I’ve just read the draft white paper, and this project seems to overlap with David’s vision for SAFEnetwork, or rather Project SAFE, more than anything else I know about. It has some mind blowing capabilities already (see video demo) and represents a step change like SAFEnetwork, also uses the principle of looking at how natural systems, from atoms to humans, handle computation.
@dirvine I’m very interested to know if you’re aware of Ceptr and what you think of it. Much for both projects to learn from each other I think.
Draft White Paper (TL;DR: see notes below the video, also, watch the video! )
Very interesting list of areas they address, which include many of the problems SAFE has solutions to (though some were not entirely happy with, such as DNS). It would be interesting to compare their solutions with SAFE’s, for example the items under “IDENTITY & TRUST”, including “domain name squatting / namespace competition”. I know we’d like to improve some of that!
Related project: metacurrency.org
This gives some details about what receptors are and how they can be used to build complex applications using Hope (Higher Order Programming Environment).
(Alternative text explanation of receptors and how they work in Hope: a级片，国产精品自在拍在线播放，精品精品自在现拍国产，精品国产自在现线免费观看，一本大道香蕉中文在线视频，十分钟在线观看视频，禁止的爱完整在线观看，水蜜桃成视频人在线播放，yellow高清在线观看)
Source of link: http://ceptr.org/2015/04/01/mit-kit-webinar-april-2-2015/
More about HOPE: http://www.higherorderprogramming.com/
Github repo: GitHub - cliftonm/HOPE: Higher-order Programming Environment
Reading on about how receptors are implemented there’s this…
Now, if we could provide a compute feature that was capable enough to host receptors!
And this on updating:
In Ceptr, we have built versioning and deprecation right into the low-level design of the architecture.
As we’ve mentioned, Ceptr data is structured as semantic trees. The first branching under the root of a receptor in the Compository is its version. So, when you reference a receptor by its Compository ID, by default you would receive the latest version. However, you can also reference a specific version by a sub-address on that ID. Semantic markers are used to note when versions maintain compatibility with prior protocols and structures or when backward compatibility is broken.
It is also possible for the author of a composition to mark the whole thing (all versions) as deprecated with a forwarding address to a receptor which replaces it. This is important when the next improvement is not simply the new version of the same receptor, but the receptor has been forked to a new composition address or its functions are better performed by another composition altogether.
We see this low-level integration of deprecation and versioning as vital to the evolution of Ceptr itself since we’re not assuming we’re going to get it all right the first time. We’re tackling far too many things at once to be experts at all of it. So, as domain experts start to take interest in Ceptr and contribute better solutions, we expect to update many things (like scape indexing, key management, certificate management, routing algorithms, synchronization methods, GPU processing, and many performance optimizations).
Did you know that Wikipedia uses open source tools and shares its databases publicly so that anyone could come up with a way of doing what they do better and would have the means to replace them? In similar manner, we’ve built in the capacity for competing network protocols to operate in parallel with Ceptr or even replace it altogether if people opted over to that network. This too, is a part of optimizing for evolution.
There’s a lot of placeholders “to be expanded” for different aspects of their endeavour, but the demo is impressive (video above) and gives a small sense if how powerful all this could be.
At the end they list projects working on various parts of the overall problem, and under “P2P Solutions” they include “Maidsafe?” after “diaspora” - so they’ve heard of us, but probably didn’t have much knowledge of the potential of Project SAFE.