“Intercon”, decentralised social and economic systems of the future
I hereby propose “Intercon”, a decentralised consensus protocol whose unique features comprise: -BFT distributed consensus that utilises the only existing real-world resource whose value grows with its decentralisation (according to Metcalfe’s Law) as a factor governing distribution of coins and participation in consensus – Internet bandwidth. This ensures that decentralisation is self-sustaining and cannot be stopped by centralisation of e.g. ASIC manufacture and use (as in Proof-of-Work) or initial coin distribution (as in Proof-of-Stake). -Infinitely scalable network of interoperable networks, without any kind of a central chain responsible for coordinating the system (which would be a choke point limiting scalability). -Distribution of the task of reaching decentralised consensus on external (network-exogenous) values by said network of networks. -Decentralised, secure and robust method of creating algorithmic stablecoins and synthetic assets. Thanks to mentioned features, creation of almost any and all economic and social systems that allow for: -using Internet bandwidth itself as a real-world resource that governs the distribution of power amongst consensus participants, the only possible solution for true decentralisation; -infinite scalability in the truest sense of the word; -the ability to seamlessly interact with almost any real-world events/variables is made possible. It is evident that social and economic systems of the future must be scalable and resistant to centralisation in order to be as efficient as the centralised ones, yet incorruptible and serving all of us. What is less understood is that they must be able to reach (most importantly, without losing mentioned properties) consensus on any value, occurrence or event – not only on financial transactions within a particular distributed ledger. In our society, financial consensus facilitates social one and vice versa, those two being like two sides of the same coin. Decentralised society of the future must have this basic capacity as well. Detailed documentation is available here: https://www.theintercon.org/assets/intercon_documentation.pdf Alessandro Toumi
This person posted a complete design for crucial freedom technology and signed their real name to it, with no associated implementation. We badly, badly need such technology, and people have been designing things like it for many years now, without successfully getting their implementations used. I am worried this person and people exposed to or attempting to implement their idea could now be harmed. I am greatly saddened that oppressors have such a huge and clear opportunity to prevent and hide this work, before anybody can use it to fight the oppression. Why are people still publishing designs without implementations in disruptive channels, after all these years? What can we do to change this behavior to one more likely to succeed? How can we protect and help this design reach not only implementation but also popularity?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 hello Karl, replies below as usual :) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, May 7, 2021 2:56 AM, Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
This person posted a complete design for crucial freedom technology and signed their real name to it, with no associated implementation.
We badly, badly need such technology, and people have been designing things like it for many years now, without successfully getting their implementations used.
Why are people still publishing designs without implementations in disruptive channels, after all these years?
there is always a tension between publicity and privacy in this situations. you want participants to help with the projecy, but you don't want detractors or malicious individuals drawing focus away from getting work done. in the ideal world, a decentralized reputation system would scrutinize potential members before incorporating them into a group. in practice, we always seem to rely on real-world networks and digital groups with poor reputation metrics. overall, i think the benefits of publicity outweight the potential harms. it's better to be open! YMMV best regards, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iNUEAREKAH0WIQRBwSuMMH1+IZiqV4FlqEfnwrk4DAUCYJW8HF8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0NDFD MTJCOEMzMDdEN0UyMTk4QUE1NzgxNjVBODQ3RTdDMkI5MzgwQwAKCRBlqEfnwrk4 DH+bAQCXAZhro27d95064mrDo+q9BY3ThAc5fsLjc5kTaqsVTQD+KA8NhGoJdM1W niT7xjmT2xPxdJqVp0/mhhOEbWq+htE= =UCHv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, May 7, 2021, 6:16 PM coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
hello Karl, replies below as usual :)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, May 7, 2021 2:56 AM, Karl Semich <0xloem@gmail.com> wrote:
This person posted a complete design for crucial freedom technology and signed their real name to it, with no associated implementation.
We badly, badly need such technology, and people have been designing things like it for many years now, without successfully getting their implementations used.
Why are people still publishing designs without implementations in disruptive channels, after all these years?
there is always a tension between publicity and privacy in this situations. you want participants to help with the projecy, but you don't want detractors or malicious individuals drawing focus away from getting work done.
in the ideal world, a decentralized reputation system would scrutinize potential members before incorporating them into a group. in practice, we always seem to rely on real-world networks and digital groups with poor reputation metrics.
overall, i think the benefits of publicity outweight the potential harms. it's better to be open!
It's good to be open if you have crucial new design information and don't need to finish. But you need something to keep the work alive first if it can be used to subvert a major dictatorship or law enforcement tactic. It's really great to be open! It's needed! But using your real name puts your entire project at risk.
YMMV
best regards,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iNUEAREKAH0WIQRBwSuMMH1+IZiqV4FlqEfnwrk4DAUCYJW8HF8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0NDFD MTJCOEMzMDdEN0UyMTk4QUE1NzgxNjVBODQ3RTdDMkI5MzgwQwAKCRBlqEfnwrk4 DH+bAQCXAZhro27d95064mrDo+q9BY3ThAc5fsLjc5kTaqsVTQD+KA8NhGoJdM1W niT7xjmT2xPxdJqVp0/mhhOEbWq+htE= =UCHv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
https://www.theintercon.org/assets/intercon_documentation.pdf
Privacy capable cryptocurrencies are in demand, notably to replace loss of elements of privacy taken when users early adopting from Fiat cash to first gen hardly private cryptos such as bitcoin and other less than private cryptos. Word "privacy" does not appear anywhere in searching the paper, nor any pages devoted to privacy, totally ignoring that "function/characteristic" of a currency Lack of and loss of privacy compared to cash/gold/goods, will present a serious impediment to adoption of any new coin that lacks comparable level of privacy as those. 107 pages... should probably come with an additional under 10 page summary version for people to read.
participants (4)
-
coderman -
contact＠theintercon.org -
grarpamp -
Karl Semich