Forum 2.0 - jalToorey/IdealMoney GitHub Wiki
Original post: https://www.scribd.com/document/225157293/forum-2-0
note: This writing was written before my foray into the writings of for example, Hayek, Ayn Rand, Nick Szabo etc. and although the spirit of it in general is worthy I now view capitalism as a word and concept as far superior to its counterpart (ie socialism etc.). I was in fact was already at this time exploring the importance of the introduction of private currencies as solutions to complex social systems (see Ideal Poker) which is capitalism by the true and proper sense of the word. I think then this essay could be re-written slightly with the explanation of the folly of "crony capitalism" and then it would ring as truth (this is forgivable too because since this writing many big businesses have been exposed as extensions of the (deep) state-ie having coercive monopolistic advantages). At the same time I suspect the way it is written now would speak to a broader audience...so at this time I am reposting it in its current form.
(also obviously we want to have the ability to carry identity cross forum but also the possibility to have multiple separate identities etc. In this writing the focus was more to be able to bubble up the top minds and truths)
Forum 2.0 — The framework for the new communication and efficiency sharing protocol
I think the whole human race knew this for a million years; and then in five thousand years of civilisation we have lost it, because our societies got too big to carry it out. But now we have to get started again, because it has become urgent that we communicate. We have to share our consciousness and to be able to think together, in order to do intelligently whatever is necessary.
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/chaos/complexity/dialogue.pdf
The inherent flaws of this bounty offer and other projects being developed today
I'd like to point out a great and fatal issue in the proposal outlined in the article below. The project seeks to break the bitcoin hierarchy that is observably against the spirit of Satoshi's gift to the world. However sometimes what feels like philanthropy can really be seen to be the continuance of residual pre-existing issues.
The project wants to end the centralized control that stifles creativity and freedom which bitcoin has given us the opportunity to foster. But I would like to suggest that offering a monetary award for this solution is the very problem itself! That when someone acts in the name of monetary gain, it cannot be helped that this capitalistic model bleeds into the entire thought process and therefore corrupts and dooms the entire project. This might be why with so much intelligence and so much technology, so many people have failed to produce a structure in which we can model a decent democracy after. It also may be why, even though I cannot program/develop this solution, I am able to describe the problem in a way that renders it immediately solvable.
One worries as well, if the internet is wrought with this problem so badly it will not allow the flow of significant discoveries and ideas, and instead treats them with aversion, avarice, ignorance, and fear. Because then even if I did propose a significant solution, it might not get recognized, heard, or “filtered to the top”.
Our direction
It is often helpful to know and understand our direction from the beginning. We don't want to build a project heading one way, and then realize later it wasn’t in line with the ideal overall direction that human civilization should head towards. I will say this without much explanation (and besides intelligent people will immediately identify and recognize the truth of this): an intelligent person or idea should be defined as acting in the direction of cooperative wholistic efficiency. Or to be clearer, intelligent people evolve peace. Then our goal for Forum 2.0 would be to facilitate the collection of peaceful (and therefore intelligent) minds in the most expedient and efficient manner possible.
We can outline a formula, one that allows these people to float to the top of the hierarchy. Or, since we no longer need such a ridiculous and condescending structure, our formula might instead be to facilitate a gravitational force that brings these people together (not top down). We might then be talking about a type of physics where ‘like’ forces attract rather than repel.
What is a forum and what should be its purpose
In new Roman towns the Forum was usually located at, or just off, the intersection of the main north-south and east-west streets (the Cardo and Decumanus). All forums would have a Temple of Jupiter at the north end, and would also contain other temples, as well as the Basilica; a public weights and measures table, so customers at the market could ensure they were not being sold short measures; and would often have the baths nearby. At election times, candidates would use the steps of the temples in the forum to make their election speeches, and would expect their clients to come to support them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_%28Roman%29
One might envision in the new world the purpose of a forum is to facilitate the efficient exchange of efficiency (where efficient exchange of efficiency would lead to economic ideality). Efficiency can come in the form of tangible things such as goods, or technology, or less tangible things like thoughts, ideas, and dialogue.
Notes on ancient democracy and our failure to capture its spirit
Athenian democracy took the form of a direct democracy, and it had two distinguishing features: the random selection of ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices, and a legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens. All eligible citizens were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly, which set the laws of the city state.
Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also the most direct in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business. Even though the rights of the individual were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense (the ancient Greeks had no word for “rights”), the Athenians enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government but by living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
How many people are needed for inevitable and immediate wholistic change?
We might suspect initially that ½ of the world be needed to enact great change. Certainly we can think of it as a tipping point. But if we think we need this many people to expedite this process it is because we are not thinking in terms of Forum 2.0. In a hyper-efficient forum process we might wonder what happens when we get the top 10, 20, or 100 minds together in a very accommodating environment (for Bohmian dialogue). And as we will soon understand, people not in this group will have the ability to both simultaneously participate and not participate which until now would be viewed as paradoxical in a forum setting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point
Notes on new age online democratic models and integrity systems
Maybe new ideas and projects are currently being developed and implemented with the same realization that we now have the ability to improve democracy. But in order to do this we must understand where it fails today and where it succeeds. We must take great caution not to let individualistic and capitalistic assumptions and beliefs creep into our design and thought process.
Again to be simple and direct we should look for an efficient system (free flow of voting), a system that is secure (trust-able), and a system designed to be free from capitalistic influence. There are great models today; however we mustn’t forget today's voting agents have been infused by economic influence. Therefore a solution to the problem of the bitcoin community requires the facilitation of a RE-education. But it is really an UN-education, and this is why a new voting system requires Forum 2.0 to be a total and complete solution. We want to facilitate the exchange of intelligent ideas as well as have a clear view of what an intelligent group of peoples might come up with in dialogue together.
We should clearly point out and remember that the main issues with today's democracy and integrity systems is they are fuelled on capitalism. We should expect this to change in the near future as money is separated from being a store of wealth, and starts to become viewed more like a public commodity. We shouldn't covet wealth, especially of the divisive kind, but rather efficiency, and so we want to fuel the world with efficiency rather than wealth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAlnMW1wv9g&noredirect=1
How might Forum 2.0 work
It might be helpful and faster to just list out some concepts for Forum 2.0, so it may be possible to intuit the wholistic design/model of it. It is likely this technology exists in some form, or will naturally arise in the very near future, and that the real solution here is just the combination of it with integrity check systems and a secure voting system.
- to be able to drag and drop different boxes in layouts onto a central “desktop” or “bulletin board”
- to be able to drag threads or subjects or even posts from other forums to a single user profile
- to be able to merge threads from multiple forums
- to have a single user name on every forum regardless of what one initially signed up with
- to make every drag-and-dropped addition to the bulletin board completely customizable
- ability to create and share bulletin board user profiles
- ability to filter in or out unwanted content, posts, users, etc.
Forum integrity check systems and voting systems
Obviously forums can have their own voting and check systems and these can be combined with other social platforms (and forums) to create integrity rating systems with more favourable confidence intervals. Poker players need this solution for their game, so they might use their own system while piggy-backing with Reddit’s system, as some poker players will frequent both communities. Certainly a large aggregate from multiple social networking platforms renders this aspect solved.
What does Forum 2.0 change?
Because users can now completely control their environment there is an immediate end of the capitalistic hierarchical structure upon implementation. Users are able to structure their own hierarchies without blocking each other’s ability to make hierarchies. Then because these profiles can be saved and shared, one can see how certain other individuals might view one or multiple forums.
We can also immediately see that there is an end to the capitalistic model of spam advertising, as users can choose not to pull advertising layouts to their bulletins. This seems not at all insignificant.
Users can choose what posts they see from whom, using filters that are able to sort through a thread and pull out only the wanted posts. Forums can be arranged in this way, and any way one chooses.
This creates a second level of forums, in which those users still functioning on the first level will not be able to see every conversation (immediate incentive to change). It also allows certain groups to choose not to participate with certain users viewed as obvious trolls, while not censoring the trolls’ ability to both read and comment on the conversation. I suspect if there is any aspect of this that the general population will misunderstand it is this; it is also the most significant aspect of this writing.
With Forum 2.0 you can instantly do things that are not generally thought possible.
I will refrain from going deeper into this aspect although no doubt specific examples and explanations will be needed and wanted. For now we should remember our goal is to put together that certain group of tipping point individuals that will lead us towards hyper-efficient peaceful cooperation. Certainly private groups will remain, but it is the intelligent people we want to find themselves, and they will generally always have their dialogue in a publicly accessible forum.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22Satoshi+Nakamoto%22
Programming and Developing Forum 2.0
If we truly understand the totality of this concept then we can see there is very little work and effort needed to make this a reality. In fact over the last year we might have noticed the internet has shifted towards facilitating this new model. Social media platforms have slowly changed to facilitate multiple device platforms. We are simply thinking of creating a customizable device platform; it’s a very small and basic change as a concept. So then we must develop the tool to pull the layouts to the bulletin board, and we should be able to see that as we develop this tool, the internet can (and will) simultaneously move to support it. The alternative choice for users would be to roam first-level ghost forums.
I will also note at this point we are really talking about a new way of browsing or a new function of the internet, free from the chains of restrictive capitalistic models.
Conclusion
I mean to point out the true problem outlined by Olivier Janssens, which is really that our approach is wrong. We cannot fund a freedom project with capitalism and expect desirable results. Instead we must approach these problems creatively, intelligently, peacefully, and cooperatively, in order to have the possibility of breaking free from our chains. The truth of the matter is we put these chains on ourselves and we keep them on ourselves by our own misapplication of economic principles.
In order to truly rewrite the democratic process, to expedite our decision making and integrity check system processes, we need to move the technology and function of a forum in tandem. The truest solution to bringing back the spirit of Bitcoin involves bringing both democracy and the function of forums back to their ancient roots or at least their intended roots. Once we have done that we can begin to understand and enact the communication protocol laid out by David Bohm. Now we might better understand why Satoshi was so effective in dialogue with such a small but intelligent group, and why Satoshi might have left once the project was started. By writing here I suggest Satoshi dissolved “Godwin’s law”, and somehow I figure this specific realization might make sense to certain people.