Cryptocurrency: -- The New Social Contract

other.arkitech other.arkitech at
Fri May 29 10:37:43 PDT 2020

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 9:26 PM, Punk-Stasi 2.0 <punks at> wrote:

> so, I was wrong and now stand corrected. Apparently a system based on accounts works fine. A counterargument of sorts is that keeping the whole history makes the system more robust, but it doesn't seem like the increased amount of 'security' can be clearly gauged. The costs imposed by a bloated chain on the other hand are easier to see. Something that always bothered me with chain verification is that it only makes sense if you have the 'authentic' client. So in the end the security of the whole system depends on getting the right binary, or the right sources, etc, off the arpanet...
> >

I feel like I am getting some degree of trustability. thanks for the illusion. : )

(After writing note: I started to write a short mention, but then I think I've extended myself for long. Serve it to publish the intention in search of potential flaws.)

I like to have a single point of failure. (even though I've worked for doing safety critical systems in aeronautics where there must a chain of failures to finally cause the disaster).
The difference that in aeronatics the system is composed of trusted subsystems, which are all redundant.

In an untrusted system you can only rely on your node and on the ledger.

The single point of failure is transaction validation. If you break this, then all subsystems are compromised and the whole system collapses, all trust lost.

Once a tx is validated its payload enters the ledger modifying it.

The software running in the node comes from the ledger itself.

In USPS the software is published by what I call the Other Foundation. An anonymous organization that publishes files in the account 4NwEEwnQbnwB7p8yCBNkx9uj71ru.

if you execute in your node this command:
gov data 4NwEEwnQbnwB7p8yCBNkx9uj71ru

you would get this:
Account 4NwEEwnQbnwB7p8yCBNkx9uj71ru
locking_program 11111111111111112UzHM
GAS volume 107237822
5 files. Total size 40 MiB.
  nN85MYnExi1jNvSdUy8ZMq2WRVy PuxQ2g 8274508 bytes
  3GVc1XJ1ifeqNkGZLnhnuKCL1LvH ZouMi2A 8524527 bytes
  a8zrtj7BzNwRfyXYZh1XLJHhfWE OzqIox 8383214 bytes
  2c6sM6cdAobGUC4RzgrekvSboavN nYhqPoi 8365226 bytes
  4DtfKBoVzbQ9Ha4FdTHk8XtETHsB v8uq1f 8515720 bytes

Nodes are fed from those files, they can obtain them from anywhere, the only thing they have to do is to check the content of the file hashes to one of those files (e.g. nN85MYnExi1jNvSdUy8ZMq2WRVy), and the binaries included in it can be trusted if the account 4NwEEwnQbnwB7p8yCBNkx9uj71ru is trusted.

Now, in order to trust this account one must trust the other foundation, the org behind this account.

The future of the governance shall be distributed, so publishing content in this account must be done via the collaboration of a pretty large group of people that are skilled to have this responsibility.

This chapter of community governance deserves to be treated perhaps in a separate thread.

> > Remember this system is not meant to be immutable because I consider immutability a compromise on privacy.
> I'm not sure which parts are 'mutable'? I mean, yes mutability helps privacy, but I assume you don't mean the accounting can be 'mutated'?

mutable after the possibility of deleting accounts (always after evidence of intention from the owner, or lack of maintenance (gas goes 0))
once deleted there's not a possibility to retrieve the content from the trusted state anymore. (perhaps from other sources that could have copied the deleted data while it was publicly available)

> > > > It means getting rid of criminal orgs to replace them with trustable machines that can serve us to run a public system -
> > >
> > > governments don't need to be replaced, simply exterminated, but ok.
> >
> > If, after extermination, the need they used to cover (registry, law, economy,..) is left in the wild they would rebirth again and again.
> governments don't cover legitimate needs - as criminal organizations they exist for the benefit of the criminals who compose them. Notice that you mention "economy" as some kind of 'need' 'covered' by those criminals. Under anarchy "economy" is handled by the (actual) free market.

?? current govs?, or future social orders that we can blueprint.
Two different stories.

Economy is a social need since we have the need of exchanging value.

> > So replacement is more appropriate to me. but ok.
> >
> > > > I dont have any political bias, ZERO.
> > > > I am no-wing.
> > > > I don't care about classic politics or ideologies.
> > >
> > > that's nonsense, but ok.
> >
> > I dont believe in delegating my political capabilities, whatever they are, to a 3rd party, if that makes more sense. How about you?
> I fully endorse non-delegation. We're on the same page on that regard. Sorry I wasn't clear, what I called "nonsense" is the claim of not caring about classic politics. The principle of non-delegation is part of the classic political school of anarchism.

yup, although I don't like words that can carry connotations I don't identify with like e.g. lack of social order.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list