Except for the queen.
Good insight @Traktion. This is the part missing from the above discussion. Dominance hierarchy exists, and will always exist. In the end there will be only one network. Safe works because all the humans participating agree to let the Network have dominance, and build code to ensure it remains dominant… rather than fight eachother for dominance of the network/data/resources and have the whole thing fail.
It’s a misconception, the queen has no control. She births and that’s about it.
Are we sure of this. Equilibrium exists at times and works, when that is off balance like humans in the last 150 years then the system breaks. Dominance has to be short-lived and in nature, the dominant species eat all its food and populations decline and food then has the ability to increase, then the population can increase again and the cycle repeats.
We are in a dangerous situation right now because there is a dominance in nature and it’s us. We have outsmarted many of the balances that should have reduced our population and we are eating up the planet’s resources and have put the whole ecosystem out of equilibrium.
So I would say the strive for dominance always exists, but it balances. Now introduce an “intelligent” species and we are in today’s experiment.
Yes. We exist in a system of feedbacks - many, if not all, of which strive to keep Life moving forward. Again, I recommend this video - by a real, and yet humble, economist the Late Dr. Ben Rogge – Watch this video! :) - #482 by TylerAbeoJordan
I will watch it, but it does predate all the complex financial instruments of the 80’s and beyond. It was a time when personal debt was still considered bad. Simpler times.
Times did change a lot and true free markets with complex financial instruments is … well, we all know.
Yes, the power of the oligarchy/State has grown. He’s not strictly talking about the existing system though (even back then), he discusses the worries of some that under a small to zero government system that monopolies would form (yes they will) and that they will dominate and rule indefinitely.
Is the premise that without any monopoly protection that monopolies would not exist? If so does that assume “playing by the rules?”
The talk discusses what the idea of monopoly even means as it’s not as simple as some economists attempt to make it. He goes through the various economic schools of thought on what a monopoly actually might be.
I don’t think anyone would argue that monopolies can’t exist at any point in time. The issue is, IMO, that there are feedback mechanisms in markets, that are both basic (entrepreneurs create alternatives) and can even extend to the use of violence (both via the State and in Anarchistic societies) that limit the power and extent of power-hungry monopolists. What he does in the video is to look at historical examples of a particular marketplace.
He explains it all way better than I ever could. With good humor and examples - he was a university professor.
Reciprocal altruism exists also, Robert Sapolsky of Standford has a series of lectures freely available on Human Behavioural Biology which are amazing, which talk a lot about this, amongst other things.
One of my takeaways from the lecture series was: if we have an entire economic system that encourages dominating others in order to be a ‘success’, well then, yeah, it is going to be very easy to hold a strong, unshakeable belief that ‘human nature’ is like such-and-such, and we’re stuck in a negative feedback loop there at that stage.
It turns out that there’s been some work done on what it takes for species to get into a positive feedback loop, and it does happen, and has been modelled.
This doesn’t mean it could definitely absolutely work for humans and we could suddenly be utopically wonderful… But it absolutely seems like the kind of thing we should be attempting, in all scenarios.
Just pointing out that these terms don’t refer to emotions or bad and good, at least not in engineering. Actually negative feedback loops lead to stable systems, while positive feedback loops lead to unstable systems. (Maybe unbounded altruism wouldn’t eventually collapse? Is that your implication?)
In humans - positive feedback loop (as imagined by non-engineers) is generally a Good Thing and vice versa.
In engineering terms, as you say its a different story.
I wasn’t using the term in the engineering sense, but I hadn’t seen that definition of feedback loops before, so thanks. I also definitely wasn’t making any claim about where long term unbounded altruism would lead to… I’ll believe that when I see it 
I meant it in the loosely defined general sense. ‘Positive feedback loop’ there just means, for me, encouraging people not to hold a knife at each others throat, to share, be curious, maybe don’t crush people at school for years, that sort of thing.
Therein lies the devilish details of course; do we focus on reducing suffering? What if humans cause a net suffering? How will animals be treated in terms of suffering?
Are the laws of economics like binding laws of nature, impossible to even consider changing, and anyone that wants to change them is a communist hippie?
Etc, etc. My actual proposal there when it comes to the details would be to sidestep the philosophical grandstanding and start small: how about some system that doesn’t literally glorify the destruction and humiliation of others, for a start. And we can argue about the details later.
Yes, in order to maintain/promote status or outcome as a team against all other competitors. Nothing forbids symbiosis and cooperation within a dominance heirarchy. The concepts are a lot more general than evolutionary biology or population dynamics.
When I brought up reciprocal altruism there, I wasn’t taking out a pokemon card - I was not trying to ‘outconcept’ your concept.
Fair enough, you want to hold on to the primacy of dominance hierarchy, you’re free to.
My reading of that human behavioural biology lecture series at the time was that in animal groups, there’s a subtle interplay of various pressures to behave one way or another.
Dominance hierarchies, reciprocal altruism, kinship selection, sexual selection, etc. It was Sapolsky’s whole point from the start, and he made it very well: if we want to be less wrong, we’ve to think about behaviour sometimes in terms of genes, sometimes in terms of neurobiology, sometimes in evolutionary terms, and so on.
I didn’t come away thinking ‘ah, if only we change this one thing, everything will be fabulous, and it’d be easy, and definitely work’. But I also definitely didn’t come away thinking ‘the reason we can’t change anything is because concept A, therefore, end of discussion.’
Calhoun’s work may be of interest to you if you haven’t come across it before.
creepy background subtle music
Arweave. The first thing you see on the arweave homepage is “Store data, permanently.”
There’s a calculator that shows upload costs: Arweave Fee Calculator shows a price of 0.52 AR to store 1 GB which works out to be about $5.64 to permanently store 1 GB at todays price of $10.84.
The block explorer shows
9.58 TB stored
151 nodes
10,740,184 transactions
76,414 addresses
The stats shows an average of about 15 GB being added per day.
There’s an app explorer shows 9 apps with a total of 2570 transactions, average of 285 txs per app, and the most popular app with 898 transactions (permamail). The app with the most users is arweave-id with 384 users. I don’t really think these stats are accurate, hard to know.
There’s a forum style app called Arweave Board which is pretty interesting because it’s read-only unless you log in (using your arweave wallet). It gives a good idea what SN will look like to most of the early visitors. This is the only content I could find on arweave that was ‘browsable’.
This chess app is interesting to me because it requires loading javascript from unpkg.net so does not work without the ‘old internet’, even though it seems like it could. It took 13s to fully load the page and transferred 32 MB of data, seems like a lot of that is from loading the historical saved games (129 requests total). Pretty heavy page.
Another thing that stood out was the stats and block explorers etc are running on the ‘old’ internet, not on arweave. This will be a point to look at for SN too - if something is not being hosted on SN why not? This is a pretty interesting litmus test for the weak points of permaweb networks.
Overall a pretty interesting network that worked better than most at the superficial first-look level.
Filecoin just cracked 7 EiB
0-1 EiB after 87 days
1-2 EiB after 58 days
2-3 EiB after 45 days
3-4 EiB after 35 days
4-5 EiB after 26 days
5-6 EiB after 29 days
6-7 EiB after 28 days
Of that 7 EiB there’s 21 PiB being used for data storage, about 0.3% utilization rate.
Can someone retrieve data from the FileStar network and how is their vampire attack against FileCoin ongoing?
Privacy. Security. Freedom
Very interesting. From the filestar homepage:
FileStar has implemented a more reasonable distributed storage incentive mechanism based on Filecoin through technological innovations, refined design for economic model and governance mechanism, and has gradually evolved from distributed storage to distributed Internet incentive layer.
From https://filestar.info/en they currently have 170 PiB farming, compared to 7293 PiB currently farming filecoin.
Looks like filestar mainnet went live 252 days ago on 2020-10-27 (source) compared to filecoin mainnet live 315 days ago on 2020-08-25 (source). Filestar was live 63 days after filecoin.
Filestar has been around 80% of filecoins lifetime but attracted only 2% of the farming resources.
Filestar seems odd to me, either I’m being a total idiot, or they’re onboarding is well hidden.
Thought I’d check it out, can’t find a forum, just a telegram group.
Can’t find vids or info about requirements or how to get started.