Mesh - Pico Peering Agreement

Warren, I’m not sure what you are saying here. If you have to contribute to get… thats a quid pro quo.

1 Like

Well the quid pro quo arrangements that concerns people is usually where some third party is getting screwed as a result of the deal and in quid pro quo interactions that are voluntary the benefit can be increasingly lopside or far from win-win. I am suggesting that if mesh according to fabled potential there shouldn’t be much need for SAFEcoin being earned on bandwidth, it would be inefficient. Also something that automatic and symmetrical and not consciously bargained for wouldn’t seem very “quid pro quo.”

It’s just the basic property rights. You damage someone’s property (body), they sue you. To me I doesn’t sound like regulation is needed, because that’s how we got here.

I am proposing a self-regulatory solution where the intensity of one’s needs is expressed in his readiness to reward the supplier for it. The main difference vs. regulation is voluntary exchange of goods and services.
Pilgrims didn’t own the lake, so the example is not a free market example.

  1. It’s funny how the largest perp of all, the government, is portrayed as a victim. They get bribes and pass laws that enable vendors’ schemes and voters deserve every bit of abuse they get. I wouldn’t characterize any of these 2 groups as victims.
  1. You’re wrong saying that the free market doesn’t work, but you believe what you want to believe.
  2. You say that historically regulation has failed (gee, that’s shocking, I wonder if bribes that anyone can give to both voters and legislators might have something to do with that?), but yet you argue for more regulation. Only this time, because now you’re one of the “honestest” folks giving your input, it’s going to be just and fair. Deja vu all over again.

Given a choice, anyone who feels he’s getting screwed on the mesh network would “tune” his s/w to ask for 110% of what he normally gets in these “fair” exchanges. Hell, even those who are screwing others would ask for 101.5% to see if they can get away with it.
You think your “smart” s/w could solve this problem. It couldn’t unless you forced everyone to use the same s/w and not tamper with it, so your ideal situation can be realized only in a totalitarian society.

Yes regulation under Bush in 2002 that post dot com bubble put forth this info service nonsense that encouraged phone companies to think they had something to add to every conversation and feel entitled to inject ads and sponsorship into everything as a condition of communicating at all. If there evil exists the reasons for doing that were evil and the source of the current troubles. Moving away from neutrality is what is causing the problem.

The Lockean notion that one’s property is an extension of one’s body is not simply accepted as it becomes undesirable when followed to its logical conclusions. “It reduces to finders keepers.” Property is not inviolate or even the principle upon which to build all else. Attempts to do so are generally attempts to justify selfishness and hide criminality.

Cable/telcos’ supposed property rights and claims are somehow allowed interfere with other people’s communications and damage the internet? Could have been a carrot on a string approach but the only purpose was all this money and inherited wealth as God nonsense. The impulse isn’t any higher than racism. It was doubly ugly because they were trying to privilege money and elevate the value of capital as they installed another corporate welfare toll-road baron, so they could fix elections with sponsorship etc.
They wanted to make their censorship self reinforcing with profit like addiction oriented TV. Yeah, bad sponsored regulation.

Again where there was a symmetry in communication coming from end user own mesh nodes and where there was no scarcity where is their room for charged for exchange? Are we to expect node manufacturers
even for nodes printed at home to make them inadequate to enable the artificial scarcity for this kind of market?

Well that’s unaccountable highest bidder sponsored government. In the US system its not so much the administrators but the selected/elected shills. As soon as we can find a way to get rid of the state we should.

Not like that but the idea that markets are self managing or self regulating or that industry self policing is always best, these don’t hold up. The point isn’t in trying to keep industry from innovating or exploring
the dreams of people who are passionate about their fields, the point is simply to limit actions that are preventable and hurt other people. But terminology/docrine like “freedom of contract” and “free” market gets irritating, especially when its used to argue for monopoly and inequity. Freedom of contract, maybe not always, but always seems to be about arguing for a right to oppress and subjugate. As if freedom were consistent with abuse or necessarily implied it. Freedom of contract is arguing for freedom to fix prices and freedom to be free of competition and freedom to charge outrageously high interest or outrageously low wages. When I hear “free,” in the business sense or from business people I think “enslavement,” because that is what they generally have in mind. The Austrians say we’ve never seen truly free markets, but I think we saw them in Mercantile England and Mercantile Sweden.

So any kind of solution that benefits everyone, any kind of dependable infrastructure, is a wrong because it prevents swindling? Simple, you get as much bandwidth as you give- nice and zero sum and prevents something for nothing scamming. No need for a market when something perfectly allocated. I can hear a scam dying. But its also part of why ProjectSAFE to fulfill its potential needs to transition to end user owned SDR mesh as soon as possible.

The current (and one before that, etc.) government regulation system was supposed to be a solution and look what it became. Not a single one was successful and IMO none can ever be successful because once you’re in the position of power (to order other people what to do and how much to charge for their business and so on), that’s when people start coming up with their pet projects (which requires higher taxes) or they simply steal without going through the trouble of using the tax system.

1 Like