, collaborative and solid long term project for networking some of our desired actions for a better living overall. But there are a few P2P tools for daily life, while there is an increasing ammount of P2P blockchains. And blockchains are P2P tools that will never feature a rich social network, just because it is a p2p technology that it is not designed for that so much interactivity and scalability. In the other hand, there is not a very ready to use 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 architecture 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 still 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, which is not necesarily in an additionally complex blockchained API.

 

Why we dont have a rich p2p social network yet

There are many geeks that have got rich with the cryptocurrencies. 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 which periodically get burst by lack of help in doing accesory tasks that any regular person could do, but noone shows up to volunteer for doing those.

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. We don’t really need yet a better place for our free data to thrive, the giants will do the job. Despite that, we have hope in evolution because we have our geeky blockchains challenging classical money (the biggest technological monster) as an exchange tool, at least they provide the stock exchange 2.0 version.

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, possibly there won’t be internet, or people won’t exchange through the internet, or simply won’t trust referrals from tech tools that are non internet dependant. If central money would fail, 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 from the pre-money and internet 1.0 crash.

 

So what is the proposed integrative alternative then?

The blockchains are a beautiful breakthru for letting anyone to choose which global currency (s)he is more comfortable with. We need blockchained currencies to exchange daily things with, while we haven’t developed economic alternatives (really smart contracts…) to make the stingy exchange not that much valueable in our lifes. We should reactivate and 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).

 

Distributed tokens are not worthier than decentralized tokens

Any automatization of tokens release for securing the network where tokens are not distributed somehow «manually due to real life trust», 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. Maybe this should be a problem since because despite it could happen, at least we will be rich enough to create a better alternative after, but again: it is playing to be a more expensive bitch with your project. This is why is good for projects, despite its non-sttopable architecture to declare their centralised aspects (i.e. password to the more famous updating tracer, etc) are unbuyable. 

These actions refer to the imposibility or unwishability of a fully distributed network. Since if it is fully distributed it has to be fully automatic, let me doubt that we can preview all automatings we could offer in the specification of a ultimate lovely tool to be not only censorship and spam resistant, but also money resistant.

 

 

Tokenized and or rewarded moderations as middle term

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. 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 (as moderated and premined tools like faircoin do), 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 we have to rely in real life trust chains, so we can also 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 to do manual local works much faster and easy as the network will be seen as the definitely very nice one.

I felt 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, specially since its beginning. 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 tokenized money as a tool to combat spamming, please…

See flovecoin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.