The problem of attention scarcity and a solution


#1

In some of my older discussions I put forth the idea that attention is something DACs should pay participants for. The bee pollination system/algorithm rewards participation and attention.

The bee pollination system metaphor works like this:

  1. Users can be represented as the bees.
  2. DACs can be represented as the flowers.
  3. Pollen can be represented as the shares/tokens.
  4. Resources like computation, storage, electricity, bandwidth can be represented as the land.

A deeper discussion of the bee pollination system as part of an evolutionary computation algorithm

To fully analyze the bee pollination system we have to think of DACs as existing as part of a symbiotic evolutionary algorithm. The bee pollination (also called the flower pollination algorithm) is an optimization algorithm designed to produce symbiosis between human participants and the DACs. It is modeled after the flower pollination algorithm in the same way SAFE Network is modeled after the ant colony algorithm and both of these algorithms both are familiar optimization algorithms.

DACs as candidate solutions in an evolutionary algorithm

Each DAC design is a candidate solution in the evolutionary algorithm we call the altcoin ecosystem. That evolutionary algorithm can measure DAC fitness.

DAC fitness

DAC fitness can be measured in economic efficiency/profitability, and they can also be measured in how effectively they produce the intended results inherent in their design. So if we look at Bitcoin we can see for example it’s not economically efficient because the price is trending down along with constant inflation or dilution, we can also see that it doesn’t achieve it’s long term social goal if Proof of Work ultimately centralizes to the point where we have to trust mining pools, large industrial hashing companies, etc as much as we have to trust banks today.

DAC reproduction

If viewed as artificial lifeforms DACs can reproduce in several ways.

  1. There is cloning which is just a fork, a new brand, and a relaunch where hardly any mutation takes place. This isn’t very desirable because it can split resources up between two identical designs weakening them both. This would be like having two identical SAFE Network DACs with exactly the same features.

  2. There is reproduction. This is when you have some new innovative feature added so that it’s not a direct clone. This would be like a SAFE Network with a transparent Proof of Work style Bitcoin blockchain for example.

DAC Mutation

Mutations are some random variable(s) which allow each DAC in the family chain to have a distinct character. This allows for feature diversity across the family chain which can allow each DAC to optimize for different purposes. Litecoin for example is Bitcoin with subtle changes so that it has a distinct character but is clearly in the same family and more like the younger brother of Bitcoin than a completely different species of DAC such as SAFE Network.

DAC Crossover

DAC Crossover allows for existing solutions to combine together. An example being the fact that you can take a snapshot of one DAC or community of token holders, split it up, and merge it with another DAC.

Evolutionary methods can be used to allow us to tame and domesticate DACs (algorithms) similar to how we domesticated cats and dogs. The evolutionary process provided by the market if we can keep it vibrant and free will let us use the survival of the fittest methods to produce DACs which evolve to be most fit (optimized) for human wants and needs.

It is not possible to know ahead of time what the perfect design will be or what human wants or needs will be. We need an ecosystem which allows many new DACs to be tested on a continuous basis. We need the testers to have the chance to be richly rewarded for participation in the process because only with human feedback can the DACs evolve to meet the needs of humans.

Individuals brave enough to participate early and frequently should receive the majority of the shares/stakes in the DAC. This would encourage the human beings to compete to be first to test new DACs allowing DACs to also compete to get attention from human beings (symbiosis). The bee pollination system/algorithm is the first step in attempting to produce a symbiotic optimization process but there has to be case studies in the form of DACs which try out that model to observe and measure the effects.

References


"Genetic" diversity in software
#2

I mean this respectfully but crack is economically efficient and its social utility is contested. Some think it quite socially useful in bringing about or highlighting what they believe is the natural order of things. Snuffing out people who hold such beliefs might also be considered economically efficient with high social utility. “Insect politics.” Check out the videos on Japanese Hornets.


#3

In order for a DAC to survive in a capitalist environment it must be economically efficient. This is why fitness is currently measured by market cap and other metrics of economic efficiency.

In addition to this you have social utility or social fitness. This can be measured as well. So the human being will have complete control to set fitness priorities so that DACs evolve to become as profitable as possible while also being socially useful.

If you’re contesting that there will be some mentally ill people who choose to use DACs which do things you don’t like then this is just a probable reality which will come about no matter what we do. If you want a reality which is good for you then you have to evolve the DACs to fit the vision of reality you have by determining the fitness functions which would generate it through artificial selection.

I’m working on part 2 of this solution but first I’d like part 1 to be peer reviewed, discussed, scanned for holes. If the community decides these metaphors don’t apply or that it’s not a good direction to go then I’ll respect these wishes. My own opinion is that DAC design is a process which can be improved on and accelerated if we start thinking about it in evolutionary terms.

Reference


#4

Including minimizing waste as efficiency.


Solving attention scarcity part 2 (autonomous agents)
#5

Correct. Bitcoin is very wasteful of electricity and it’s inflation isn’t spread to everyone via a dividend but instead goes to an unelected computational leadership which cannot be voted out.

DAC designs can be described as patterns. These patterns are not all that different from gene patterns or any other kind of pattern. The competitive process in the market is like an evolutionary algorithm which selects the most fit pattern where in most cases fitness is profitability. Fitness criteria can include anything though so the actual purpose is to select for the most fit pattern.

Energy efficiency is important and it is one of the reasons why people prefer other DAC designs than Bitcoin. Decentralization of power is also important to some people so not everyone likes the idea that they don’t get to vote on who receives the newly generated coins. In other cases some people might not want the coins to only go to people with chip making companies in China.

Universal darwinism is the concept to study further if you’d like to understand fully.

Reference