On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Ray Dillinger wrote:
I was offering a definition for 'fully distributed.'
You were doing more than that, you setting boundary conditions on the 'participants' as well, it's overly strict and limits the definitions usefullness becuase it a priori eliminates some sorts of distributed systems. Strictly speaking simply having a 'distributed' system where each participant catches as catch can based on their particular individual strategies and resource 'windows' doesn't require that all participants have the same strategies or 'windows'.
It is possible for a system to be distributed without being fully distributed.
Granted, it's called a 'regulated market'. It is where each of the participants has a 'role' to play (ie is a member of a ' hyper cycle').
The existence of structures, priveleges, or roles in some parts which cannot arise in other parts, or cycles where nodes can be excluded if other nodes are removed, are possible in some distributed systems. The subset of distributed systems in which they are not possible, I call 'fully distributed'.
I'd say they are possible in ANY system, fully distributed or not. There are issues of 'transport delay' and 'diffusion rate' that all limit the effect of participants and help create situations where hyper-cycles become 'emergent behaviours' (eg life on Earth). Besides "Laws of the Game" by Eigen (which I've mentioned before) you should also check out, The Major Transitions in Evolution J.M. Smith, E. Szathmary ISBN 0-29-850294-x Signs of Life: How complexity pervades biology R. Sole, B. Goodwin ISBN 0-465-01927-7
Usenet is an example of a system which is fully distributed.
Actually this has the same limitations as the 'Napster' model, it requires a centralized
If all the backbone nodes went down tomorrow, a thousand linux geeks across the country could work out the news routing software and could put it back up without them inside of a week.
The same could be said for Napster or any other software once the 'intellecutal property' is widely enough know. Something to do with 'advancing the state' I suspect.
Otherwise the entire 'pay yoru way' would fall down, there'd be no reason to pay anything for anything. If you were all interchangeable you'd already have whatever it was we were talking about exchanging.
Not necessarily. I might have the means to produce it, but not the time or inclination or expertise.
Wow, that was easy. Thanks for recognizing my point. There are 'non economic' issues which effect the economic issues. This causes non-linearity or irrationality (depending on ones view) in the choises. This causes a fundamental disjunct with the 'all players are the same'. Now, the problem is what does cryto-anarchy offer as protection as abusive strategies in this environment? In mathematical words what does it offer to ensure that no 'hyperbolic' strategies are used? Nothing. This is a major failing because it means the 'market equilibrium' can be significantly effected by a single participant to the detriment of all. This is contrary to the point of a 'market' and most definitely the point of a 'free market'. The thesis behind a 'free market' is that the choices are numerous enough, and the product non-descript enough, that no hyperbolic strategy is allowed to exist a priori. This takes us right back to that famous question: Where does this stability come from? It is not inherent in the market itself. Since crypto-anarchy and Friedman style free-markets assume a priori this thesis there is a flaw in them.
Government and many other organizations work the same way; there are irreplaceable nodes within them that, if shut down, spell the death of the organization. (Hint: it ain't the president of the US). What some here call crypto anarchy, may well wind up being only the fully distributed form of government.
Actually in a representative government there aren't any such 'master nodes' if it's worked out right. Of course this runs completely contrary to human nature and most persons individual desires (they want to be indispensible and everyone else to be interchangable). Further, your broad assertion (implied admittedly) that all governments must have master nodes doesn't bode well for crypto-anarchy or free markets (as I've said for years). It implicitly admits the non-linearity of human desires.
Water exists in places where no trees are. Consider Titan.
No, ice exists. A distinct and important difference when we're talking about 'life' as the model of the system. Now if water is found at Titan AND no life is found then you'd have a single point of reference. But still incomplete. Because you would have to demonstrate that there was no flux involved such that the loss of water from Titan into space from evaporation (or whatever the technical term is, sublimation perhaps) isn't replaced from some other source. I find that highly unlikely. More likely you'll find life which traps the water in a hyper-cycle or else you'll find a net negative flow rate OFF Titan. Might take a long time but that's not the point. The assertion is after all that 'water exists without a tree'. This is clearly true, but the key point is the 'tree' which is a off handed reference to a hyper-cycle. Not all hyper-cycles must involve life. Which goes right along with my assertion that not all players in the game are identical or interchangeable. I would contend that no water exists on a planetary body of any size unless there is a hyper-cycle of some sort to trap it. ____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------