https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Alex+Pazaitis&feedformat=atomP2P Foundation - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T12:14:03ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.40.1https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Kelly_Pavlaki&diff=118829Kelly Pavlaki2019-08-17T07:28:06Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Bio=<br />
<br />
[[File:Kelly small.png|180px|thumb|left]]<br />
<br />
Kelly (Kalliopi) Pavlaki is an affiliate of the P2P Lab research collective. She is the project and communication manager of the COSMOLOCALISM research project funded by the ERC Starting Grant at Tallinn University of Technology. Kelly holds a BSc in Civil Infrastructures Engineering (2011-Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki) and an MSc in Energy Systems (2014 – International Hellenic University). She has a five-year experience in the private sector, working as part of a team on energy inspections and as a consultant of private and public organizations on the management of co-financed projects.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Contact=<br />
* kalliopi.pavlaki (AT) gmail.com</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=User:Gustavo&diff=116931User:Gustavo2019-06-26T10:41:45Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: Replaced content with "See Gustavo Sugahara"</p>
<hr />
<div>See [[Gustavo_Sugahara|Gustavo Sugahara]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Gustavo_Sugahara&diff=116930Gustavo Sugahara2019-06-26T10:40:29Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: Created page with "=Bio= Gustavo Sugahara is an affiliate of the P2P Lab research collective. His main research interest is the relations between population ageing and economics. Departing from..."</p>
<hr />
<div>=Bio=<br />
Gustavo Sugahara is an affiliate of the P2P Lab research collective. His main research interest is the relations between population ageing and economics. Departing from a broader demographic change perspective Gustavo is most probably the only living economist who does not see ageing as a problem. He has a Ph.D. from the Oslo Metropolitan University and a Master's degree in Economy and Public Policy from the University Institute of Lisbon, Portugal. <br />
<br />
=Publications=</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=116155Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-26T14:50:43Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>Full title: Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019). ''Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto'', London: Westminster University Press. <br />
<br />
Available as free e-book & low-cost paperback at: https://www.uwestminsterpress.co.uk/site/books/10.16997/book33. <br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
[[File:P2P Book Cover.PNG|160px|thumbnail|left]]<br />
Not since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a more profound transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. As capitalism faces a series of structural crises, a new social, political and economic dynamic is emerging: peer to peer. What is peer to peer? Why is it essential for building a commons-centric future? How could this happen? <br />
<br />
These are the questions this book tries to answer. Peer to peer (P2P) is a type of social relations in human networks, as well as a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible. We believe that these four aspects will profoundly change human society. P2P ideally describes systems in which any human being can contribute to the creation and maintenance of a shared resource while benefiting from it. There is an enormous variety of such systems: from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia to free and open-source software projects, to open design and hardware communities, to relocalization initiatives and community currencies. Thus, P2P enables a new mode of production and creates the potential for a transition to a commons-oriented economy. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
== Dedication == <br />
This book is dedicated to Jean Lievens, who passed away in 2016 after a lifetime of engagement for social justice and the commons.<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας,''<br /><br />
''που κάνουν τα καλάμια να λυγίζουν,'' <br /><br />
''στα όρια των χωραφιών κι εν μέσω άπνοιας'' <br /><br />
''τα μέτωπα των αγροτών δροσίζουν.''<br /><br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας.''<br /><br />
<br />
''Tell me those stories of yours''<br /><br />
''that make the reeds bend,''<br /><br />
''at the edge of the fields, and that, amidst wind lull,'' <br /><br />
''cool the farmers' brow.''<br /><br />
''Tell me those stories of yours.'' <br /><br />
<br />
Thanasis Papakonstantinou, San Michele (avena un gallo) (2011)''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Table of Contents == <br />
<big>'''1. Introduction'''</big><br /><br />
1.1. What is P2P and how is it related to the commons?<br /><br />
1.2. Are P2P technologies good or bad?<br /><br />
1.3. How does P2P relate to capitalism?<br /><br />
1.4. How is P2P to be implemented in practice?<br /><br />
1.5. Towards a commons-centric society?<br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''2. P2P and a new ecosystem of value creation'''</big><br /><br />
2.1. Diverse skills and motivation<br /><br />
2.2. Transparent heterarchy<br /><br />
2.3. A new ecosystem of value creation<br /><br />
2.4. Four short case studies<br /><br />
2.5. From contradictions to an integrated economic reality <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''3. P2P and new socio-technological frameworks'''</big> <br /><br />
3.1. Two generic models <br /><br />
3.2. The extractive model of cognitive capitalism <br /><br />
3.3. The generative model of commons-based peer production <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''4. P2P and the structure of world history'''</big> <br /><br />
4.1. Four modes of exchange <br /><br />
4.2. Towards associationism <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''5. A commons transition strategy'''</big> <br /><br />
5.1. Pooling and mutualizing resources wherever possible <br /><br />
5.2. Introducing reciprocity <br /><br />
5.3. From redistribution to empowerment and predistribution <br /><br />
5.4. Subordinating capitalist market <br /><br />
5.5. Organizing at the local and global level <br /><br />
5.6. Summary of our proposals <br /><br />
5.7. A last word <br /><br />
<br />
== The Authors == <br />
Michel Bauwens is the Founder of the P2P Foundation and works in collaboration with a global group of researchers in the exploration of commons-based peer production, governance, and property. <br />
<br />
Vasilis Kostakis is the Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology and Faculty Associate at Harvard University. He is the founder of the P2P Lab and core member of the P2P Foundation.<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis is a Core Member of the P2P Lab and a Junior Research Fellow at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Excerpt ==<br />
<br />
From chapter 1, by Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. :<br />
<br />
===1. Introduction===<br />
<br />
Not since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a more profound transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. As capitalism faces a series of structural crises, a new social, political and economic dynamic is emerging: peer to peer.<br />
<br />
What is peer to peer (P2P)? Why is it essential for building a commons-centric future? How could this happen? These are the questions we try to answer, by tying together four of its aspects:<br />
<br />
1. P2P is a type of social relations in human networks, where participants have maximum freedomi to connect.<br />
<br />
2. P2P is also a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible.<br />
<br />
3. P2P thus enables a new mode of production and property.<br />
<br />
4. P2P creates the potential for a transition to an economy that can be generative towards people and nature.<br />
<br />
We believe that these four aspects will profoundly change human society. P2P ideally describes systems in which any human being can contribute to the creation and maintenance of a shared resource while benefiting from it. There is an enormous variety of such systems: from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia to free and open-source software projects, to open design and hardware communities, to relocalization initiatives and community currencies.<br />
<br />
Our narrative is structured as follows. This chapter explains what this book is about by introducing some basic concepts. Chapter 2 describes how a new ecosystem of value creation is developed by implementing P2P technologies and practices. Chapter 3 sheds light on how different interests can use P2P dynamics. Chapter 4 places P2P into the broader context of the world history. Then, chapter 5 proposes a generic strategy for a transition to a commons-oriented society. At the end of each chapter, the infographics visualize the central message of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
===1.1. What is P2P and how is it related to the commons?===<br />
<br />
Consensual connections between “peers” characterize P2P computing systems. The computers in the network can interact with each other without going through a separate server computer. It is in this context that the literature started to characterize the sharing of audio and video files as P2P file-sharing and that a part of the underlying infrastructure of the Internet, like its data transmission infrastructure, has been called P2P. So, in a P2P network, peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the application that the network performs.<br />
<br />
Let us now assume that behind those computers are human users. A conceptual jump can be made to argue that users now have a technological affordance (a tool) that allows them to interact and engage with each other more efficiently and on a global scale. P2P is a social/relational dynamic through which peers can freely collaborate with each other and create value in the form of shared resources. It is this mutual dependence of the relational dynamic and the underlying technological infrastructure that facilitates it, which creates the linguistic confusion between P2P as a technological infrastructure and P2P as a human relational dynamic. <br />
<br />
However, a technological infrastructure does not have to be fully P2P to facilitate P2P human relationships. For example, compare Facebook or Bitcoin with Wikipedia or free and open-source software projects. They all utilize P2P dynamics, but they do so in different ways and with different political orientations (chapter 3 discusses this issue).<br />
<br />
P2P is therefore primarily a mode of relationship that allows human beings to be connected and organized in networks, to collaborate, produce and share. The collaboration is often permissionless, meaning that one may not need the permission of another to contribute. The P2P system is, therefore, generally open to all contributors and contributions. The quality and inclusion of the work are usually determined “post-hoc” by a layer of maintainers and editors, as in the case of Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
P2P can also be a mode to allocate resources that do not involve any specific reciprocity between individuals but only between the individuals and the collective resource. For example, one is allowed to develop her software based on an existing piece of software distributed under the widely used GNU General Public License, only if her final product is available under the same kind of free and open-source license (in this case, GNU General Public License). <br />
<br />
In the realm of information, which can be shared and copied at low marginal cost, the P2P networks of interconnected computers used by collaborating people can provide shared functionalities for the creation and maintenance of collective resources. However, P2P does not only refer to the digital sphere and is not solely related to high technology. P2P can generally be synonymous with “commoning,” in the sense that it describes the capacity to contribute to the creation and maintenance of any shared resource. As discussed in chapter 4, P2P as commoning has always existed, but without the scale that computing affords it.<br />
<br />
There are multiple definitions of the “commons.” We adhere to David Bollier’s (2014) characterization of the commons as a shared resource, co-governed by its user community according to the rules and norms of that community1. The sphere of the commons may contain either rivalrous goods and resources, which two individuals cannot both have at the same time or non-rival goods and resources, whose use does not deplete it. These types of goods or resources have been inherited, or they are human-made.<br />
<br />
For example, a type of commons may include the gifts of nature, such as the water and land, but also shared assets or creative work such as cultural and knowledge artifacts. Our focus here is on the digital commons of knowledge, software, and design because they are the “new commons” (Benkler, 2014). These commons represent the pooling of productive knowledge that is an integral part of the capacity for any production, including physical goods.<br />
<br />
P2P is arguably moving from the periphery of the socio-economic system to its core, thereby also transforming other types of relationships, such as market dynamics, state dynamics, and reciprocity dynamics. These dynamics become more efficient and obtain advantages by utilizing the commons. P2P relations can effectively scale up, mainly because of the emergence of Internet-enabled P2P technologies: small-group dynamics can now apply at the global level.<br />
<br />
<br />
===1.2. Are P2P technologies good or bad?===<br />
<br />
We do not claim that a particular technology may lead to one inevitable social outcome. We recognize the critical role that technologies play in social evolution and the new possibilities they create if specific human groups successfully utilize them. Different social forces invest in this potential and use it to their advantage, struggling to benefit from its use. Technology is, therefore, best understood as a focus of social struggle, and not as a predetermined “given” that creates just one technologically determined future.<br />
<br />
Still, when social groups appropriate a particular technology for their purposes, then social, political and economic systems can change. An example is the role that the invention of the printing press, associated with other inventions, played in transforming European society (Eisenstein, 1983/2012).<br />
<br />
The fast-growing availability of information and communication technology enables many-to-many communication and allows an increasing number of humans to communicate in ways that were not technically possible before. This, in turn, makes possible massive self-organization up to a global scale. It also allows for the creation of a new mode of production and new types of social relations outside of the state-market nexus.<br />
<br />
The Internet creates opportunities for social transformation. In the past, with pre-digital technologies, the costs of scaling regarding communication and coordination made hierarchies and markets necessary as forms of reducing these costs. Hence societies that scaled through their adoption “outcompeted” their tribal rivals. Today, by contrast, it is also possible to scale projects through new coordination mechanisms, which can allow small group dynamics to apply at the global level. It is, thus, possible to combine “flatter” structures and still operate efficiently on a planetary scale. This has never been the case before.<br />
<br />
<br />
===1.3. How does P2P relate to capitalism?===<br />
<br />
We are living through a historical moment in which networked and relatively horizontal forms of organization can produce complex and sophisticated products. The latter are often better than the artifacts produced through state-based or market-based mechanisms alone. Consider how the user-generated Wikipedia displaced the corporate-organized Encyclopedia Britannica, how the open-source Apache HTTP server outcompeted Microsoft server software, or how Wikileaks survived the assaults of some of the world’s most powerful states. <br />
<br />
The hybrid forms of organization within P2P projects do not primarily rely on either hierarchical decisions or market pricing signals, but on forms of mutual coordination mechanisms that are remarkably resilient. Peer production (often also P2P production) has been broadly portrayed as a generic form of self-organization among loosely-affiliated individuals that volunteer on equal footing to reach a common goal. When it comes to the production of information or culture, where the means of production are often more distributed, peer production presents a number of systemic advantages over managerial hierarchies and markets (Benkler, 2002). These advantages in turn entail an “immanent”, but also a “transcendent” aspect in relation to the dominant economic system. <br />
<br />
On one hand, these emerging mutual coordination mechanisms increasingly become an essential ingredient of capitalism. They are reinforced and enabled by capital investment to rejuvenate its circulation. This is the “immanent” aspect of peer production that changes the current dominant forms. But on the other hand, such mechanisms can become the vehicle of new configurations of production and allocation, no longer dominated by capital and state. This is the “transcendent” aspect of peer production, as it creates a new overall system that can subsume the other forms. In the first scenario, capital and state subsume the commons under their direction and domination, leading to a new type of commons-centric capitalism. In the second scenario, the commons, its communities, and institutions become dominant and, thus, may adapt state and market modalities to their interests.<br />
<br />
As we discuss in the following chapters, peer production is a prototype of a new mode of production, rather than a full mode of production today. This means that currently peer production is in a mutually dependent relationship with capital, which uses both the processes and virtue of peer production for its own gain. Moreover, as prominent cases of P2P projects have gradually delineated a winning strategy in the new economy, distorted forms of P2P-enabled production have surfaced. In name, they endorse the same values of community-driven initiatives, though substantially they merely approximate a community-related narrative to form a new locus for accumulation (O’Dwyer, 2013). The key, therefore, lies in strategies that aim to keep the surplus value within the cycle of peer production itself and allow genuine P2P projects to reverse this process. Elsewhere, we have expressed this as transitioning “from the communism of capital to capital for the commons” (Bauwens & Kostakis, 2014). In Chapter 5 we discuss those strategies in more detail. <br />
<br />
Yet, the new forms of collaborative production that rely on P2P mechanisms do have some hierarchies. Nevertheless, they generally lack a hierarchical command structure for the production process itself. Peer production has introduced the capacity to organize complex global projects through extensive mutual coordination. What market pricing is to capitalism and planning is to state-based production, mutual coordination is to peer production. <br />
<br />
As a result, the emergence and scaling of these P2P dynamics point to a potential transition in the main modality by which humanity allocates resources: from a market-state system that uses hierarchical decision-making (in firms and the state) and pricing (amongst companies and consumers), towards a system that uses various mechanisms of mutual coordination. The market and the state will not disappear, but the configuration of different modalities — and the balance between them — will be radically reconfigured.<br />
<br />
None of this implies that the P2P transition will lead to a utopia, nor that it will be easy. Indeed, if the history of previous socio-economic transitions is any guide, the transition will most likely be messy. Just as P2P is likely to solve some problems in our current society, it will create others in the new one. Nevertheless, this remains a worthwhile social progress to strive for, and even if P2P relations do not become the dominant social form, they will profoundly influence the future of humanity.<br />
<br />
Summarizing the relationship between the relational and technological aspects, the P2P relational dynamic — strengthened by particular forms of technological capacities — may become the dominant way of allocating the necessary resources for human self-reproduction, and thus replace capitalism as the dominant form. This will require a stronger expansion of this P2P modality not just for the production of “digital goods”, but also for the production of physical goods.<br />
<br />
<br />
===1.4. How is P2P to be implemented in practice?===<br />
<br />
While P2P is emerging as a significant form of technological infrastructure for various social forces, the way of its implementation makes all the difference. Not all P2P is equal in its effects. Different forms of P2P technological infrastructure are identified, each of which leads to different forms of social and political organization.<br />
<br />
On the one side, for example, we can consider the capitalism of Facebook, Uber or Bitcoin. On the other, we can look at the commons-oriented models of Wikipedia, Enspiral, Farm Hack, Wikihouse or free and open-source software projects (discussed in chapters 2 and 3). Adopting this or that form of P2P technological infrastructure is the locus of social conflict because the choice between them has consequences on what may or may not be possible.<br />
<br />
P2P enables an emerging mode of production, named commons-based peer production, characterized by new relations of production. In commons-based peer production, contributors create shared value through open contributory systems, govern the work through participatory practices, and create shared resources that can, in turn, be used in new iterations. This cycle of open input, the participatory process, and commons-oriented output is a cycle of accumulation of the commons, which parallels the accumulation of capital. <br />
<br />
At this stage, commons-based peer production is a prefigurative prototype of what could become an entirely new mode of production and a new form of society. It is currently a prototype since it cannot as yet fully reproduce itself outside of mutual dependence with capitalism. This emerging modality of peer production is not only productive and innovative “within capitalism,” but also in its capacity to solve some of the structural problems that have been generated by the capitalist mode of production. In other words, it represents a potential transcendence of capitalism. That said, as long as peer producers or commoners cannot engage in their self-reproduction outside of capital accumulation, commons-based peer production remains a proto-mode of production, not a full one.<br />
<br />
Peer production can be innovative within the context of capitalist competition because firms that can access the knowledge commons possess a competitive advantage over firms that use proprietary knowledge and can only rely on their research (Tapscott & Williams, 2005; Benkler 2006; von Hippel, 2016). For example, by mutualizing the development of software in an open network, firms obtain considerable savings in their infrastructural investments. In this context, peer production is a mutualization of productive knowledge by capitalist coalitions themselves, with IBM’s investments in free and open-source software projects as a case in point (Tapscott & Williams, 2005).<br />
<br />
This capitalist investment is not a negative thing in itself, but rather a condition that increases the societal investment in a P2P-based transition. Both productive and managerial classes move towards P2P because it solves some structural issues of the current system. Capital flows towards P2P projects, and even though it distorts P2P to make it prolong the dominance of the old economic models, it simultaneously creates new ways of thinking in society that undermine that dominance.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, the new class of commoners cannot rely on capitalist investment and practices. They must use skillful means to render commons-based peer production more autonomous from the dominant political economy. Eventually, we may arrive at a position where the balance of power is reversed: the commons and its social forces become the dominant modality in society, which allows them to force the state and market modalities to adapt to its requirements. So we should escape the situation in which capitalists co-opt the commons, and head towards a situation in which the commons capture the capital, and make it work for its development.<br />
<br />
This proposed strategy of reverse cooptation has been called “transvestment” by Dmytri Kleiner and Baruch Gottlieb (Kleiner, 2010; 2016). Transvestment describes the transfer of value from one modality to another. In our case, this would be from capitalism to the commons. Thus transvestment strategies aim to help commoners become financially sustainable and independent2. Such strategies are being developed and implemented by commons-oriented entrepreneurial coalitions such as the Enspiral network or Sensorica (see chapter 2).<br />
<br />
As said, the digital commons of knowledge, software, and design are non-rival resources enriched through usage (thus they could even be considered “anti-rival”). It is here that full sharing and the full ability for contributions must be preserved. However, we deal with rival resources in the added value services and products built around these commons. Here the commons should be protected from capture by capital. It is in this cooperative sphere of physical and service production where reciprocity rules should be enforced. We propose to combine non-reciprocal sharing in the digital sphere, with reciprocal arrangements in the sphere of physical production. Thus, in our vision, commons-based peer production as a full mode of production combines commons and cooperativism (see chapter 4).<br />
<br />
<br />
===1.5. Towards a commons-centric society?===<br />
<br />
At that point, if the move from microeconomic P2P communities to a new “macroeconomic” dominant modality of value creation and distribution is successful, a transition phase towards a commons-centric economy and society can occur. This will be the revolution of our times, and a fundamental shift in the rules and norms that decide what value is and how it is produced and distributed in society. In short: a shift to a new post-capitalist value regime.<br />
<br />
P2P is considered to be both a social relation and a mode of allocation, as a socio-technological infrastructure and as a mode of production, and all these aspects when combined contribute to the creation of a new post-capitalist model, a new phase in the evolution of the organization of human societies. This will necessitate a discussion about economic and political transitions. At the microeconomic level of commons-based peer production, P2P dynamics are already creating the institutional seedlings prefiguring a new social model.<br />
<br />
P2P could lead to a model where civil society becomes productive through the participation of citizens in the collaborative creation of value through commons. In this pluralistic commonwealth, multiple forms of value creation and distribution will co-exist, but most likely around the universal attractor that is the commons. We do not argue for a “totalitarianism” of the commons, but to make the commons a core institution that “guides” all other social forms — including the state and the market — towards achieving the greatest common good and the maximum autonomy. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Theory]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Books]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Michel Bauwens]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Foundation]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=P2P_Accounting_for_Planetary_Survival&diff=115995P2P Accounting for Planetary Survival2019-03-08T10:44:51Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''* P2P Accounting for Planetary Survival: Towards a P2P Infrastructure for a Socially Just Circular Society. By Michel Bauwens and Alex Pazaitis. Foreword by Kate Raworth. P2P Foundation, 2019.'''<br />
<br />
URL = [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YPQBV_CjxtTjfHuyqtSSViWdwHzcT8W2wmrqxytK6LU/edit#heading=h.2xoieuagyj0i Draft text] ; [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RQXhk83jrRTuWXKzPC6R5pxcbm-hqA-WiRgsfjU9NIs/edit#heading=h.sibbvp2nuezx draft illustrations]<br />
<br />
''How shared perma-circular supply chains, post-blockchain distributed ledgers, protocol cooperatives, and three new forms of post-capitalist accounting, could very well save the planet.''<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
This report has a final text, but will not be published officially in a lay-outed text before May 2019, due to a parallel book launch.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Contents=<br />
<br />
Summary by Alex Pazaitis:<br />
<br />
"a) Chapter 1: Background of the study: A concise overview of the rationale underpinning this <br />
research project and a brief overview of the P2P Foundation work on the topic. <br />
<br />
b) Chapter 2: Tools and technologies for integrated, fair, and sustainable ecosystems of production: A thorough presentation of the selected cases providing solutions for integrated ecosystems that take into account social and ecological externalities. Ten (10) out of sixteen (16) tools and technologies documented have been included in this chapter, comprising projects working on solutions for peer-to-peer organisation and mutual integration tools as well as tools that facilitate circulation and exchange. The rest of the tools, for reasons of balance between the different chapters have been included in Chapter 3, described below. <br />
<br />
c) Chapter 3: Evolution of accounting: An overview of next-generation accounting cases, offering integrated solutions, frameworks and methodologies for biocapacity-informed planning and monitoring of impact and externalities. The chapter also provides a theoretical discussion on the history and evolution of accounting practices and places the documented cases in context. Finally, it offers a comprehensive overview of the function and interrelation of the current state- of-the-art on the technological development, with some tentative projections for future developments towards more sustainable forms of economic organisation.<br />
<br />
In the Appendix another contribution has been provided by Bob Haugen, one of the key engineers in peer-to-peer accounting and network planning systems, with extensive experience from working with grassroots communities and entrepreneurial networks. <br />
<br />
Finally, a short introduction has been provided by Kate Raworth, whose framework of the Doughnut is used as a basis for the discussion."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Chapter 1: The Background to this Study==<br />
<br />
* The P2P Foundation’s study of the commons and the commons transition<br />
* Value in the Commons<br />
* The emerging crypto economy as a signpost for the cosmo-local transition<br />
* Our Vision<br />
<br />
==Chapter 2: Tools and technologies for integrated, fair, and sustainable ecosystems of production==<br />
<br />
* Introduction<br />
<br />
===Tools for Mutual integration===<br />
<br />
* Economic Space Agency (ECSA): an environment for inter-connected economic spaces and commons-based Distributed Programmable Organizations<br />
* Holochain: an alternative to a global distributed ledger, based on biomimicry<br />
* DAOstack: integrated mechanisms for large-scale governance<br />
<br />
<br />
===Tools for Circulation and exchange===<br />
<br />
* FairCoin and FairCoop: tools for a cosmo-local, open cooperative ecosystem<br />
* Trustlines: mutual credit for common good<br />
* Circles: a decentralized basic income<br />
* Envienta: an integrated environment for open source manufacturing<br />
* FabChain: linking advanced research to urban metabolisms and mainstream production and manufacturing<br />
* Terra0: giving DAO agency to natural resources<br />
* Sustans: replacing Smart Contracts with Ostrom Contracts<br />
<br />
==Chapter 3: Evolution of Accounting==<br />
<br />
===New Accounting and Planning Frameworks===<br />
<br />
* Guerrilla Translation as an example of contributive accounting<br />
* Resources - Events - Agents (REA): an accounting system for networked cooperation and shared supply chains<br />
* Reporting 3.0 : direct access to a representation of matter and energy flows in interconnected supply chains<br />
* MusiASEM , accounting for material/energy flows and their limits<br />
<br />
===Accounting for Impact and Externalities===<br />
<br />
* Regen Network: ‘ecological state protocols’ to verify advances in sustainability and regenerativity<br />
* The Common Good Accounting System: competing for positive impact<br />
<br />
<br />
===Multi-layer integration: how the new technologies fit together===<br />
<br />
* Production for social needs within planetary boundaries<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
=Executive Summary=<br />
<br />
Michel Bauwens:<br />
<br />
"'''How to read this report ? If you are not an expert but interested in future infrastructures, then chapter 1 is the most readable ‘visionary’ chapter, which will give you the broad background about what we want to achieve with this report. Chapter 2 and 3 are aimed for the more motivated experts that are specifically interested in a number of technical tools that are becoming available to enable this vision. Each of these chapters also has its contextual introductions, which might be useful for the less technical reader.'''<br />
<br />
The key issue addressed in this study is how to change a system which incentivizes and rewards extraction, but cannot recognize and reward the wealth created by generative activities, towards a system which can reward and incentivize generative practices.<br />
<br />
This report is based on the understanding that one of the main weaknesses of the current political economy is its inability to recognize and deal with ‘externalities’, i.e. costs and benefits received or caused by economic actors that are not accounted for and that they are not paying for. Under capitalism, a firm becomes competitive in a large part because of its ability, and that of the system as a whole, to not ‘pay’ for positive social and environmental contributions, and to leave the reparations of social and environmental damages, to other actors, i.e. mainly the citizenry or the state. There is no structural solution to fund (re)generative activities except mostly ‘after the fact’ or through ‘regulations’ that are imposed ‘from the outside’, by the coercive force of the state. This report looks at efforts underway, even in prototypal and experimental forms, to remedy this situation, i.e. to have a productive systems that can fulfill human needs without violating external boundaries, i.e. pretty much like Kate Raworth has explained it in Doughnut Economics. These solutions would be located much more ‘internally’, within the system of production itself. This way of thinking is analogous to thinking about more socially just ‘predistribution’ of wealth, rather than mere ‘redistribution’. These would not replace external regulation, which still has a role, but complement it.<br />
<br />
We believe that a significant number of these necessary ingredients for such a structural change are available through some of the emerging techno-social systems that are co-evolving with distributed networks. <br />
<br />
The first structural element is a shared supply chains for a perma-circular economy. At the P2P Foundation, we believe a circular economy cannot be achieved without sharing the logistical knowledge that is presently locked up in the walled gardens of private logistics. Only by sharing each other’s input and outputs can partners in a open ecosystem adapt towards a real circular economy. In this report, we pay some attention to a shift to eco-systemic collaboration, but without going into the details of supply chains themselves. The concept of ‘perma-circularity’ refers to the necessity for the growth of our material and energy usage to remain under one percent a year, in order to avoid the exponential increase in resources we need from our planet.<br />
<br />
We do pay attention to a number of technologies that will allow us to shift towards ecosystems of collaboration, specifically open and shared distributed ledgers, mostly coming from the so-called ‘blockchain’ space of technical development. But we focus in part on ‘post-blockchain’ developments, which avoid a number of systemic problems associated with the first generation of blockchain technologies, for example, issues of scaling, exponential energy usage, etc.. Protocol cooperatives are global open source depositories of knowledge, code and design, that allow humanity to create infrastructures for the mutualization of the main provisioning systems (i.e. food, habitat, mobility), and that are governed by the various stakeholders involved, including the affected citizenry.<br />
<br />
With distributed ledgers, three new forms of collaborative accounting can be introduced, which will allow economic actors to manage their production while recognizing positive and negative social and ecological externalities. Contributive accounting, which we discussed in our previous report, Values in the Commons Economy, allows for the recognition of all types of contributions, not just waged labor. REA accounting, i..e accounting for Resources, Events, Actions, allows actors to see their transactions as part of an eco-system of collaboration, i.e. this is ‘flow accounting’ rather than a vision based on the accumulation of assets in a single firm. Finally, we need direct access to the real ‘thermo-dynamic flows’, necessitated by production, i.e. the amounts of matter and energy needed, in the context of planetary boundaries.<br />
<br />
''Chapter 1 of this report is a summary of ten years of research at the P2P Foundation'', including by our own P2P Lab but also by our partners in common research programs, of what we know today about the emerging commons economy. It includes a basic account of why the ‘invention’ of the blockchain has been important, but stresses that the needed distributed ledgers may take other forms in the future. This section may not offer a lot of new elements for those that are already technologically savvy about the topic, but it does offer a critical engagement with the qualities and flaws of the current model, and suggests how it can be tweaked and transformed, to also serve as a basis for a post-capitalist, commons-centric economy.<br />
<br />
''Chapter 2 of this report goes into the details of various technological projects that could be used as tools to develop ecosystems of collaborations, based on distributed ledgers''. The aim of that report is to show that solutions are being worked on, but remain fragmented to date, so our aim is to show that an alignment in a higher integration, would lead to significant advances towards sustainable production.<br />
<br />
Finally, ''chapter 3 focuses on the accounting innovations that we will need, and will need to be integrated in the new practices based on shared supply chains'' using shared ledgers. This includes, as explained above, tools for contributive, flow-based, and thermo-dynamic accounting.<br />
<br />
This report focuses not on the innovations within mainstream industrial players striving towards more sustainability, but to seed forms that have the advantage of not having legacy systems to deal with, and therefore can re-organize themselves much more in direct harmony with the possibilities offered by the new tools reflecting the new paradigm. Of course, this means they have much less resources, but they offer more clear pointers to a possible future. <br />
<br />
The aim of this report is therefore to open the minds towards new possibilities of integration, so that we can transition to a regenerative economy, and to show that emerging tools are available to implement these necessary changes."<br />
<br />
<br />
=Foreword by Kate Raworth=<br />
<br />
"Eurostar: 10.52am, Brussels to London. I’m standing in line for passport control and I spot a familiar face in front of me: it’s Michel Bauwens! He’s clearly surprised to hear his name called from just behind him in the queue, but his surprise quickly turns into our mutual delight on realizing that we’ll get to have an all-too-rare chance to catch up.<br />
<br />
We meet up in the train’s dining carriage where, travelling at 150 miles an hour under the English Channel, Michel tells me about his summer writing project. He’s only a few moments in to describing it and I have to pull out my notebook and start jotting things down because, in typical Michel fashion, he is coming out with intriguing phrases that I have never heard before but that have instant appeal. Cosmo-local production. Labour mutuals. The thermodynamics of peer production.<br />
<br />
This resulting report, written over the last year by Michel, Alex Pazaitis, and a team of contributors, brings those ideas together with many more to envision the commons at the heart of a 21st century economy designed to deliver social and ecological health. In its ambitious vision, this report combines a long-standing commitment to commons-based peer production with a new, globally localized approach to the circular economy and - in the process - redesigns distributed ledger technology (think: beyond blockchain) in order to make it feasible.<br />
<br />
So leave behind today’s widespread obsession with smart contracts, platform capitalism and economies of scale: these only serve to reinforce last century’s dominant and extractive modes of production. Instead, dive into this report and discover the possibilities of Ostrom contracts, platform cooperativism and economies of scope. These ideas are the seeds of a generative commons-based economy that is fit for the 21st century’s social and ecological challenges. <br />
<br />
If you want to flip your economic mind, and leap to the cutting edge of commons-based thinking, simply read on."<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
==Some Lessons Learned==<br />
<br />
By Alex Pazaitis:<br />
<br />
"Some of the main points are being summarised below: <br />
<br />
• There is a increasing number of projects working on the development of technologies that would enable positive social and environmental outcomes. There is diversity in viewpoints that ranges from techno-deterministic and individualistic views to more socially-minded and collective ones. <br />
<br />
• A substantial part of the stakeholders involved, despite their diversity in background and methods, find merit and invest their efforts on the narrative of the commons and peer-to-peer practices. Many have been inspired and make explicit references to existing work and concepts developed by the P2P Foundation community. <br />
<br />
• There is growing enthusiasm around Distributed Ledger Technologies and cryptocurrencies that goes beyond speculative motivations for quick profiteering. There is still no consensus on the exact implications or the future direction of the technology and in many cases the assumptions underpinning the understanding of the relations between technology and society can be questionable. Nevertheless, the underlying motivations that mobilise people in these efforts are to a large extent towards the attainment of a positive social outcome in their own subjective interpretation of it. <br />
<br />
• We can argue for a certain level of technological maturity that could potentially allow the development of sophisticated tools and solutions to account for social and environmental externalities and steer societies through more sustainable forms of governance. However, appropriate economic and political institutions need to facilitate this process." <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Accounting]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Commons Policy]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=115977Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-05T16:42:23Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>Full title: Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019, forthcoming). ''Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto'', London: Westminster University Press <br />
<br />
== Book Launch == <br />
'''21 March 2019''' at the '''University of Westminster''', Communication and Media Research Institute (CAMRI) (Room UG05), London. <br /><br />
<br />
Details and registration: https://camri.ac.uk/blog/event/book-launch-peer-to-peer-the-commons-manifesto/?instance_id=76. <br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
[[File:P2P Book Cover.PNG|160px|thumbnail|left]]<br />
Not since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a more profound transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. As capitalism faces a series of structural crises, a new social, political and economic dynamic is emerging: peer to peer. What is peer to peer? Why is it essential for building a commons-centric future? How could this happen? <br />
<br />
These are the questions this book tries to answer. Peer to peer (P2P) is a type of social relations in human networks, as well as a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible. We believe that these four aspects will profoundly change human society. P2P ideally describes systems in which any human being can contribute to the creation and maintenance of a shared resource while benefiting from it. There is an enormous variety of such systems: from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia to free and open-source software projects, to open design and hardware communities, to relocalization initiatives and community currencies. Thus, P2P enables a new mode of production and creates the potential for a transition to a commons-oriented economy. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
== Dedication == <br />
This book is dedicated to Jean Lievens, who passed away in 2016 after a lifetime of engagement for social justice and the commons.<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας,''<br /><br />
''που κάνουν τα καλάμια να λυγίζουν,'' <br /><br />
''στα όρια των χωραφιών κι εν μέσω άπνοιας'' <br /><br />
''τα μέτωπα των αγροτών δροσίζουν.''<br /><br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας.''<br /><br />
<br />
''Tell me those stories of yours''<br /><br />
''that make the reeds bend,''<br /><br />
''at the edge of the fields, and that, amidst wind lull,'' <br /><br />
''cool the farmers' brow.''<br /><br />
''Tell me those stories of yours.'' <br /><br />
<br />
Thanasis Papakonstantinou, San Michele (avena un gallo) (2011)''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Table of Contents == <br />
<big>'''1. Introduction'''</big><br /><br />
1.1. What is P2P and how is it related to the commons?<br /><br />
1.2. Are P2P technologies good or bad?<br /><br />
1.3. How does P2P relate to capitalism?<br /><br />
1.4. How is P2P to be implemented in practice?<br /><br />
1.5. Towards a commons-centric society?<br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''2. P2P and a new ecosystem of value creation'''</big><br /><br />
2.1. Diverse skills and motivation<br /><br />
2.2. Transparent heterarchy<br /><br />
2.3. A new ecosystem of value creation<br /><br />
2.4. Four short case studies<br /><br />
2.5. From contradictions to an integrated economic reality <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''3. P2P and new socio-technological frameworks'''</big> <br /><br />
3.1. Two generic models <br /><br />
3.2. The extractive model of cognitive capitalism <br /><br />
3.3. The generative model of commons-based peer production <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''4. P2P and the structure of world history'''</big> <br /><br />
4.1. Four modes of exchange <br /><br />
4.2. Towards associationism <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''5. A commons transition strategy'''</big> <br /><br />
5.1. Pooling and mutualizing resources wherever possible <br /><br />
5.2. Introducing reciprocity <br /><br />
5.3. From redistribution to empowerment and predistribution <br /><br />
5.4. Subordinating capitalist market <br /><br />
5.5. Organizing at the local and global level <br /><br />
5.6. Summary of our proposals <br /><br />
5.7. A last word <br /><br />
<br />
== The Authors == <br />
Michel Bauwens is the Founder of the P2P Foundation and works in collaboration with a global group of researchers in the exploration of commons-based peer production, governance, and property. <br />
<br />
Vasilis Kostakis is the Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology and Faculty Associate at Harvard University. He is the founder of the P2P Lab and core member of the P2P Foundation.<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis is a Core Member of the P2P Lab and a Junior Research Fellow at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology.</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=115976Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-05T16:40:54Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>Full title: Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019, forthcoming). ''Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto'', London: Westminster University Press <br />
<br />
== Book Launch == <br />
'''21 March 2019''' at the '''University of Westminster''', Communication and Media Research Institute (CAMRI) (Room UG05), London. <br /><br />
<br />
Details and registration: https://camri.ac.uk/blog/event/book-launch-peer-to-peer-the-commons-manifesto/?instance_id=76. <br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
[[File:P2P Book Cover.PNG|160px|thumbnail|left]]<br />
Not since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a more profound transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. As capitalism faces a series of structural crises, a new social, political and economic dynamic is emerging: peer to peer. What is peer to peer? Why is it essential for building a commons-centric future? How could this happen? <br />
<br />
These are the questions this book tries to answer. Peer to peer (P2P) is a type of social relations in human networks, as well as a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible. We believe that these four aspects will profoundly change human society. P2P ideally describes systems in which any human being can contribute to the creation and maintenance of a shared resource while benefiting from it. There is an enormous variety of such systems: from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia to free and open-source software projects, to open design and hardware communities, to relocalization initiatives and community currencies. Thus, P2P enables a new mode of production and creates the potential for a transition to a commons-oriented economy. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
== Dedication == <br />
This book is dedicated to Jean Lievens, who passed away in 2016 after a lifetime of engagement for social justice and the commons.<br />
<br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας,''<br /><br />
''που κάνουν τα καλάμια να λυγίζουν,'' <br /><br />
''στα όρια των χωραφιών κι εν μέσω άπνοιας'' <br /><br />
''τα μέτωπα των αγροτών δροσίζουν.''<br /><br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας.''<br /><br />
<br />
''Tell me those stories of yours''<br /><br />
''that make the reeds bend,''<br /><br />
''at the edge of the fields, and that, amidst wind lull,'' <br /><br />
''cool the farmers' brow.''<br /><br />
''Tell me those stories of yours.'' <br /><br />
<br />
Thanasis Papakonstantinou, San Michele (avena un gallo) (2011)''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Table of Contents == <br />
<big>'''1. Introduction'''</big><br /><br />
1.1. What is P2P and how is it related to the commons?<br /><br />
1.2. Are P2P technologies good or bad?<br /><br />
1.3. How does P2P relate to capitalism?<br /><br />
1.4. How is P2P to be implemented in practice?<br /><br />
1.5. Towards a commons-centric society?<br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''2. P2P and a new ecosystem of value creation'''</big><br /><br />
2.1. Diverse skills and motivation<br /><br />
2.2. Transparent heterarchy<br /><br />
2.3. A new ecosystem of value creation<br /><br />
2.4. Four short case studies<br /><br />
2.5. From contradictions to an integrated economic reality <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''3. P2P and new socio-technological frameworks'''</big> <br /><br />
3.1. Two generic models <br /><br />
3.2. The extractive model of cognitive capitalism <br /><br />
3.3. The generative model of commons-based peer production <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''4. P2P and the structure of world history'''</big> <br /><br />
4.1. Four modes of exchange <br /><br />
4.2. Towards associationism <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''5. A commons transition strategy'''</big> <br /><br />
5.1. Pooling and mutualizing resources wherever possible <br /><br />
5.2. Introducing reciprocity <br /><br />
5.3. From redistribution to empowerment and predistribution <br /><br />
5.4. Subordinating capitalist market <br /><br />
5.5. Organizing at the local and global level <br /><br />
5.6. Summary of our proposals <br /><br />
5.7. A last word <br /><br />
<br />
== The Authors == <br />
Michel Bauwens is the Founder of the P2P Foundation and works in collaboration with a global group of researchers in the exploration of commons-based peer production, governance, and property. <br />
<br />
Vasilis Kostakis is the Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology and Faculty Associate at Harvard University. He is the founder of the P2P Lab and core member of the P2P Foundation.<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis is a Core Member of the P2P Lab and a Junior Research Fellow at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology.</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=115975Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-05T16:39:03Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>Full title: Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019, forthcoming). ''Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto'', London: Westminster University Press <br />
<br />
== Book Launch == <br />
21 March 2019 at the University of Westminster (Room UG05), London. <br />
Details and registration: https://camri.ac.uk/blog/event/book-launch-peer-to-peer-the-commons-manifesto/?instance_id=76. <br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
[[File:P2P Book Cover.PNG|160px|thumbnail|left]]<br />
Not since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a more profound transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. As capitalism faces a series of structural crises, a new social, political and economic dynamic is emerging: peer to peer. What is peer to peer? Why is it essential for building a commons-centric future? How could this happen? <br />
<br />
These are the questions this book tries to answer. Peer to peer (P2P) is a type of social relations in human networks, as well as a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible. We believe that these four aspects will profoundly change human society. P2P ideally describes systems in which any human being can contribute to the creation and maintenance of a shared resource while benefiting from it. There is an enormous variety of such systems: from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia to free and open-source software projects, to open design and hardware communities, to relocalization initiatives and community currencies. Thus, P2P enables a new mode of production and creates the potential for a transition to a commons-oriented economy. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
== Dedication == <br />
This book is dedicated to Jean Lievens, who passed away in 2016 after a lifetime of engagement for social justice and the commons.<br />
<br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας,''<br /><br />
''που κάνουν τα καλάμια να λυγίζουν,'' <br /><br />
''στα όρια των χωραφιών κι εν μέσω άπνοιας'' <br /><br />
''τα μέτωπα των αγροτών δροσίζουν.''<br /><br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας.''<br /><br />
<br />
''Tell me those stories of yours''<br /><br />
''that make the reeds bend,''<br /><br />
''at the edge of the fields, and that, amidst wind lull,'' <br /><br />
''cool the farmers' brow.''<br /><br />
''Tell me those stories of yours.'' <br /><br />
<br />
Thanasis Papakonstantinou, San Michele (avena un gallo) (2011)''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Table of Contents == <br />
<big>'''1. Introduction'''</big><br /><br />
1.1. What is P2P and how is it related to the commons?<br /><br />
1.2. Are P2P technologies good or bad?<br /><br />
1.3. How does P2P relate to capitalism?<br /><br />
1.4. How is P2P to be implemented in practice?<br /><br />
1.5. Towards a commons-centric society?<br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''2. P2P and a new ecosystem of value creation'''</big><br /><br />
2.1. Diverse skills and motivation<br /><br />
2.2. Transparent heterarchy<br /><br />
2.3. A new ecosystem of value creation<br /><br />
2.4. Four short case studies<br /><br />
2.5. From contradictions to an integrated economic reality <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''3. P2P and new socio-technological frameworks'''</big> <br /><br />
3.1. Two generic models <br /><br />
3.2. The extractive model of cognitive capitalism <br /><br />
3.3. The generative model of commons-based peer production <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''4. P2P and the structure of world history'''</big> <br /><br />
4.1. Four modes of exchange <br /><br />
4.2. Towards associationism <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''5. A commons transition strategy'''</big> <br /><br />
5.1. Pooling and mutualizing resources wherever possible <br /><br />
5.2. Introducing reciprocity <br /><br />
5.3. From redistribution to empowerment and predistribution <br /><br />
5.4. Subordinating capitalist market <br /><br />
5.5. Organizing at the local and global level <br /><br />
5.6. Summary of our proposals <br /><br />
5.7. A last word <br /><br />
<br />
== The Authors == <br />
Michel Bauwens is the Founder of the P2P Foundation and works in collaboration with a global group of researchers in the exploration of commons-based peer production, governance, and property. <br />
<br />
Vasilis Kostakis is the Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology and Faculty Associate at Harvard University. He is the founder of the P2P Lab and core member of the P2P Foundation.<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis is a Core Member of the P2P Lab and a Junior Research Fellow at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology.</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=115974Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-05T16:33:21Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>Full title: Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019, forthcoming). ''Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto'', London: Westminster University Press <br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
[[File:P2P Book Cover.PNG|160px|thumbnail|left]]<br />
Not since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a more profound transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. As capitalism faces a series of structural crises, a new social, political and economic dynamic is emerging: peer to peer. What is peer to peer? Why is it essential for building a commons-centric future? How could this happen? <br />
<br />
These are the questions this book tries to answer. Peer to peer (P2P) is a type of social relations in human networks, as well as a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible. We believe that these four aspects will profoundly change human society. P2P ideally describes systems in which any human being can contribute to the creation and maintenance of a shared resource while benefiting from it. There is an enormous variety of such systems: from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia to free and open-source software projects, to open design and hardware communities, to relocalization initiatives and community currencies. Thus, P2P enables a new mode of production and creates the potential for a transition to a commons-oriented economy. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
== Dedication == <br />
This book is dedicated to Jean Lievens, who passed away in 2016 after a lifetime of engagement for social justice and the commons.<br />
<br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας,''<br /><br />
''που κάνουν τα καλάμια να λυγίζουν,'' <br /><br />
''στα όρια των χωραφιών κι εν μέσω άπνοιας'' <br /><br />
''τα μέτωπα των αγροτών δροσίζουν.''<br /><br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας.''<br /><br />
<br />
''Tell me those stories of yours''<br /><br />
''that make the reeds bend,''<br /><br />
''at the edge of the fields, and that, amidst wind lull,'' <br /><br />
''cool the farmers' brow.''<br /><br />
''Tell me those stories of yours.'' <br /><br />
<br />
Thanasis Papakonstantinou, San Michele (avena un gallo) (2011)''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Table of Contents == <br />
<big>'''1. Introduction'''</big><br /><br />
1.1. What is P2P and how is it related to the commons?<br /><br />
1.2. Are P2P technologies good or bad?<br /><br />
1.3. How does P2P relate to capitalism?<br /><br />
1.4. How is P2P to be implemented in practice?<br /><br />
1.5. Towards a commons-centric society?<br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''2. P2P and a new ecosystem of value creation'''</big><br /><br />
2.1. Diverse skills and motivation<br /><br />
2.2. Transparent heterarchy<br /><br />
2.3. A new ecosystem of value creation<br /><br />
2.4. Four short case studies<br /><br />
2.5. From contradictions to an integrated economic reality <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''3. P2P and new socio-technological frameworks'''</big> <br /><br />
3.1. Two generic models <br /><br />
3.2. The extractive model of cognitive capitalism <br /><br />
3.3. The generative model of commons-based peer production <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''4. P2P and the structure of world history'''</big> <br /><br />
4.1. Four modes of exchange <br /><br />
4.2. Towards associationism <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''5. A commons transition strategy'''</big> <br /><br />
5.1. Pooling and mutualizing resources wherever possible <br /><br />
5.2. Introducing reciprocity <br /><br />
5.3. From redistribution to empowerment and predistribution <br /><br />
5.4. Subordinating capitalist market <br /><br />
5.5. Organizing at the local and global level <br /><br />
5.6. Summary of our proposals <br /><br />
5.7. A last word <br /><br />
<br />
== The Authors == <br />
Michel Bauwens is the Founder of the P2P Foundation and works in collaboration with a global group of researchers in the exploration of commons-based peer production, governance, and property. <br />
<br />
Vasilis Kostakis is the Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology and Faculty Associate at Harvard University. He is the founder of the P2P Lab and core member of the P2P Foundation.<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis is a Core Member of the P2P Lab and a Junior Research Fellow at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology.</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=115973Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-05T16:32:02Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>Full title: Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019, forthcoming). ''Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto'', London: Westminster University Press <br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
[[File:P2P Book Cover.PNG|160px|thumbnail|left]]<br />
Not since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a more profound transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. As capitalism faces a series of structural crises, a new social, political and economic dynamic is emerging: peer to peer. What is peer to peer? Why is it essential for building a commons-centric future? How could this happen? <br />
<br />
These are the questions this book tries to answer. Peer to peer (P2P) is a type of social relations in human networks, as well as a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible. We believe that these four aspects will profoundly change human society. P2P ideally describes systems in which any human being can contribute to the creation and maintenance of a shared resource while benefiting from it. There is an enormous variety of such systems: from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia to free and open-source software projects, to open design and hardware communities, to relocalization initiatives and community currencies. Thus, P2P enables a new mode of production and creates the potential for a transition to a commons-oriented economy. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br />
== Dedication == <br />
This book is dedicated to Jean Lievens, who passed away in 2016 after a lifetime of engagement for social justice and the commons.<br />
<br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας,''<br /><br />
''που κάνουν τα καλάμια να λυγίζουν,'' <br /><br />
''στα όρια των χωραφιών κι εν μέσω άπνοιας'' <br /><br />
''τα μέτωπα των αγροτών δροσίζουν.''<br /><br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας.''<br /><br />
<br />
''Tell me those stories of yours''<br /><br />
''that make the reeds bend,''<br /><br />
''at the edge of the fields, and that, amidst wind lull,'' <br /><br />
''cool the farmers' brow.''<br /><br />
''Tell me those stories of yours.'' <br /><br />
<br />
Thanasis Papakonstantinou, San Michele (avena un gallo) (2011)''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Table of Contents == <br />
<big>'''1. Introduction'''</big><br /><br />
1.1. What is P2P and how is it related to the commons?<br /><br />
1.2. Are P2P technologies good or bad?<br /><br />
1.3. How does P2P relate to capitalism?<br /><br />
1.4. How is P2P to be implemented in practice?<br /><br />
1.5. Towards a commons-centric society?<br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''2. P2P and a new ecosystem of value creation''</big>'<br /><br />
2.1. Diverse skills and motivation<br /><br />
2.2. Transparent heterarchy<br /><br />
2.3. A new ecosystem of value creation<br /><br />
2.4. Four short case studies<br /><br />
2.5. From contradictions to an integrated economic reality <br /><br />
'''<br />
<big>3. P2P and new socio-technological frameworks'''</big> <br /><br />
3.1. Two generic models <br /><br />
3.2. The extractive model of cognitive capitalism <br /><br />
3.3. The generative model of commons-based peer production <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''4. P2P and the structure of world history'''</big> <br /><br />
4.1. Four modes of exchange <br /><br />
4.2. Towards associationism <br /><br />
<br />
<big>'''5. A commons transition strategy'''</big> <br /><br />
5.1. Pooling and mutualizing resources wherever possible <br /><br />
5.2. Introducing reciprocity <br /><br />
5.3. From redistribution to empowerment and predistribution <br /><br />
5.4. Subordinating capitalist market <br /><br />
5.5. Organizing at the local and global level <br /><br />
5.6. Summary of our proposals <br /><br />
5.7. A last word <br /><br />
<br />
== The Authors == <br />
Michel Bauwens is the Founder of the P2P Foundation and works in collaboration with a global group of researchers in the exploration of commons-based peer production, governance, and property. <br />
<br />
Vasilis Kostakis is the Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology and Faculty Associate at Harvard University. He is the founder of the P2P Lab and core member of the P2P Foundation.<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis is a Core Member of the P2P Lab and a Junior Research Fellow at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology.</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=115972Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-05T16:26:22Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>Full title: Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019, forthcoming). ''Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto'', London: Westminster University Press <br />
<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
Not since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a more profound transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. As capitalism faces a series of structural crises, a new social, political and economic dynamic is emerging: peer to peer. What is peer to peer? Why is it essential for building a commons-centric future? How could this happen? <br />
<br />
These are the questions this book tries to answer. Peer to peer (P2P) is a type of social relations in human networks, as well as a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible. We believe that these four aspects will profoundly change human society. P2P ideally describes systems in which any human being can contribute to the creation and maintenance of a shared resource while benefiting from it. There is an enormous variety of such systems: from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia to free and open-source software projects, to open design and hardware communities, to relocalization initiatives and community currencies. Thus, P2P enables a new mode of production and creates the potential for a transition to a commons-oriented economy. <br />
<br />
== Dedication == <br />
This book is dedicated to Jean Lievens, who passed away in 2016 after a lifetime of engagement for social justice and the commons.<br />
<br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας,''<br /><br />
''που κάνουν τα καλάμια να λυγίζουν,'' <br /><br />
''στα όρια των χωραφιών κι εν μέσω άπνοιας'' <br /><br />
''τα μέτωπα των αγροτών δροσίζουν.''<br /><br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας.''<br /><br />
<br />
''Tell me those stories of yours''<br /><br />
''that make the reeds bend,''<br /><br />
''at the edge of the fields, and that, amidst wind lull,'' <br /><br />
''cool the farmers' brow.''<br /><br />
''Tell me those stories of yours.'' <br /><br />
<br />
Thanasis Papakonstantinou, San Michele (avena un gallo) (2011)''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Table of Contents == <br />
'''1. Introduction'''<br /><br />
1.1. What is P2P and how is it related to the commons?<br /><br />
1.2. Are P2P technologies good or bad?<br /><br />
1.3. How does P2P relate to capitalism?<br /><br />
1.4. How is P2P to be implemented in practice?<br /><br />
1.5. Towards a commons-centric society?<br /><br />
<br />
'''2. P2P and a new ecosystem of value creation'''<br /><br />
2.1. Diverse skills and motivation<br /><br />
2.2. Transparent heterarchy<br /><br />
2.3. A new ecosystem of value creation<br /><br />
2.4. Four short case studies<br /><br />
2.5. From contradictions to an integrated economic reality <br /><br />
'''<br />
3. P2P and new socio-technological frameworks''' <br /><br />
3.1. Two generic models <br /><br />
3.2. The extractive model of cognitive capitalism <br /><br />
3.3. The generative model of commons-based peer production <br /><br />
<br />
'''4. P2P and the structure of world history''' <br /><br />
4.1. Four modes of exchange <br /><br />
4.2. Towards associationism <br /><br />
<br />
'''5. A commons transition strategy''' <br /><br />
5.1. Pooling and mutualizing resources wherever possible <br /><br />
5.2. Introducing reciprocity <br /><br />
5.3. From redistribution to empowerment and predistribution <br /><br />
5.4. Subordinating capitalist market <br /><br />
5.5. Organizing at the local and global level <br /><br />
5.6. Summary of our proposals <br /><br />
5.7. A last word <br /><br />
<br />
== The Authors == <br />
Michel Bauwens is the Founder of the P2P Foundation and works in collaboration with a global group of researchers in the exploration of commons-based peer production, governance, and property. <br />
<br />
Vasilis Kostakis is the Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology and Faculty Associate at Harvard University. He is the founder of the P2P Lab and core member of the P2P Foundation.<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis is a Core Member of the P2P Lab and a Junior Research Fellow at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology.</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:P2P_Book_Cover.PNG&diff=115971File:P2P Book Cover.PNG2019-03-05T16:19:20Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=115970Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-05T16:18:25Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>Full title: Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019, forthcoming). ''Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto'', London: Westminster University Press <br />
<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
Not since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a more profound transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. As capitalism faces a series of structural crises, a new social, political and economic dynamic is emerging: peer to peer. What is peer to peer? Why is it essential for building a commons-centric future? How could this happen? <br />
<br />
These are the questions this book tries to answer. Peer to peer (P2P) is a type of social relations in human networks, as well as a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible. We believe that these four aspects will profoundly change human society. P2P ideally describes systems in which any human being can contribute to the creation and maintenance of a shared resource while benefiting from it. There is an enormous variety of such systems: from the free encyclopedia Wikipedia to free and open-source software projects, to open design and hardware communities, to relocalization initiatives and community currencies. Thus, P2P enables a new mode of production and creates the potential for a transition to a commons-oriented economy. <br />
<br />
== Dedication == <br />
''This work is dedicated to Jean Lievens, who passed away in 2016 after a lifetime of engagement for social justice and the commons.''<br />
<br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας,<br />
που κάνουν τα καλάμια να λυγίζουν, <br />
στα όρια των χωραφιών κι εν μέσω άπνοιας <br />
τα μέτωπα των αγροτών δροσίζουν.<br />
Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας.<br />
<br />
Tell me those stories of yours<br />
that make the reeds bend,<br />
at the edge of the fields, and that, amidst wind lull, <br />
cool the farmers' brow.<br />
Tell me those stories of yours. <br />
<br />
Thanasis Papakonstantinou, San Michele (avena un gallo) (2011)''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Table of Contents == <br />
1. Introduction<br />
1.1. What is P2P and how is it related to the commons?<br />
1.2. Are P2P technologies good or bad?<br />
1.3. How does P2P relate to capitalism?<br />
1.4. How is P2P to be implemented in practice?<br />
1.5. Towards a commons-centric society?<br />
2. P2P and a new ecosystem of value creation<br />
2.1. Diverse skills and motivation<br />
2.2. Transparent heterarchy<br />
2.3. A new ecosystem of value creation<br />
2.4. Four short case studies<br />
2.5. From contradictions to an integrated economic reality <br />
3. P2P and new socio-technological frameworks <br />
3.1. Two generic models<br />
3.2. The extractive model of cognitive capitalism<br />
3.3. The generative model of commons-based peer production<br />
4. P2P and the structure of world history<br />
4.1. Four modes of exchange<br />
4.2. Towards associationism<br />
5. A commons transition strategy<br />
5.1. Pooling and mutualizing resources wherever possible<br />
5.2. Introducing reciprocity<br />
5.3. From redistribution to empowerment and predistribution<br />
5.4. Subordinating capitalist market<br />
5.5. Organizing at the local and global level<br />
5.6. Summary of our proposals<br />
5.7. A last word<br />
<br />
== The Authors == <br />
Michel Bauwens is the Founder of the P2P Foundation and works in collaboration with a global group of researchers in the exploration of commons-based peer production, governance, and property. <br />
<br />
Vasilis Kostakis is the Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology and Faculty Associate at Harvard University. He is the founder of the P2P Lab and core member of the P2P Foundation.<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis is a Core Member of the P2P Lab and a Junior Research Fellow at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology.</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=115969Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-05T16:17:28Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>Full title: Bauwens, M., Kostakis, V., & Pazaitis, A. (2019, forthcoming). ''Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto'', London: Westminster University Press <br />
<br />
<br />
== Abstract ==<br />
Not since Marx identified the manufacturing plants of Manchester as the blueprint for the new capitalist society has there been a more profound transformation of the fundamentals of our social life. As capitalism faces a series of structural crises, a new social, political and economic dynamic is emerging: peer to peer.<br />
<br />
What is peer to peer? Why is it essential for building a commons-centric future? How could this happen? These are the questions this book tries to answer. Peer to peer is a type of social relations in human networks, as well as a technological infrastructure that makes the generalization and scaling up of such relations possible. Thus, peer to peer enables a new mode of production and creates the potential for a transition to a commons-oriented economy. <br />
<br />
== Dedication == <br />
''This work is dedicated to Jean Lievens, who passed away in 2016 after a lifetime of engagement for social justice and the commons.''<br />
<br />
''Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας,<br />
που κάνουν τα καλάμια να λυγίζουν, <br />
στα όρια των χωραφιών κι εν μέσω άπνοιας <br />
τα μέτωπα των αγροτών δροσίζουν.<br />
Πείτε μου εκείνες τις ιστορίες σας.<br />
<br />
Tell me those stories of yours<br />
that make the reeds bend,<br />
at the edge of the fields, and that, amidst wind lull, <br />
cool the farmers' brow.<br />
Tell me those stories of yours. <br />
<br />
Thanasis Papakonstantinou, San Michele (avena un gallo) (2011)''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Table of Contents == <br />
1. Introduction<br />
1.1. What is P2P and how is it related to the commons?<br />
1.2. Are P2P technologies good or bad?<br />
1.3. How does P2P relate to capitalism?<br />
1.4. How is P2P to be implemented in practice?<br />
1.5. Towards a commons-centric society?<br />
2. P2P and a new ecosystem of value creation<br />
2.1. Diverse skills and motivation<br />
2.2. Transparent heterarchy<br />
2.3. A new ecosystem of value creation<br />
2.4. Four short case studies<br />
2.5. From contradictions to an integrated economic reality <br />
3. P2P and new socio-technological frameworks <br />
3.1. Two generic models<br />
3.2. The extractive model of cognitive capitalism<br />
3.3. The generative model of commons-based peer production<br />
4. P2P and the structure of world history<br />
4.1. Four modes of exchange<br />
4.2. Towards associationism<br />
5. A commons transition strategy<br />
5.1. Pooling and mutualizing resources wherever possible<br />
5.2. Introducing reciprocity<br />
5.3. From redistribution to empowerment and predistribution<br />
5.4. Subordinating capitalist market<br />
5.5. Organizing at the local and global level<br />
5.6. Summary of our proposals<br />
5.7. A last word<br />
<br />
== The Authors == <br />
Michel Bauwens is the Founder of the P2P Foundation and works in collaboration with a global group of researchers in the exploration of commons-based peer production, governance, and property. <br />
<br />
Vasilis Kostakis is the Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology and Faculty Associate at Harvard University. He is the founder of the P2P Lab and core member of the P2P Foundation.<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis is a Core Member of the P2P Lab and a Junior Research Fellow at the Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology.</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=P2P_TheCommonsManifesto&diff=115968P2P TheCommonsManifesto2019-03-05T16:10:42Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: Alex Pazaitis moved page P2P TheCommonsManifesto to (Book) Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[(Book) Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=115967Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-05T16:10:42Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: Alex Pazaitis moved page P2P TheCommonsManifesto to (Book) Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto</p>
<hr />
<div>Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Peer_to_Peer:_The_Commons_Manifesto_(Book)&diff=115965Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto (Book)2019-03-05T16:01:13Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: Created page with "Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto"</p>
<hr />
<div>Peer to Peer: The Commons Manifesto</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Pazaitis_Small_II.jpg&diff=114837File:Pazaitis Small II.jpg2019-01-10T10:59:13Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=File:Pazaitis_Small.jpg&diff=113933File:Pazaitis Small.jpg2018-12-15T15:24:47Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Open_Cooperatives&diff=111233Open Cooperatives2018-01-15T10:42:59Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
<br />
=Characteristics=<br />
<br />
<br />
==Criteria as Proposed by Michel Bauwens==<br />
<br />
#That coops need to be statutorily (internally) oriented towards the common good <br />
#That coops need to have governance models including all stakeholders<br />
#That coops need to actively co-produce the creation of immaterial and material commons<br />
#That coops need to be organized socially and politically on a global basis, even as they produce locally.<br />
<br />
Example: [http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/cooperativa-integral-catalana-as-a-living-model-of-open-cooperativism/2014/08/08 The Cooperative Integral Catalana as a living model of open cooperativism]<br />
<br />
==Criteria as Proposed by Josef Davies-Coates==<br />
<br />
"Co-ops that combine best practices from the international co-operative movement with best practices from the open source software and hardware communities are now possible. Soon anyone will be able to set up an Open Co-op and invite all their stakeholders to help finance, govern and organise the co-op online."<br />
(https://www.stirtoaction.com/article/open-co-ops)<br />
<br />
=Examples=<br />
<br />
Pioneering examples:<br />
<br />
==[[Catalan Integral Cooperative]]==<br />
<br />
* [http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/cooperativa-integral-catalana-as-a-living-model-of-open-cooperativism/2014/08/08 The Cooperative Integral Catalana as a living model of open cooperativism]<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Sensorica]]==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Sensorica are an ‘Open Value Network’ focussed on two primary activities: creating open hardware products; and developing the Open Value Network (OVN) model. OVNs are variously described as “people creating value together, by contributing work, money and goods, and sharing the income” a “framework for many-to-many innovation” and a “model for commons-based peer production.” The basic concept is very similar to the Bettermeans “contribution-based-rewards” idea, but in OVNs contributions other than completed tasks are also accounted for. They are currently working with Bob Haugen and Lynn Foster at Mikorizal Software to develop a prototype open source value accounting platform called ValNet."<br />
<br />
<br />
==The [[Enspiral]] Network==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Enspiral is made up of three parts: The Enspiral Foundation, Enspiral Services and Startup Ventures. I’d say they’re the best current example of an Open Co-op, but how they actually describe themselves is as “a virtual and physical network of companies and professionals working together to create a thriving society” and as an “experiment to create a collaborative network that helps people do meaningful work.” A core part of their strategy is to open source their model. In short, not only are they doing almost exactly what United Diversity wants to do — they’re also building the open source tools actually needed to do it!<br />
<br />
The Enspiral Foundation is the charitable company at the heart of the Enspiral network. It’s the legal custodian of assets held collectively by the network, and the entity with which companies and individuals have a formal relationship. Decisions are made using [[Loomio]] and budgets are set using [[Cobudget]].<br />
<br />
A network of professionals work together in teams to offer Enspiral Services, a range of business services under one roof. By default members pool 20% of their invoices into a collective bucket, 25% of which goes to the Foundation. Loomio and Cobudget are then used to decide how to spend the rest. For Startup Ventures, Enspiral works with social entrepreneurs to launch start-ups who then support the work of the Foundation, and Enspiral as a whole, through flexible revenue share agreements: ventures choose their own contribution rate, usually around 5% of revenue."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Tools=<br />
<br />
* Also see [[Platform Cooperativism]] ( list of software )<br />
==[[Microgenius]]== <br />
<br />
(and other funding tools)<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Originally started by Cambridge-based entrepreneur Emily Mackay, Microgenius is the UK’s first platform for community share offers and is now part of the Community Shares Unit. Societies can also sell shares via Crowdfunder and BuzzBnk, and can advertise share issues on Ethex, the Trillion Fund, and on Shares.coop — where the widest range of live Community Share Offers in the UK are listed. Co-operative Companies Limited by Shares can do equity crowdfunding on Crowdcube (which also powers Microgenius) and Seedrs.<br />
<br />
Open source platforms specifically created to help open and/or co-operative projects include: Goteo for crowdfunding the commons; Open Funding and Bountysource for cofunding free software; Gittip for giving small weekly cash gifts to people you love and are inspired by; Snowdrift, a monthly matched patronage system; and Coopfunding.net, a wordpress powered crowdfunding platform for co-ops in Spain (we’ve got plans for something similar in the UK). Catarse, Selfstarter and tilt are other open source options, and there are numerous bitcoin powered platforms out there, too (e.g. Swarm)."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[One Click Coop]]==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"One Clicks Orgs, a social enterprise whose strapline is “Legal Structures and Group Voting Made Easy,” created the One Click Co-op in partnership with Co-operatives UK and NESTA. Launched in June 2013 and approved by UK regulators it is the first fully-online co-operative structure in the world. The open source platform permits members to contribute agenda items, browse archived minutes and participate in votes electronically. It’s pretty awesome, but having been built on a relative shoestring also pretty basic. Only Co-operatives UK’s multi-stakeholder co-operative rules are supported and you can’t, for example, the balance the interests of stakeholder groups by giving them different proportions of overall control (like you can with the Somerset Rules)."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
==[[Loomio]]==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Loomio — a free and open source tool for collaborative decision-making — is what happened when Enspiral met Occupy. Enspiral were committed to being a flat organisation, empowering employees to be autonomous and involved in leadership and decision making. But without the right platform, the overheads of engaging lots of people made it hard to deliver on this grand vision. In practice, only a few people were making most of the important decisions. Similarly, Occupy activists were finding it hard to make consensus decisions with large groups of people. Loud voices dominated and people with less time to commit to the process were being marginalised. They were missing out on the power of including a truly diverse range of perspectives. Together they developed Loomio."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Cobudget]]==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Cobudget is another open source app being developed by Enspiral. It works like this: each month contributions to collective funds are published. Everyone can see who contributed what and how much money is in the budget. Basic core expenses (previously collectively agreed on Loomio) are subtracted and what’s left is the discretionary budget. Each person or company retains the right to allocate their part of discretionary funds and anyone in the network can start a “bucket” — a proposal to do work that requires funding. They write up a proposal making their case for why the work they want to do will benefit everyone and why they are the right person to deliver the project. Everyone then considers the buckets and decides which ones to “fill” with their portion of the discretionary budget. If people collectively feel like a project is a good use of resources, it will get funded. If there are critical budgeting priorities taking precedence, “nice to have” projects won’t get any funds that round. Funders can split up their allocations as they like, or put it all in one bucket. In aggregate, the result is a budget that reflects the collective priorities of the group, determined in proportion to real stakeholding and in the context of the big picture goals. The entire process takes place transparently."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
<br />
==The [[Open App Ecosystem]]==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Building on the work of Loomio and Cobudget the Open App Ecosystem is an Enspiral project to develop suite of integrated and open sourced apps which support transparent, democratic and decentralised organising. The aim is for the software to act as a delivery mechanism for cultural viruses which decentralise money, information and control and promote happiness, empowerment and wellbeing throughout an organisation. They also have the side effect of helping organisations become more efficient, resilient and adaptable."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
=History=<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates has developed a concept of open cooperatives which focuses on open and transparent non-hierarchical distributed governance and ownership. See: [http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/ Open Co-ops: Inspiration, Legal Structures and Tools]<br />
<br />
Michel Bauwens developed a concept of open cooperatives that stresses the co-production of open commons. See: [[Why We Need a New Kind of Open Cooperativism for the P2P Age]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Antecedents and Inspirations==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
* "The [[Open Organisations Project]] emerged. Their goal was “to explain how to set up and maintain transparent, accountable and truly participative communities” and they came up with a useful set of six process and eight functional rules together with some basic guidelines for how to implement them."<br />
<br />
* The [[Viable System Model]] (VSM): "Stafford Beer used the term ‘viable system’ to describe the same thing and outlined some of their properties in the VSM. <br />
<br />
In short, the model says that in order to be viable (i.e., able to autonomously adapt and survive in response to a changing environment) a system must have the following five sub-systems:<br />
<br />
#System 1: Interacting operational units. Think organs in a body, or players in a team.<br />
#System 2: Responsible for stability and conflict resolution between operational units.<br />
#System 3: An ‘Internal Eye’ optimising and generating synergies between operational units.<br />
#System 4: An ‘External Eye’ allows strategies and plans to adapt to a changing environment.<br />
#System 5: Where ultimate authority lies and is responsible developing policy.<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[Bettermeans]] and The [[Open Enterprise Manifesto]]: In April 2010 a project called Bettermeans “formed to promote the values of openness, transparency, autonomy, contribution-based-rewards (meritocracy), democracy, integrity, and values-oriented, purpose-driven work” released The Open Enterprise Manifesto. It was a familiar story: replace “the command and control hierarchy” with “collaboration and open participation;” create organisations “more like living dynamic networks, and less like pyramids;” plus the standard mentions of Linux, Wikipedia, Mondragón and Visa to demonstrate how aspects of the model had already been shown to work at scale. Bettermeans were trying to bring these various aspects together in a single cohesive model, and they made a pretty good stab at building the necessary tools to make such a model widely available and adoptable."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
==Towards a [[Open Coop Development Agency]]==<br />
<br />
As proposed by Henry Tam:<br />
<br />
"I’m thinking that the priority should be given to the setting up of some form of Open Coop Development Agency – it could be a stand-alone or a federated network with existing pro-Open Coop groups and institutions as supporters. <br />
<br />
Scale is important, but we know that effective coop federation can give us big organisational clout while retaining accountability to small autonomous units. And what would OCDA do? From your report and other writings colleagues have produced, I would say an 8-point programme: <br />
<br />
1. Promote and provide learning on why and how open cooperatives should be set up and developed.<br />
<br />
2. Provide coop business angels to give advice (on a voluntary basis; funded by a central body supported by members’ contributions; or a fee on terms agreed with the advice-receiver).<br />
<br />
3. Arrange low cost loans/investment.<br />
<br />
4. Arrange cooperatisation of non open coop businesses (arranging for discussions/voting sessions, lending money to workers to take over the business).<br />
<br />
5. Work with political parties to secure commitments to pro-open cooperativist policies.<br />
<br />
6. Negotiate with local and national govt to set up community owned trusts, and other appropriate policy actions.<br />
<br />
7. Adjudicate/mediate between multi-stakeholders.<br />
<br />
8. Safeguard open coops from sell-outs or unprincipled takeovers.<br />
<br />
If these elements are already covered by a range of organisations, then joining them under a much higher profile umbrella would itself give impetus to maximising their synergy (1 is certainly the raison detre of Synergia!). <br />
<br />
Historically, if we look at the development of social democracy in Sweden in early 20th century, or the rise of the New Right in the US in the 1970s/1980s, the key change came from the establishment of organisations that are dedicated to drive hitherto disparate movements and fragmented forces into a common mutually-reinforcing change programme."<br />
(email 2/2015)<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* why we need [[Open Cooperatives]]: [[Why We Need a New Kind of Open Cooperativism for the P2P Age]]<br />
<br />
* Cooperativism in the digital era, or how to form a global counter-economy : [https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/michel-bauwens-vasilis-kostakis/cooperativism-in-digital-era-or-how-to-form-global-counter-economy openDemocracy essay]<br />
<br />
* in-depth rationale: [[From the Communism of Capital to a Capital for the Commons]]<br />
<br />
* [[Platform Cooperativism]] , Software list<br />
<br />
* [[Freelancers Coop]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
===Articles===<br />
<br />
'''*From the Communism of Capital to Capital for the Commons: Towards an Open Co-operativism. By Michel Bauwens, Vasilis Kostakis. Triple C, Vol 12, No 1 (2014)''' <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/561<br />
<br />
"Abstract<br />
<br />
Two prominent social progressive movements are faced with a few contradictions and a paradox. On the one side, we have a re-emergence of the co-operative movement and worker-owned enterprises which suffer from certain structural weaknesses. On the other, we have an emergent field of open and Commons-oriented peer production initiatives which create common pools of knowledge for the whole of humanity, but are dominated by start-ups and large multinational enterprises using the same Commons. Thus we have a paradox: the more communist the sharing license used in the peer production of free software or open hardware, the more capitalist the practice. To tackle this paradox and the aforementioned contradictions, we tentatively suggest a new convergence that would combine both Commons-oriented open peer production models with common ownership and governance models, such as those of the co-operatives and the solidarity economic models."<br />
<br />
'''*Digital economy and the rise of Open Cooperativism: The case of the Enspiral Network''' ([http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/cQtJrUauKHrIGGYmMZtq/full site], [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Pazaitis_et_al_2017.pdf text]) <br />
<br />
"Abstract <br />
<br />
This article explores how autonomous workers/contributors, involved in peer-to-peer relations, can organise their productive efforts so that they have sustainable livelihoods. The discussion is guided by the concept of ‘open cooperativism’, which argues for a synergy between the commons-based peer production movement and elements of the cooperative and solidarity economy movements. To this end, we review the case of Enspiral, a network of professionals and companies that empowers and supports social entrepreneurship. We explore its values, operation and governance as well as the chosen strategies for autonomy and sustainability. Finally, some lessons are summarised for the cooperative and union movement, which point to open cooperativism as an integrated vision. <br />
<br />
'''*Cooperativism in the digital era, or how to form a global counter-economy''' ([https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/michel-bauwens-vasilis-kostakis/cooperativism-in-digital-era-or-how-to-form-global-counter-economy here])<br />
<br />
===Books===<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Two books, '''A New Way to Govern: Organisations and Society after Enron by Shann Turnbull''' (2002), and '''[[Gaian Democracies]]: Redefining Globalisation and People-Power by John Jopling and Roy Madron''' (2003) were both very influential on our thinking. They introduced us to the principles behind Spain’s huge co-operative network Mondragon, and other large scale business with innovative organisational structures such VISA International and Semco in Brazil.<br />
<br />
In A New Way to Govern Turnbull summarised the terminal flaws of command and control hierarchies: the tendency of centralised power to corrupt; the difficulty of managing complexity; and the suppression of “natural” — human —checks and balances. In their place he proposed organisations which are able to “break complexity down into manageable units, and decompose organisational decision-making into a network of independent control centres.” In short, his thesis argued that command and control hierarchies must be replaced by “network governance” and that where this includes stakeholders — not merely staff but customers, communities, suppliers or distributors — a whole new dimension of economic, social and political benefit opens up.<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)"<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Economic Networks]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cooperatives]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Open]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Open Company Formats]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Open Cooperativism]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Post-Corporate]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Open_Cooperatives&diff=111232Open Cooperatives2018-01-15T10:40:00Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
<br />
=Characteristics=<br />
<br />
<br />
==Criteria as Proposed by Michel Bauwens==<br />
<br />
#That coops need to be statutorily (internally) oriented towards the common good <br />
#That coops need to have governance models including all stakeholders<br />
#That coops need to actively co-produce the creation of immaterial and material commons<br />
#That coops need to be organized socially and politically on a global basis, even as they produce locally.<br />
<br />
Example: [http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/cooperativa-integral-catalana-as-a-living-model-of-open-cooperativism/2014/08/08 The Cooperative Integral Catalana as a living model of open cooperativism]<br />
<br />
==Criteria as Proposed by Josef Davies-Coates==<br />
<br />
"Co-ops that combine best practices from the international co-operative movement with best practices from the open source software and hardware communities are now possible. Soon anyone will be able to set up an Open Co-op and invite all their stakeholders to help finance, govern and organise the co-op online."<br />
(https://www.stirtoaction.com/article/open-co-ops)<br />
<br />
=Examples=<br />
<br />
Pioneering examples:<br />
<br />
==[[Catalan Integral Cooperative]]==<br />
<br />
* [http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/cooperativa-integral-catalana-as-a-living-model-of-open-cooperativism/2014/08/08 The Cooperative Integral Catalana as a living model of open cooperativism]<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Sensorica]]==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Sensorica are an ‘Open Value Network’ focussed on two primary activities: creating open hardware products; and developing the Open Value Network (OVN) model. OVNs are variously described as “people creating value together, by contributing work, money and goods, and sharing the income” a “framework for many-to-many innovation” and a “model for commons-based peer production.” The basic concept is very similar to the Bettermeans “contribution-based-rewards” idea, but in OVNs contributions other than completed tasks are also accounted for. They are currently working with Bob Haugen and Lynn Foster at Mikorizal Software to develop a prototype open source value accounting platform called ValNet."<br />
<br />
<br />
==The [[Enspiral]] Network==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Enspiral is made up of three parts: The Enspiral Foundation, Enspiral Services and Startup Ventures. I’d say they’re the best current example of an Open Co-op, but how they actually describe themselves is as “a virtual and physical network of companies and professionals working together to create a thriving society” and as an “experiment to create a collaborative network that helps people do meaningful work.” A core part of their strategy is to open source their model. In short, not only are they doing almost exactly what United Diversity wants to do — they’re also building the open source tools actually needed to do it!<br />
<br />
The Enspiral Foundation is the charitable company at the heart of the Enspiral network. It’s the legal custodian of assets held collectively by the network, and the entity with which companies and individuals have a formal relationship. Decisions are made using [[Loomio]] and budgets are set using [[Cobudget]].<br />
<br />
A network of professionals work together in teams to offer Enspiral Services, a range of business services under one roof. By default members pool 20% of their invoices into a collective bucket, 25% of which goes to the Foundation. Loomio and Cobudget are then used to decide how to spend the rest. For Startup Ventures, Enspiral works with social entrepreneurs to launch start-ups who then support the work of the Foundation, and Enspiral as a whole, through flexible revenue share agreements: ventures choose their own contribution rate, usually around 5% of revenue."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Tools=<br />
<br />
* Also see [[Platform Cooperativism]] ( list of software )<br />
==[[Microgenius]]== <br />
<br />
(and other funding tools)<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Originally started by Cambridge-based entrepreneur Emily Mackay, Microgenius is the UK’s first platform for community share offers and is now part of the Community Shares Unit. Societies can also sell shares via Crowdfunder and BuzzBnk, and can advertise share issues on Ethex, the Trillion Fund, and on Shares.coop — where the widest range of live Community Share Offers in the UK are listed. Co-operative Companies Limited by Shares can do equity crowdfunding on Crowdcube (which also powers Microgenius) and Seedrs.<br />
<br />
Open source platforms specifically created to help open and/or co-operative projects include: Goteo for crowdfunding the commons; Open Funding and Bountysource for cofunding free software; Gittip for giving small weekly cash gifts to people you love and are inspired by; Snowdrift, a monthly matched patronage system; and Coopfunding.net, a wordpress powered crowdfunding platform for co-ops in Spain (we’ve got plans for something similar in the UK). Catarse, Selfstarter and tilt are other open source options, and there are numerous bitcoin powered platforms out there, too (e.g. Swarm)."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[One Click Coop]]==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"One Clicks Orgs, a social enterprise whose strapline is “Legal Structures and Group Voting Made Easy,” created the One Click Co-op in partnership with Co-operatives UK and NESTA. Launched in June 2013 and approved by UK regulators it is the first fully-online co-operative structure in the world. The open source platform permits members to contribute agenda items, browse archived minutes and participate in votes electronically. It’s pretty awesome, but having been built on a relative shoestring also pretty basic. Only Co-operatives UK’s multi-stakeholder co-operative rules are supported and you can’t, for example, the balance the interests of stakeholder groups by giving them different proportions of overall control (like you can with the Somerset Rules)."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
==[[Loomio]]==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Loomio — a free and open source tool for collaborative decision-making — is what happened when Enspiral met Occupy. Enspiral were committed to being a flat organisation, empowering employees to be autonomous and involved in leadership and decision making. But without the right platform, the overheads of engaging lots of people made it hard to deliver on this grand vision. In practice, only a few people were making most of the important decisions. Similarly, Occupy activists were finding it hard to make consensus decisions with large groups of people. Loud voices dominated and people with less time to commit to the process were being marginalised. They were missing out on the power of including a truly diverse range of perspectives. Together they developed Loomio."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Cobudget]]==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Cobudget is another open source app being developed by Enspiral. It works like this: each month contributions to collective funds are published. Everyone can see who contributed what and how much money is in the budget. Basic core expenses (previously collectively agreed on Loomio) are subtracted and what’s left is the discretionary budget. Each person or company retains the right to allocate their part of discretionary funds and anyone in the network can start a “bucket” — a proposal to do work that requires funding. They write up a proposal making their case for why the work they want to do will benefit everyone and why they are the right person to deliver the project. Everyone then considers the buckets and decides which ones to “fill” with their portion of the discretionary budget. If people collectively feel like a project is a good use of resources, it will get funded. If there are critical budgeting priorities taking precedence, “nice to have” projects won’t get any funds that round. Funders can split up their allocations as they like, or put it all in one bucket. In aggregate, the result is a budget that reflects the collective priorities of the group, determined in proportion to real stakeholding and in the context of the big picture goals. The entire process takes place transparently."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
<br />
==The [[Open App Ecosystem]]==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Building on the work of Loomio and Cobudget the Open App Ecosystem is an Enspiral project to develop suite of integrated and open sourced apps which support transparent, democratic and decentralised organising. The aim is for the software to act as a delivery mechanism for cultural viruses which decentralise money, information and control and promote happiness, empowerment and wellbeing throughout an organisation. They also have the side effect of helping organisations become more efficient, resilient and adaptable."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
=History=<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates has developed a concept of open cooperatives which focuses on open and transparent non-hierarchical distributed governance and ownership. See: [http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/ Open Co-ops: Inspiration, Legal Structures and Tools]<br />
<br />
Michel Bauwens developed a concept of open cooperatives that stresses the co-production of open commons. See: [[Why We Need a New Kind of Open Cooperativism for the P2P Age]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Antecedents and Inspirations==<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
* "The [[Open Organisations Project]] emerged. Their goal was “to explain how to set up and maintain transparent, accountable and truly participative communities” and they came up with a useful set of six process and eight functional rules together with some basic guidelines for how to implement them."<br />
<br />
* The [[Viable System Model]] (VSM): "Stafford Beer used the term ‘viable system’ to describe the same thing and outlined some of their properties in the VSM. <br />
<br />
In short, the model says that in order to be viable (i.e., able to autonomously adapt and survive in response to a changing environment) a system must have the following five sub-systems:<br />
<br />
#System 1: Interacting operational units. Think organs in a body, or players in a team.<br />
#System 2: Responsible for stability and conflict resolution between operational units.<br />
#System 3: An ‘Internal Eye’ optimising and generating synergies between operational units.<br />
#System 4: An ‘External Eye’ allows strategies and plans to adapt to a changing environment.<br />
#System 5: Where ultimate authority lies and is responsible developing policy.<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[Bettermeans]] and The [[Open Enterprise Manifesto]]: In April 2010 a project called Bettermeans “formed to promote the values of openness, transparency, autonomy, contribution-based-rewards (meritocracy), democracy, integrity, and values-oriented, purpose-driven work” released The Open Enterprise Manifesto. It was a familiar story: replace “the command and control hierarchy” with “collaboration and open participation;” create organisations “more like living dynamic networks, and less like pyramids;” plus the standard mentions of Linux, Wikipedia, Mondragón and Visa to demonstrate how aspects of the model had already been shown to work at scale. Bettermeans were trying to bring these various aspects together in a single cohesive model, and they made a pretty good stab at building the necessary tools to make such a model widely available and adoptable."<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
==Towards a [[Open Coop Development Agency]]==<br />
<br />
As proposed by Henry Tam:<br />
<br />
"I’m thinking that the priority should be given to the setting up of some form of Open Coop Development Agency – it could be a stand-alone or a federated network with existing pro-Open Coop groups and institutions as supporters. <br />
<br />
Scale is important, but we know that effective coop federation can give us big organisational clout while retaining accountability to small autonomous units. And what would OCDA do? From your report and other writings colleagues have produced, I would say an 8-point programme: <br />
<br />
1. Promote and provide learning on why and how open cooperatives should be set up and developed.<br />
<br />
2. Provide coop business angels to give advice (on a voluntary basis; funded by a central body supported by members’ contributions; or a fee on terms agreed with the advice-receiver).<br />
<br />
3. Arrange low cost loans/investment.<br />
<br />
4. Arrange cooperatisation of non open coop businesses (arranging for discussions/voting sessions, lending money to workers to take over the business).<br />
<br />
5. Work with political parties to secure commitments to pro-open cooperativist policies.<br />
<br />
6. Negotiate with local and national govt to set up community owned trusts, and other appropriate policy actions.<br />
<br />
7. Adjudicate/mediate between multi-stakeholders.<br />
<br />
8. Safeguard open coops from sell-outs or unprincipled takeovers.<br />
<br />
If these elements are already covered by a range of organisations, then joining them under a much higher profile umbrella would itself give impetus to maximising their synergy (1 is certainly the raison detre of Synergia!). <br />
<br />
Historically, if we look at the development of social democracy in Sweden in early 20th century, or the rise of the New Right in the US in the 1970s/1980s, the key change came from the establishment of organisations that are dedicated to drive hitherto disparate movements and fragmented forces into a common mutually-reinforcing change programme."<br />
(email 2/2015)<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* why we need [[Open Cooperatives]]: [[Why We Need a New Kind of Open Cooperativism for the P2P Age]]<br />
<br />
* Cooperativism in the digital era, or how to form a global counter-economy : [https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/michel-bauwens-vasilis-kostakis/cooperativism-in-digital-era-or-how-to-form-global-counter-economy openDemocracy essay]<br />
<br />
* in-depth rationale: [[From the Communism of Capital to a Capital for the Commons]]<br />
<br />
* [[Platform Cooperativism]] , Software list<br />
<br />
* [[Freelancers Coop]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
<br />
===Articles===<br />
<br />
'''*From the Communism of Capital to Capital for the Commons: Towards an Open Co-operativism. By Michel Bauwens, Vasilis Kostakis. Triple C, Vol 12, No 1 (2014)''' <br />
<br />
URL = http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/561<br />
<br />
"Abstract<br />
<br />
Two prominent social progressive movements are faced with a few contradictions and a paradox. On the one side, we have a re-emergence of the co-operative movement and worker-owned enterprises which suffer from certain structural weaknesses. On the other, we have an emergent field of open and Commons-oriented peer production initiatives which create common pools of knowledge for the whole of humanity, but are dominated by start-ups and large multinational enterprises using the same Commons. Thus we have a paradox: the more communist the sharing license used in the peer production of free software or open hardware, the more capitalist the practice. To tackle this paradox and the aforementioned contradictions, we tentatively suggest a new convergence that would combine both Commons-oriented open peer production models with common ownership and governance models, such as those of the co-operatives and the solidarity economic models."<br />
<br />
'''*Digital economy and the rise of Open Cooperativism: The case of the Enspiral Network''' ([http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/cQtJrUauKHrIGGYmMZtq/full site], [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Pazaitis_et_al_2017.pdf text]) <br />
<br />
'''*Cooperativism in the digital era, or how to form a global counter-economy''' ([https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/michel-bauwens-vasilis-kostakis/cooperativism-in-digital-era-or-how-to-form-global-counter-economy here])<br />
<br />
===Books===<br />
<br />
Josef Davies-Coates:<br />
<br />
"Two books, '''A New Way to Govern: Organisations and Society after Enron by Shann Turnbull''' (2002), and '''[[Gaian Democracies]]: Redefining Globalisation and People-Power by John Jopling and Roy Madron''' (2003) were both very influential on our thinking. They introduced us to the principles behind Spain’s huge co-operative network Mondragon, and other large scale business with innovative organisational structures such VISA International and Semco in Brazil.<br />
<br />
In A New Way to Govern Turnbull summarised the terminal flaws of command and control hierarchies: the tendency of centralised power to corrupt; the difficulty of managing complexity; and the suppression of “natural” — human —checks and balances. In their place he proposed organisations which are able to “break complexity down into manageable units, and decompose organisational decision-making into a network of independent control centres.” In short, his thesis argued that command and control hierarchies must be replaced by “network governance” and that where this includes stakeholders — not merely staff but customers, communities, suppliers or distributors — a whole new dimension of economic, social and political benefit opens up.<br />
(http://stirtoaction.com/open-co-ops-inspiration-legal-structures-and-tools/)"<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Economic Networks]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cooperatives]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Open]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Open Company Formats]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Open Cooperativism]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Post-Corporate]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Blockchain&diff=107698Blockchain2017-06-13T14:01:13Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: /* Blockchain Developer Assistance */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= "a distributed cryptographic ledger shared amongst all nodes participating in the network, over which every successfully performed transaction is recorded".''' [http://www.wired.com/2014/03/decentralized-applications-built-bitcoin-great-except-whos-responsible-outcomes/]<br />
<br />
'''See, from [http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Rachel_O%E2%80%99Dwyer Rachel O'Dwyer]: [[How the Blockchain Might Support a Commons]]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
=Contextual Citation=<br />
<br />
"Why trust Bitcoin, or more specifically, why trust the technology that makes Bitcoin possible? In short, because it assumes everybody’s a crook, yet it still gets them to follow the rules."<br />
<br />
- Morgen E. Peck [http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''An important warning on the blockchain as a centralized infrastructure:'''<br />
<br />
"The need to replicate the whole chain of blocks on our computer is an insurmountable barrier to entry if you’re searching for an alternative to IBM, Amazon or Google. The Twister chain is still small, but think about how, to date, the initial synchronization for Bitcoin requires storage space of more than 65GB for the complete download of the blockchain. For any of us, having to reserve 65GB on our personal computers has a large cost. But for IBM, or Google, or any of the Chinese Bitcoin miners, it’s nothing. And let’s not even talk about the astronomical differences between the processing capabilities of the great monsters of scale compared to ours. Because blockchain is consensual, after a certain point of centralization, the rules of the system depend on very few users. For example, the bitcoin “update” would be unviable if the two more Chinese mining organizations had refused to implement it. A network of nodes designed this way has a power structure with clear centralizers—the owners of infrastructure—that in the end presents a threat to the distributed future of the Internet. In summary, when we use Blockchain technologies, the barrier to entry has a relatively small knowledge component—compiling and installing software—but an insurmountable infrastructure barrier beyond certain scales."<br />
<br />
- Manuel Ortega [https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet]<br />
<br />
=Definition=<br />
<br />
'''1. Via Aeze Soo:'''<br />
<br />
"A block chain is a distributed data store that maintains a continuously growing list of data records that are hardened against tampering and revision, even by operators of the data store's nodes. The most widely known application of a block chain is the public ledger of transactions for cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin. This record is enforced cryptographically and hosted on machines running the software."<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Via the Wikipedia:'''<br />
<br />
"A block chain, or blockchain, is a distributed database that maintains a continuously-growing list of data records hardened against tampering and revision. It consists of data structure blocks—which hold exclusively data in initial blockchain implementations, and both data and programs in some (for example, Ethereum) of the more recent implementations—with each block holding batches of individual transactions and the results of any blockchain executables. Each block contains a timestamp and information linking it to a previous block.<br />
<br />
The block chain is seen as the main technical innovation of bitcoin, where it serves as the public ledger of all bitcoin transactions. Bitcoin is peer-to-peer, every user is allowed to connect to the network, send new transactions to it, verify transactions, and create new blocks, which is why it is called permissionless. This original design has been the inspiration for other cryptocurrencies and distributed databases."<br />
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chain_(database))<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. by Jacob Aron:'''<br />
<br />
"The true innovation of Bitcoin's mysterious designer, Satoshi Nakamoto, is its underlying technology, the "block chain". That fundamental concept is being used to transform Bitcoin – and could even replace it altogether.<br />
<br />
So what is the block chain? It is a ledger of transactions that keeps Bitcoin secure and allows all users to agree on exactly who owns how many bitcoins. Each new block requires a record of recent transactions along with a string of letters and numbers, known as a hash, which is based on the previous block and produced using a cryptographic algorithm.<br />
<br />
Miners, people who run the peer-to-peer Bitcoin software, randomly generate hashes, competing to produce one with a value below a certain target difficulty and thus complete a new block and receive a reward, currently 25 bitcoins. This difficulty means faking a transaction is impossible unless you have more computing power than everyone else on the Bitcoin network combined. Confused? Don't worry, ordinary Bitcoin users needn't know the details of how the block chain works, just as people with a credit card don't bother learning banking network jargon. But those who do understand the power of the block chain are realising how Nakamoto's technology for mass agreement can be adapted. "You can replace that agreement with all sorts of different things and now you have a really powerful building block for any kind of distributed system," says Jeremy Clark of Concordia University in Montreal, Canada."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Primavera De Filippi''' <br />
<br />
"For many, bitcoin — the distributed, worldwide, decentralized crypto-currency — is all about money … or, as recent events have shown, about who invented it. Yet the actual innovation brought about by bitcoin is not the currency itself but the platform, which is commonly referred to as the “blockchain” — a distributed cryptographic ledger shared amongst all nodes participating in the network, over which every successfully performed transaction is recorded.<br />
<br />
And the blockchain is not limited to monetary applications. Borrowing from the same ideas (though not using the actual peer-to-peer network bitcoin runs on), a variety of new applications have adapted the bitcoin protocol to fulfill different purposes: Namecoin for distributed domain name management; Bitmessage and Twister for asynchronous communication; and, more recently, Ethereum (released only a month ago). Like many other peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, these platforms all rely on decentralized architectures to build and maintain network applications that are operated by the community for the community. (I’ve written before here in WIRED Opinion about one example, mesh networks, which can provide an internet-native model for building community and governance).<br />
<br />
Thus, while they enable a whole new set of possibilities, blockchain-based applications also present legal, technical, and social challenges similar to those raised by other P2P applications that came before them, such as BitTorrent, Tor, or Freenet."<br />
<br />
<br />
==The Blockchain as a universal ledger==<br />
<br />
Dominic Frisby:<br />
<br />
"Today there is a new system of digital record-keeping. Its impact could be equally large. It is called the blockchain.<br />
<br />
Imagine an enormous digital record. Anyone with internet access can look at the information within: it is open for all to see. Nobody is in charge of this record. It is not maintained by a person, a company or a government department, but by 8,000-9,000 computers at different locations around the world in a distributed network. Participation is quite voluntary. The computers’ owners choose to add their machines to the network because, in exchange for their computer’s services, they sometimes receive payment. You can add your computer to the network, if you so wish.<br />
<br />
All the information in the record is permanent – it cannot be changed – and each of the computers keeps a copy of the record to ensure this. If you wanted to hack the system, you would have to hack every computer on the network – and this has so far proved impossible, despite many trying, including the US National Security Agency’s finest. The collective power of all these computers is greater than the world’s top 500 supercomputers combined.<br />
<br />
New information is added to the record every few minutes, but it can be added only when all the computers signal their approval, which they do as soon as they have satisfactory proof that the information to be added is correct. Everybody knows how the system works, but nobody can change how it works. It is fully automated. Human decision-making or behaviour doesn’t enter into it.<br />
<br />
If a company or a government department were in charge of the record, it would be vulnerable – if the company went bust or the government department shut down, for example. But with a distributed record there is no single point of vulnerability. It is decentralised. At times, some computers might go awry, but that doesn’t matter. The copies on all the other computers and their unanimous approval for new information to be added will mean the record itself is safe.<br />
<br />
This is possibly the most significant and detailed record in all history, an open-source structure of permanent memory, which grows organically. It is known as the blockchain. It is the breakthrough tech behind the digital cash system, Bitcoin, but its impact will soon be far wider than just alternative money."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/how-blockchain-will-revolutionise-far-more-than-money)<br />
<br />
=How it works=<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"the blockchain is nothing more than a long string of transactions, each of which refers to an earlier record in the chain. But Bitcoin users do not directly make the updates to the blockchain. In order to transfer coins to someone else, you have to create a request and broadcast it over the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network. After that, it’s in the hands of the miners. They scoop up the requests and do a few checks to make sure that the signature is correct and that there are enough bitcoins to make the transaction; then they bundle the new records into a block and add it to the end of the blockchain.<br />
<br />
All miners work independently on their own version of the blockchain. When they finish a new block, they broadcast it to the rest of their peers, who check it, accept it, add it to the end of the chain, and pick up their work from this new starting point.<br />
<br />
The arrangement will work only if the miners agree on what the most recent version of the blockchain should look like. In other words, they all have to agree on a consensus version of it. But given the fact that they’re all strangers, they really have no reason to trust one another’s work. What’s to stop a miner from fiddling with earlier entries on the blockchain and undoing payments?<br />
<br />
The strategy that Satoshi Nakamoto (Bitcoin’s pseudonymous architect) devised for establishing consensus in his system is widely considered to be a breakthrough in distributed computing.<br />
<br />
“There have been consensus algorithms running since the eighties, where you come to consensus, providing a log of events on multiple machines, with all the machines participating in that network,” says Paul Snow, the founder of Factom, a service that condenses data and transfers it onto the Bitcoin blockchain. However, he says, these systems were successful only when the participants shared a common allegiance.<br />
<br />
Bitcoin replaces that allegiance with mathematical confidence. Given the cryptographic proof required to commit a transaction, we can already be confident that only people who own bitcoins can spend them. But a bitcoin miner can also be confident that the other miners are not changing entries on the blockchain, because in Bitcoin there is no going backward.<br />
<br />
That’s because the process of adding a new block to the blockchain is very difficult. Anyone who participates is required to devote large quantities of computing power—and therefore, electricity—toward running the new data through a set of calculations called hash functions. Only once this work is completed can the block be appended to the chain in a way that satisfies other miners on the network.<br />
<br />
“You’re building a giant wall,” explains Peter Kirby, the president of Factom. “And every time you want to agree to something, you put a thousand bricks on top of it. And you agree to something else and put another thousand bricks on top of it. And that makes it very, very, very difficult for someone to change a brick way down at the bottom of the wall.”<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
A Nakamoto blockchain, then, becomes more secure as more people participate in the network. But why would they? In the case of Bitcoin, it’s because they are paid to do it. Every time a block gets solved, a virgin transaction is created with a handful of newly minted bitcoins signed over to the first miner who completed the work.<br />
<br />
In old security models, you tried to lock out all of the greedy, dishonest people. Bitcoin, on the other hand, welcomes everyone, fully expecting them to act in their own self-interest, and then it uses their greed to secure the network.<br />
<br />
“This is, I think, the main contribution,” says Ittay Eyal, a computer scientist at Cornell who studies Bitcoin along with other decentralized networks. “Bitcoin causes an attacker to be better off by playing along than by attacking it. The incentive system leads a lot of people to contribute resources toward the welfare of the system.”"<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Typology=<br />
<br />
<br />
==The four segments==<br />
<br />
Graphic at https://d3ansictanv2wj.cloudfront.net/blockchain_app-1c3df0ef526f707f181e2038a5f8fbab.jpg<br />
<br />
<br />
William Mougayar:<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Currency Segment===<br />
<br />
"The currency-related segment targets money transfers, payments, tips, or funding applications. The end-user typically goes to an exchange or uses their own wallet to conduct such transactions, benefiting from transaction cost reductions, speeds in settlements, and freedom from central intermediaries. Today’s exchanges are centralized, but it’s likely we’ll see another generation of decentralized trusted exchanges. And although the current bitcoin wallets today are “dumb” wallets, they could become smarter, via an ability to launch smart contracts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Pegged Services Segment===<br />
<br />
Pegged services to the blockchain represent an interesting segment because these apps utilize the blockchain’s atomic unit, which is a “value store” capability, but they also build on top of that with their unique off-chain services. For example, decentralized identity or decentralized ownership is a horizontal blockchain service, but it can be applied to any other vertical segments, such as for videos, music, or photography, just to name a few.<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Smart Contract segment===<br />
<br />
Smart contracts are small programs or scripts that run on a blockchain and govern legal or contractual terms on their own. They represent a simple form of decentralization. They will become available in a variety of application areas, such as for wagers, family trusts, escrow, time stamping, proofs of work delivery, etc. In essence, they are about moving certain assets or value from one owner to another, based on some condition or event, between people or things. Smart contracts represent an “intermediate state” between parties, and we will trust these smart programs to verify and take action based on the logic behind these state changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
===The DAO segment===<br />
<br />
Legal issues aside, a Distributed Autonomous Organization is “kind of” incorporated on the blockchain because its governance is very dependent on the end-users who are part-owners, part-users, and part-nodes on that decentralized network. Key aspects of a DAO are that each user is also a “worker,” and by virtue of their “work,” they contribute to the value appreciation of the DAO via their collective participation or activity levels. Arguably, bitcoin itself is the “uber DAO.”<br />
(https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/understanding-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Technology=<br />
<br />
==The [[Blockchain Application Stack]]==<br />
<br />
Joel Monegro:<br />
<br />
"This is what I think the architecture of Internet applications is going to look like in 10 years. This is just a simple illustration and it leaves a lot of important insights and issues out. I’ll try my best to explain the thinking behind it below. To keep things short, we’ll run through every part of the stack from the bottom up, and do a deep dive on each in future posts.<br />
<br />
The basic idea is that everything inside the gray rectangles is decentralized and open source. For now I’m calling these the shared data and protocol layers. Nobody controls these parts of the system, and they’re accessible by any person or company. If we use bitcoin as an example, the blockchain is the shared data layer and the bitcoin protocol is a decentralized protocol that’s part of the shared protocol Layer.<br />
<br />
You’ll notice that each layer gets thinner the higher up you go. You’ll also notice that the shared data and protocol layers cover about 80% of the entire stack. Internet applications today are built on top of open, decentralized technologies like TCP/IP and HTTP, but if you were to graph the current Internet application stack like above, those open, decentralized protocols would probably only make up about 15% with everything on top being private and centralized.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Miners and the blockchain'''<br />
<br />
If you know a little about how bitcoin works, you know what miners are. In a nutshell, miners are the nodes in a network of computers who, together, verify all bitcoin transactions. In exchange, the algorithm rewards them with bitcoin. Because bitcoin has real-world value, the operators of these machines are incentivized to keep them running. If you’d like to learn more about mining, this is a great explanation of how they work.<br />
<br />
The blockchain is the public ledger that holds a permanent record of all bitcoin transactions, and is maintained by the miners. It’s not controlled by a single entity and it’s accessible by everyone. You can read more about the blockchain here.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Overlay networks'''<br />
<br />
This is where things start to get interesting. Developers are starting to build networks that work in parallel to the bitcoin blockchain to perform tasks that the bitcoin network can’t, but that make use of the bitcoin blockchain to, for instance, timestamp or validate their work.<br />
<br />
One example is Counterparty. Another might be sidechains. Whatever form these overlay networks take, the one thing they have in common is their connection to the bitcoin blockchain, and how they benefit from its network effects to achieve liquidity without having to bootstrap their own alternative cryptocurrency and/or blockchain like alternative solutions such as Ethereum require.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Decentralized protocols'''<br />
<br />
Thanks to the blockchain, for the first time we can develop open source, decentralized protocols with built-in data (thanks to overlay networks and the blockchain), validation, and transactions that are not controlled by a single entity. This is where the traditional architecture of software businesses begins to break down. The best example of a decentralized protocol on top of a shared data layer is bitcoin, and we’re already well aware of how it’s affecting money and finance.<br />
<br />
Companies like eBay, Facebook and Uber are very valuable because they benefit tremendously from the network effects that come from keeping all user information centralized in private silos and taking a cut of all the transactions.<br />
<br />
Decentralized protocols on top of the blockchain have the potential to undo every single part of the stacks that make these services valuable to consumers and investors. They can do this by, for example, creating common, decentralized data sets to which any one can plug into, and enabling peer-to-peer transactions powered by bitcoin.<br />
<br />
In fact, a number of promising teams have already begun working on the protocols that will disrupt the business models of the companies above. One example is Lazooz, a protocol for real-time ride sharing and another is OpenBazaar, a protocol for free, decentralized peer-to-peer marketplaces.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''4. Open source and commercial APIs'''<br />
<br />
Protocols are hard for the average developer to build on top of, so there’s an opportunity in making it easy to connect to them. Whether it’s a good business in the long term is up for debate, but I think it’s a very important part of the stack.<br />
<br />
Making it quick and easy for developers of any skill set to quickly build an application and experiment on top of these decentralized protocols is paramount to their success.<br />
<br />
These will be either commercial services or open source projects. Good examples of this trend are Chain's APIs and Coinbase’s Toshi for bitcoin. They both serve the same purpose, but Chain is a hosted, commercial service, and Toshi is open source.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''5. Applications'''<br />
<br />
This is the consumer-facing part of the stack. Applications built atop this architecture will, in most cases, work very similarly to the ones we have today – just like Coinbase works similarly to PayPal.<br />
<br />
The big difference to consumers, however, is that because they are built on decentralized protocols, they will be able to talk to each other, just like different email applications and bitcoin wallets can interoperate.<br />
<br />
One thing I like about this stack is that it’s growing from the bottom up. First we had miners, the blockchain, and bitcoin, and now we’re building everything else on top. As far as I know, the most significant revolutions in technology have been built this way."<br />
(http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-application-stack/)<br />
<br />
=Business Models=<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"There are currently a number of incentive structures surrounding blockchain technology and open source software:<br />
<br />
(1) Contribute open source code and make money via services (i.e. Peter Todd’s consulting)<br />
<br />
(2) Create a new close source software project based on the Bitcoin blockchain with a privately held speculative unit (i.e. legal equity in Coinbase)<br />
<br />
(3) Create an new technology set plugged into the Bitcoin blockchain with a privately held speculative unit (i.e. legal equity in Blockstream/Sidechains)<br />
<br />
(4) Create an entirely new unit with inherent utility on a new blockchain (BTC in Bitcoin, XRP in Ripple, ETH in Ethereum)<br />
<br />
(5) Create an entirely new unit with inherent utility on the Bitcoin blockchain (MSC in Mastercoin, XCP in Counterparty)"<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Comparing the Incentive Models==<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"For a long time, the primary model of open source software development has been in category one. The software itself is free. Hosting and other services around it are not. People can also build high value applications on top of the open source code, but these are usually closed source. This is the model that Ruby on Rails and other web frameworks have used fairly successfully as Joel Dietz has previously written.<br />
<br />
The second model is the typical business model. In this, the structure of legal equity binds both investors and developers to a future value that may not be realized for several years. This typically creates a group of a few people who are highly committed to a particular outcome, but may naturally come into odds. Historically there is also no way to incentivize any of the parties beyond employees and investors that may also have a vested interest in the platform (i.e. power users).<br />
<br />
The third model, by which I primarily refer to Sidechains, is still inchoate. In the Sidechains whitepaper it proposes demurrage as a method for incentivizing sidechain development. This seems to promote exactly the opposite set of incentives than what you would want. Effectively this means that assets on the main chain hold their value, while assets on a sidechain gradually decrease in value, while the difference is basically given away to miners. Also, the Sidechains project has no publicly stated business model, which is also a fairly significant concern. Any potential revenue on a service-based business will never be enough for the venture capitalists to get their necessary return, which basically forces them to either create a closed source product or otherwise leverage their position to “gate keep” and charge some sort of toll on network usage.<br />
<br />
The fourth model, though strongly disliked by many, is ironically closest to Bitcoin itself. It states fundamentally that there can be a speculative unit with attached technological innovation that is acquired, and by which the speculators will benefit as both utility and network grows. The somewhat unique feature of Ethereum and a few other related projects (e.g. DarkCoin) is that unlike earlier “altcoins,” these new projects do have significant additional utility that is not found on the Bitcoin Blockchain.<br />
<br />
Since all such projects extend the core Bitcoin technology with this additional utility, this effectively makes them competitors to the Bitcoin blockchain. Although early adopters and venture capitalist backers of Bitcoin had the hope that the network effects of Bitcoin would make it something like the TCP/IP protocal of internet money, it is entirely possible that some other competitor will surpass it. I suspect that whether or not this is the case will depend highly on whether or not anyone can make comparable utility and innovation compatible with Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
This leads to a fifth model that was perhaps under-appreciated until Ethereum came along. This is the possibility that a metacoin, so called because it works via inserting metadata into Bitcoin transactions, could provide much of the increased utility provided via a smart contracting layer without creating its own blockchain.<br />
<br />
Both four and five have very similar economic incentive structures. First of all, they are open to all participants and immediately liquid. Because of this it means that they naturally engage much more quickly a wider audience who are also incentivized to spread the word about that network. But, because of the immediate liquidity, there is no necessary long-term engagement. This affects both the development side and investing, and also means that there a fairly strong incentive to drive up the short time value for a project and exit at the peak. This likely results in a greater amount of capital, greater number of participants, with less depth. While potentially appropriate to the Facebook age, it is typically the case that startups require a few number of very intensely committed people due to the often intensely competitive nature of development, the occasional crisises that test resolve of key participants, and the general need for deferred compensation.<br />
<br />
An additional problem is that none of these projects have evolved business models independent of the appreciation of their new asset class. All effectively depend on driving up the price by increasing the underlying utility of the unit and size of their related network, something that, while feasible, remains a questionable choice for anything that expects to be around in 5–10 years. Also, it is quite possible that price appreciation in such an asset is limited relative to the benefits traditionally associated with equity (i.e. 1000x returns on a successful software exit from an early investment). Since venture capital is generally structured as taking high rewards for high risk, projects with capped rewards impossible for them to undertake from an investment perspective.<br />
<br />
Another very significant drawback is that even where economic incentives maybe aligned, there are basically no accountability structures due to the basically non-existant legal framework for entities receiving this sort of funding. In this case, Counterparty decided not to take funds whatsoever, whereas Ethereum structured their legal documentation to explicitly state that they were promising nothing in return whatsoever.<br />
<br />
As Vitalik recently noted, Ethereum also has a problem of having a dual purpose “product” offering and an “investment” offering, something Swarm founder Joel Dietz called misaligned incentives in an early piece on economics of Ethereum. It is problems like these that have probably caused two out of three Counterparty founders to begin working for a private corporation (Overstock), presumably with some additional equity-based incentivization in addition to the base counterparty unit. In this case, the Counterparty ecosystem now has participants both in categories (4) and (2), with potential conflicts of interest between the participants in area (2), but also the possibility for larger ecosystem growth presuming that those conflicts can adequately be mediated.<br />
<br />
So far we have only discussed the advantages and disadvantages of existing economic incentive structures. What about the future? What other possibilities can we expect to emerge?<br />
<br />
The first “composite” offering has been proposed by Reddit. This is to take an existing equity offering and distribute the benefits downwards to community users via cryptocurrency. This is an incredible opportunity, because it illustrates one of the key benefits of this ‘open’ incentivization model, it actually directly compensates the community members who contribute to network growth.<br />
<br />
The other model is Swarm itself, which, due to legal complexities, was deliberately vague about specific utility at the outset of its fundraising period, and instead described more generally the various categories of benefits that could be applied via these technologies (perk distribution, membership, privileged product access, financial rewards).<br />
<br />
This was sometimes described as sort of crypto social-contract with the intention of providing as much value as possible to its users as the legal infrastructure was developed in order to do so. Much of this increased value depended on ability to structure agreements via smart contracts, which was a technology that did not even exist in any usable form until one week ago."<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Potential Applications=<br />
<br />
by Dominic Frisby:<br />
<br />
"Coders are now developing ways to use blockchain tech for purposes beyond an alternative money system. From 2017, you will start to see some of the early applications creeping into your electronic lives.<br />
<br />
One application is in decentralised messaging. Just as you can send cash to somebody else with no intermediary using Bitcoin, so can you send messages – without Gmail, iMessage, WhatsApp, or whoever the provider is, having access to what’s being said. The same goes for social media. What you say will be between you and your friends or followers. Twitter or Facebook will have no access to it. The implications for privacy are enormous, raising a range of issues in the ongoing government surveillance discussion.<br />
<br />
We’ll see decentralised storage and cloud computing as well, considerably reducing the risk of storing data with a single provider. A company called Trustonic is working on a new blockchain-based mobile phone operating system to compete with Android and Mac OS.<br />
<br />
Just as the blockchain records where a bitcoin is at any given moment, and thus who owns it, so can blockchain be used to record the ownership of any asset and then to trade ownership of that asset. This has huge implications for the way stocks, bonds and futures, indeed all financial assets, are registered and traded. Registrars, stock markets, investment banks – disruption lies ahead for all of them. Their monopolies are all under threat from blockchain technology.<br />
<br />
Land and property ownership can also be recorded and traded on a blockchain. Honduras, where ownership disputes over beachfront property are commonplace, is already developing ways to record its land registries on a blockchain. In the UK, as much as 50 per cent of land is still unregistered, according to the investigative reporter Kevin Cahill’s book Who Owns Britain? (2001). The ownership of vehicles, tickets, diamonds, gold – just about anything – can be recorded and traded using blockchain technology – even the contents of your music and film libraries (though copyright law may inhibit that). Blockchain tokens will be as good as any deed of ownership – and will be significantly cheaper to provide.<br />
<br />
The Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto Polar has won many prizes for his work on ownership. His central thesis is that lack of clear property title is what has held back so many in the Third World for so long. Who owns what needs to be clear, recognised and protected – otherwise there will be no investment and development will be limited. But if ownership is clear, people can trade, exchange and prosper. The blockchain will, its keenest advocates hope, go some way to addressing that.<br />
<br />
Smart contracts could disrupt the legal profession and make it affordable to all, just as the internet has done with music and publishing<br />
<br />
Once ownership is clear, then contract rights and property rights follow. This brings us to the next wave of development in blockchain tech: automated contracts, or to use the jargon, ‘smart contracts’, a term coined by the US programmer Nick Szabo. We are moving beyond ownership into contracts that simultaneously represent ownership of a property and the conditions that come with that ownership. It is all very well knowing that a bond, say, is owned by a certain person, but that bond may come with certain conditions – it might generate interest, it might need to be repaid by a certain time, it might incur penalties, if certain criteria are not met. These conditions could be encoded in a blockchain and all the corresponding actions automated.<br />
<br />
Whether it is the initial agreement, the arbitration of a dispute or its execution, every stage of a contract has, historically, been evaluated and acted on by people. A smart contract automates the rules, checks the conditions and then acts on them, minimising human involvement – and thus cost. Even complicated business arrangements can be coded and packaged as a smart contract for a fraction of the cost of drafting, disputing or executing a traditional contract.<br />
<br />
One of the criticisms of the current legal system is that only the very rich or those on legal aid can afford it: everyone else is excluded. Smart contracts have the potential to disrupt the legal profession and make it affordable to all, just as the internet has done with both music and publishing.<br />
<br />
This all has enormous implications for the way we do business. It is possible that blockchain tech will do the work of bankers, lawyers, administrators and registrars to a much higher standard for a fraction of the price.<br />
<br />
As well as ownership, blockchain tech can prove authenticity. From notarisation – the authentication of documents – to certification, the applications are multifold. It is of particular use to manufacturers, particularly of designer goods and top-end electrical goods, where the value is the brand. We will know that this is a genuine Louis Vuitton bag, because it was recorded on the blockchain at the time of its manufacture.<br />
<br />
Blockchain tech will also have a role to play in the authentication of you. At the moment, we use a system of usernames and passwords to prove identity online. It is clunky and vulnerable to fraud. We won’t be using that for much longer. One company is even looking at a blockchain tech system to replace current car- and home-locking systems. Once inside your home, blockchain tech will find use in the internet of things, linking your home network to the cloud and the electrical devices around your home.<br />
<br />
From identity, it is a small step to reputation. Think of the importance of a TripAdvisor or eBay rating, or a positive Amazon review. Online reputation has become essential to a seller’s business model and has brought about a wholesale improvement in standards. Thanks to TripAdvisor, what was an ordinary hotel will now treat you like a king or queen in order to ensure you give it five stars. The service you get from an Uber driver is likely to be much better than that of an ordinary cabbie, because he or she wants a good rating.<br />
<br />
There will be no suspect recounts in Florida! The blockchain will also usher in the possibility of more direct democracy<br />
<br />
The feedback system has been fundamental to the success of the online black market, too. Bad sellers get bad ratings. Good sellers get good ones. Buyers go to the sellers with good ratings. The black market is no longer the rip-off shop without recourse it once was. The feedback system has made the role of trading standards authorities, consumer protection groups and other business regulators redundant. They look clunky, slow and out of date.<br />
<br />
Once your online reputation can be stored on the blockchain (ie not held by one company such as TripAdvisor, but decentralised) everyone will want a good one. The need to preserve and protect reputation will mean, simply, that people behave better. Sony is looking at ways to harness this whereby your education reputation is put on the blockchain – the grades you got at school, your university degree, your work experience, your qualifications, your resumé, the endorsements you receive from people you’ve done business with. LinkedIn is probably doing something similar. There is an obvious use for this in medical records too, but also in criminal records – not just for individuals, but for companies. If, say, a mining company has a bad reputation for polluting the environment, it might be less likely to win a commission for a project, or to get permission to build it.<br />
<br />
We are also seeing the development of new voting apps. The implications of this are enormous. Elections and referenda are expensive undertakings – the campaigning, the staff, the counting of the ballot papers. But you will soon be able to vote from your mobile phone in a way that is 10 times more secure than the current US or UK systems, at a fraction of the cost and fraud-free. What’s more, you will be able to audit your vote to make sure it is counted, while preserving your anonymity. Not even a corrupt government will be able to manipulate such a system, once it is in place. There will be no suspect recounts in Florida! The blockchain will also usher in the possibility of more direct democracy: once the cost and possibility of fraud are eliminated, there are fewer excuses for not going back to the electorate on key issues."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/how-blockchain-will-revolutionise-far-more-than-money)<br />
<br />
==Identity==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"So what can you do with a Nakamoto blockchain? The most simple applications, the ones we are likely to see in the near future, will make use of them as basic storage systems that take advantage of the unique properties of the network.<br />
<br />
People who are interested in transparency and access are looking at the blockchain as a possible place to organize government records and to include the public in the legislative process, by giving people a forum for publishing, debating, and voting on new proposals.<br />
<br />
Because the blockchain gives each entry a rough time stamp, it can also be used as a decentralized notary. Imagine, for example, taking a picture of a dent in your rental car and loading it into a Bitcoin transaction. By looking at what block the transaction went into, you could later prove that the dent existed before you left the parking lot.<br />
<br />
Because Bitcoin transactions are secured by strong cryptography, the blockchain can also replace our standard user name–and–password strategy for identity verification. In such a system, a Bitcoin address could be tagged with a user name, while the private key would stand in as a password. Anyone could then ask you to prove your identity by using your private key to solve the same cryptographic puzzle that you would normally solve when making a Bitcoin transaction."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Censorship==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Nakamoto blockchains also solve the problem of censorship. Once inserted into the chain, metadata cannot be removed. Developers have used this crucial feature to build a new censorship-resistant version of Twitter (called Twister), and a decentralized domain-name registry (Namecoin).<br />
<br />
“Everything that we own, everything that we do, is governed by these big piles of records,” says Factom’s Kirby. “A bank is just a big stack of records. An insurance company is just a big stack of records. An economy is basically just a big stack of records. And if you can take this concept of…a giant global accounting ledger and say, ‘Now we can organize all the records in the world this way,’ well, it turns out that’s really exciting.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Finance as a Commons]], using the Blockchain==<br />
<br />
Raymond Aitken:<br />
<br />
"What seems important is that it represents a distributed but powerful computing power, and incorruptible database, which can be used as a ledger-transactional system, as well as a notary system for publicly recording rights, including monetary/economic rights. In the event of a bail-in, the majority of the world's population and their enterprises, will have every incentive to transfer their accounts to such a system (which has a very different paradigm than Bitcoin).<br />
<br />
My questions are:<br />
<br />
(1) can the block-chain technology be architechtured into a decentralised operating system and commons block-chain platform, to provide banking as a public service, both at the local and international scale?<br />
<br />
(2) Can it be architectured as the framework of a new international monetary system, in accordance with the proposals of the French-Swiss economist, Michel Laloux (whose book I am translating into English), so that<br />
<br />
(3) money needed for regeneration of the economic commons (the 4 factors of production mentioned in my last email), as well as for solidarity (welfare) purposes - without dependency on the centralised State?"<br />
(email, August 2015)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Trust==<br />
<br />
Gideon Greenspan:<br />
<br />
"If multiple entities are writing to the database, there also needs to be some degree of mistrust between those entities. In other words, blockchains are a technology for databases with multiple non-trusting writers.<br />
<br />
You might think that mistrust only arises between separate organizations, such as the banks trading in a marketplace or the companies involved in a supply chain. But it can also exist within a single large organization, for example between departments or the operations in different countries.<br />
<br />
What do I specifically mean by mistrust? I mean that one user is not willing to let another modify database entries which it “owns”. Similarly, when it comes to reading the database’s contents, one user will not accept as gospel the “truth” as reported by another user, because each has different economic or political incentives.<br />
<br />
So the problem, as defined so far, is enabling a database with multiple non-trusting writers. And there’s already a well-known solution to this problem: the trusted intermediary. That is, someone who all the writers trust, even if they don’t fully trust each other. Indeed, the world is filled with databases of this nature, such as the ledger of accounts in a bank. Your bank controls the database and ensures that every transaction is valid and authorized by the customer whose funds it moves. No matter how politely you ask, your bank will never let you modify their database directly.<br />
<br />
Blockchains remove the need for trusted intermediaries by enabling databases with multiple non-trusting writers to be modified directly. No central gatekeeper is required to verify transactions and authenticate their source. Instead, the definition of a transaction is extended to include a proof of authorization and a proof of validity. Transactions can therefore be independently verified and processed by every node which maintains a copy of the database.<br />
<br />
But the question you need to ask is: Do you want or need this disintermediation? Given your use case, is there anything wrong with having a central party who maintains an authoritative database and acts as the transaction gatekeeper? Good reasons to prefer a blockchain-based database over a trusted intermediary might include lower costs, faster transactions, automatic reconciliation, new regulation or a simple inability to find a suitable intermediary.<br />
<br />
<br />
So blockchains make sense for databases that are shared by multiple writers who don’t entirely trust each other, and who modify that database directly. But that’s still not enough. Blockchains truly shine where there is some interaction between the transactions created by these writers.<br />
<br />
What do I mean by interaction? In the fullest sense, this means that transactions created by different writers often depend on one other. For example, let’s say Alice sends some funds to Bob and then Bob sends some on to Charlie. In this case, Bob’s transaction is dependent on Alice’s one, and there’s no way to verify Bob’s transaction without checking Alice’s first. Because of this dependency, the transactions naturally belong together in a single shared database.<br />
<br />
Taking this further, one nice feature of blockchains is that transactions can be created collaboratively by multiple writers, without either party exposing themselves to risk. This is what allows delivery versus payment settlement to be performed safely over a blockchain, without requiring a trusted intermediary.<br />
<br />
A weaker case can also be made for situations where transactions from different writers are cross-correlated with each other, even if they remain independent. One example might be a shared identity database in which multiple entities validate different aspects of consumers’ identities. Although each such certification stands alone, the blockchain provides a useful way to bring everything together in a unified way.<br />
<br />
If we have a database modified directly by multiple writers, and those writers don’t fully trust each other, then the database must contain embedded rules restricting the transactions performed.<br />
<br />
These rules are fundamentally different from the constraints that appear in traditional databases, because they relate to the legitimacy of transformations rather than the state of the database at a particular point in time. Every transaction is checked against these rules by every node in the network, and those that fail are rejected and not relayed on.<br />
<br />
Asset ledgers contain a simple example of this type of rule, to prevent transactions creating assets out of thin air. The rule states that the total quantity of each asset in the ledger must be the same before and after every transaction."<br />
(http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-blockchain-project/)<br />
<br />
=Examples=<br />
<br />
BY PRIMAVERA DE FILIPPI:<br />
<br />
"the blockchain is not limited to monetary applications. Borrowing from the same ideas (though not using the actual peer-to-peer network bitcoin runs on), a variety of new applications have adapted the bitcoin protocol to fulfill different purposes: Namecoin for distributed domain name management; Bitmessage and Twister for asynchronous communication; and, more recently, Ethereum (released only a month ago). Like many other peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, these platforms all rely on decentralized architectures to build and maintain network applications that are operated by the community for the community."<br />
(http://www.wired.com/2014/03/decentralized-applications-built-bitcoin-great-except-whos-responsible-outcomes/)<br />
<br />
==Ethereum==<br />
<br />
"One of those tapping into its power is Vitalik Buterin, a 19-year-old developer from Toronto, Canada. Last week he launched Ethereum, a new platform that will not just allow for multiple cryptocurrencies, as they are known, but also promises to host a range of decentralised applications on a single block chain. Making systems decentralised is appealing because the authorities will find them hard to shut down.<br />
<br />
Initially, Ethereum users will be able to exchange bitcoins for a new currency – ether. Then, ether will be mined just like Bitcoin. But acquiring another form of digital money is not the point. Ethereum is meant to work like an operating system for cryptocurrencies. Developers can create apps, such as social networks or file storage, that sit on Ethereum's network as part of an app store.<br />
<br />
Ethereum allows for the creation of complex, yet decentralised, economic tools like financial derivatives, in which two parties can bet on the rise and fall of an asset, or crop insurance that pays out to a farmer according to a weather data feed. Creating decentralised versions of Dropbox or eBay should be possible too, claims Buterin.<br />
<br />
Other developers are attempting to achieve the same results by overlaying new code on the existing Bitcoin block chain. One example is the concept of "coloured" coins: with bitcoins labelled to represent other assets such as gold, cars or even houses, you transfer ownership when you trade the labelled coin.<br />
<br />
Buterin says Ethereum is much more flexible. "Bitcoin is great as a form of digital money, but its scripting language is too weak for any kind of serious advanced applications to be built on top."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Decentralized Autonomous Corporations==<br />
<br />
"One of the more advanced concepts being touted for a next-generation Bitcoin is the idea of decentralised autonomous corporations (DAC) – companies with no directors. These would follow a pre-programmed business model and are managed entirely by the block chain. In this case the block chain acts as a way for the DAC to store financial accounts and record shareholder votes.<br />
<br />
In a way, Bitcoin is actually the first DAC, says Daniel Larimer, a developer in Blacksburg, Virginia. People who own bitcoins are shareholders in the company, which offers financial services, earns revenue through transaction fees and pays a salary to its employees, the miners. But no one is in charge.<br />
<br />
Larimer has started his own DAC, called BitSharesX, which he says can perform the actions of a bank, lending other currencies to customers, who can provide BitShares as collateral. Other potential business models for a DAC include election services and lotteries, all run automatically. "The key to a DAC is that it should not depend on any one person."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Official Records==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Last year, Manuel Araoz, an Argentinean programmer who now works for BitPay, one of the original Bitcoin payment providers, created a service that enables users to condense any document and embed it into a transaction on the blockchain. A lot of people are now getting excited about the possibility of using this kind of application to store official records. The two examples that come up most often at conferences are property titles and documents proving “prior art” in intellectual property cases. In the case of titles, you’re basically layering a new form of property onto a Bitcoin transaction. Once a deed to a house is associated with a particular value on the Bitcoin blockchain, it can be transferred from party to party without the need for a paper trail.<br />
<br />
In the case of prior art, a document embedded in the blockchain would carry with it a rough time stamp (depending on the rate at which new blocks are being added to the chain), which inventors could later use in patent disputes to prove that they had the first claim to an idea. The same solution would extend to any situation where a human notary was necessary.<br />
<br />
According to Gavin Andresen, one of the developers who works on the core Bitcoin protocol, these applications could be especially useful for underdeveloped nations where governments lack a good way of tracking and transmitting official documents."<br />
<br />
“I think the places where it makes the most sense are the places where they don’t already have a functioning system, they don’t have some legacy way of accomplishing something that the blockchain can help them accomplish,” says Andresen. “The example of property records, deeds to houses. Here in the United States, in Europe, and in other developed world nations, we have this whole system that’s all about keeping track of who owns property and then taxing them. There are parts of the world where that just doesn’t exist yet.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Voting==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"There are several groups (Agora, BitCongress, Swarm) that are looking for ways to use the Bitcoin blockchain to enable online voting. Most of the schemes would involve sending a tiny fraction of a specially tagged bitcoin (or a similar token) to every voter. The voter could then sign it over to anyone on a list of candidates. The candidate with the most bitcoins at the end of the vote would win. One of the benefits of a system like this is that voters could divide their votes among candidates. The results are also completely transparent and visible to anyone who has downloaded a copy of the blockchain. On one hand, this is good because you can conduct a public audit of the vote. On the other hand, it opens the door for vote selling.<br />
<br />
The BitCongress application, which is still under development, goes further and seeks to carve out a space for all the steps in governance. The group wants to provide a forum for debate, a process for voting, and a place for representatives to publish legislative proposals, all on the Bitcoin blockchain."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Identity Verification==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Today, when we need to log on to websites or applications, we usually prove our identities by supplying passwords. As a result, we are accustomed to managing many different passwords on many different websites. We are also trusting these Web services to keep our passwords, and therefore our identities, safe.<br />
<br />
Onename uses the blockchain to link your name to a Bitcoin address, which you can then prove you control by signing a digital message with your private key (similar to what you do when you spend bitcoins). The developers describe the service as a universal passport for the Internet. They imagine that in the future, instead of signing in to applications with a Facebook account, we will refer to a Onename identity stored on the blockchain.<br />
<br />
For example, “If you want to release your medical records to an application, it is important that you are in unique control of your medical records. You’re not going to trust Facebook,” says Ryan Shea, the cofounder of Onename. “This can even be extended to things like authorizing access to your home, opening your garage door, really any action that is tied to identity. So you could see this being used anywhere on the Web where identity is required.”<br />
<br />
In this scenario, you never have to reveal your private key to anyone, and you retain complete control over (and responsibility for) the integrity of your online identity."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Distributed Domain-Name Server==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"[[Namecoin]] is an altcoin that was established in 2011. The code is nearly identical to that of Bitcoin, but it uses its own Nakamoto blockchain. Rather than tracking financial transactions, it records domain names and their corresponding IP addresses to provide a more secure, censorship-resistant alternative to the way we usually access websites on the Internet.<br />
<br />
When you type a conventional URL (like Spectrum.ieee.org) into a browser, you rely on a centralized third party, called a domain-name server, to look up the URL in a directory and find the numerical IP address of the server you want to connect to. When the U.S. government wants to disable a website, one easy way is for it to demand that the domain-name server, or DNS, refuse to resolve the offending URL. In this case, even though the IP address you want is sitting there in a database on its server, the DNS sends you to a Digital Millennium Copyright Act website takedown notice instead of routing you to your destination. Because the databases are centralized, they are also good targets for hackers. If an attacker can manage to either change an IP address in the directory or send you a false one, he can divert your traffic toward a nefarious website.<br />
<br />
Namecoin was created to solve both of these problems. With a Namecoin client, you can look up any .bit URL and be sure that the corresponding IP address is the same as the one that originally registered it.<br />
<br />
“With Nakamoto blockchains, it’s very, very difficult to remove data from the blockchain once it’s already in there. And it’s not really feasible to insert fraudulent data that claims to be from an address that it really isn’t,” says Jeremy Rand, one of the Namecoin developers. “What this means is, if I register a name in the Namecoin blockchain, no one else can reverse that transaction and remove it from the blockchain, and no one else can hijack it.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
=History=<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"<br />
The Second Wave of Blockchain Innovation<br />
<br />
The last months have included intense discussion on the feasibility and desirability of various economic forms of Blockchain innovation, including the ominous title of an article in Techcrunch, “A Bitcoin Battle is Brewing.” Although they contain many of the same principles that made Bitcoin successful, other digital assets have often been criticized and dismissed as “speculative.” However, recent usages of cryptoledger systems (c.f. “appcoins,” cryptoequity, smart contracts) often include substantial technological innovation and can be used to solve long standing problems both in investment and corporate governance.<br />
<br />
History<br />
<br />
In the mid-90s Nick Szabo, the inventor of smart contracts, noted the many fascinating things that could be done with programmable money. Another one of his best ideas, “Bit gold,” was later implemented as Bitcoin, a distributed network with unique incentivization mechanism for growth. It included a rudimentary scripting language that allowed you to send a unit, a “coin,” to another participant in the network. This was enough for it to rise in value from mere pennies to a high of over $1,000.<br />
<br />
In 2013 J.R. Willet drafted “Second Bitcoin Whitepaper” and proposed that the Bitcoin blockchain be extended with more advanced smart contract capability, encoded via metadata. His proposed way to finance the development of this new functionality was to create a new type of token that gave access to these advanced features. This was called the “Master” coin.<br />
<br />
J.R. sold $600,000 worth of Mastercoins for Bitcoins in the first ever “crowdsale” in the summer of 2013. By the end of that calendar year, they had appreciated 74x in value. Investors rejoiced. But not all was well in the world of Mastercoin. Instead of full-time developers crunching away in hope of some future event, founders weren’t working full time and most people were employed via “bounties.” All of the best developers interested in the idea were quietly drifting away from the project. These notably included Vitalik Buterin and Adam Krellenstein, both of whom would attempt to solve the same problem in their own way.<br />
<br />
In early 2014, Adam Krellenstein, a self taught programmer, created a re-implementation of the Mastercoin idea from scratch. Like Mastercoin, it contained an implementation of certain smart contract ideas, primarily implementations of existing financial tools. This included asset issuance, asset trading, dividends, and betting. It was released as Counterparty and approximately $1.5mm worth of Bitcoin were transferred into this new system.<br />
<br />
Around the same time, Vitalik Buterin developed the first proof of concept of Ethereum, an abstraction of the same idea. Instead of programming the specific desired features of smart contracts, Vitalik proposed creating a toolkit that allows anyone to program their own smart contract. While theoretically possible to implement in a similar context on the Bitcoin blockchain, Vitalik believed that there were many other aspects of Blockchain architecture that could be improved, including file storage, clearing times, and proofing against special hardware. Vitalik initiated his own crowdsale to finance this blockchain, which gathered approximately $15mm worth of Bitcoins.<br />
<br />
As numerous other projects followed a similar model for funding in 2014, including Counterparty, Maidsafe, Storj, Supernet, Gems, and SWARM, there was a precipitous decline in the value of the progenitor. Mastercoins returned from a peak of almost 100 times return on investment to a price close to the original sale."<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
First, '''read this: [https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet]!'''<br />
<br />
For more, see also: [[Blockchain - Discussion]] <br />
<br />
Zacqary Adam Green:<br />
<br />
"Bitcoin’s real contribution to the world is its source code. The blockchain, the network protocol, the cryptographic verification — anyone can take this and build a currency with any economic properties their community needs. I’m not convinced that bitcoin’s Austrian School properties can sustain a global (or even local) economy, but you know what? That’s okay. If I ever feel the bitcoin economy has become too unequal, unbalanced, or stagnant, it’s now trivial for me to start my own damn currency.<br />
<br />
A single bitcoin belongs is a measurement like a centimeter, but the bitcoin community is a social network. People use bitcoin because other people they trade with use bitcoin. If my town is running low on bitcoin but has a lot of resources to share internally, we can create our own local currency to free up bitcoin for importing and exporting. Or I could join an online network of artists who work on one another’s projects, and we’d create our own internal currency that plays by whatever rules we need it to.<br />
<br />
There is no perfect monetary system for every situation. Bitcoin is not going to be the one world currency, and it doesn’t need to be. A lot of people compare Bitcoin to the Internet, but it’s more like CompuServe. It’s the first of many digital, non-state currencies to come, that will all interoperate with each other in ways we can’t even dream of yet."<br />
(http://falkvinge.net/2013/11/06/bitcoins-real-revolution-isnt-hard-money-its-economic-panarchy/ )<br />
<br />
==The blockchain as a potential opportunity for a true sharing economy==<br />
<br />
Primavera De Filippi:<br />
<br />
"Blockchain technology thus facilitates the emergence of new forms of organizations, which are not only dematerialized but also decentralized. These organizations — which have no director or CEO, or any sort of hierarchical structure — are administered, collectively, by all individuals interacting on a blockchain. As such, it is important not to confuse them with the traditional model of “crowd-sourcing,” where people contribute to a platform but do not benefit from the success of that platform. Blockchain technologies can support a much more cooperative form of crowd-sourcing — sometimes referred to as “platform cooperativism”— where users qualify both as contributors and shareholders of the platforms to which they contribute. And since there is no intermediary operator, the value produced within these platforms can be more equally redistributed among those who have contributed to the value creation.<br />
With this new opportunity for increased “cooperativism,” we’re moving toward a true sharing or collaborative economy — one that is not controlled by a few large intermediary operators, but that is governed by and for the people.<br />
<br />
There’s nothing new about that, you might say — haven’t we heard these promises before? Wasn’t the mainstream deployment of the internet supposed to level the playing field for individuals and small businesses competing against corporate giants? And yet, as time went by, most of the promises and dreams of the early internet days faded away, as big giants formed and took control over our digital landscape.<br />
<br />
Today we have a new opportunity to fulfill these promises. Blockchain technology makes it possible to replace the model of top-down hierarchical organizations with a system of distributed, bottom-up cooperation. This shift could change the way wealth is distributed in the first place, enabling people to cooperate toward the creation of a common good, while ensuring that everyone will be duly compensated for their efforts and contributions.<br />
<br />
And yet nothing should be taken for granted. Just as the internet has evolved from a highly decentralized infrastructure into an increasingly centralized system controlled by only a few large online operators, there is always the risk that big giants will eventually form in the blockchain space. We’ve lost our first window of opportunity with the internet. If we, as a society, really value the concept of a true sharing economy, where the individuals doing the work are fairly rewarded for their efforts, it behooves us all to engage and experiment with this emergent technology, to explore the new opportunities it provides and deploy large, successful, community-driven applications that enable us to resist the formation of blockchain giants."<br />
(https://hbr.org/2017/03/what-blockchain-means-for-the-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis, Primavera De Filippi & Vasilis Kostakis: <br />
<br />
"Technology can facilitate distributed systems to scale and become viable; however it is the genuine dynamics of sharing and the underlying human sociality that should guide the design and deployment of technological solutions. To this direction, there is a high duty for an interdisciplinary and inclusive approach, involving ICT along with social sciences, as well as philosophy and ethics, so as to avoid getting locked in narrow theoretical and empirical perspectives. […] <br />
<br />
We introduced a mechanism for decentralised consensus through the case of Backfeed, which relies on participatory evaluations and reputation-based influence. Finally, a token-based economic model was presented, which tentatively integrates this new system of value, providing the final layer of value actualisation. The tokens issued through collaborative processes represent a fair share of the created value and a reward for the contributors, and simultaneously they reflect the perceived value of the products and services they produce. Certain opportunities and limitations have been identified in relation to Backfeed and blockchain technology. On one hand, the Backfeed protocol can help productive communities, which engage in social sharing to create commons, to enact their own systems of value, through an inclusive, consensus-based approach. Simultaneously, it allows them to interface with one another and the market, and eventually scale and become sustainable. It thus can help us envision an ecosystem composed by a variety of value systems that fuel the circulation of commons in a sharing economy. In such an ecosystem value would become perceptible in a way that it shifts away from the logic of utility maximisation, towards the general benefit for the society.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the application of Backfeed, and in fact any similar system of evaluation, poses certain challenges to the internal relations in productive communities, related to trust, reciprocity and intrinsic motives. Moreover, the technology is still at a very early stage and more empirical data are necessary to support its real life application. More generally, there are well-justified doubts on the extent that the blockchain alone can help communities solve issues concerning power and influence. At the same time, with the technology yet to reach a dominant design, it is too early to predict how it would operate on large scale. In any case, regardless of the development of blockchain technology or the eventual success of Backfeed as a project, its conceptual model allegedly presents an interesting scenario for the sharing economy and the role the latter can play in societies." <br />
(Article: Blockchain and value systems in the sharing economy: The illustrative case of Backfeed. See: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Backfeed,_the_Blockchain,_and_Value_Systems_in_the_Sharing_Economy)<br />
<br />
==The key questions about the blockchain==<br />
<br />
Alanna Krause:<br />
<br />
1. Ethereum and similar blockchain enabled systems may distribute the verification of the ledger, but they are still centralised systems that easily become controlled by a few big players with more infrastructure resources. The contracts and transaction ledger may be decentralised, but the infrastructure isn't.<br />
<br />
2. Decentralisation in and of itself will not lead to P2P principles, or more social justice. In face, it has just as much power to great exacerbate social inequality. The most likely outcome of widespread adoption of block-chain enabled decentralised technologies is simply increased efficiency and wealth for big banks and governments. The discourse around the blockchain does not seem to acknowledge this. This WILL be co-opted (already is).<br />
<br />
3. I sense a deep lack of understanding of the social dynamics behind truly P2P ways of working and living in the blockchain community. People seem to want to "program" away what I consider the real challenges of confronting power dynamics, synthesising diversity, meeting different human needs, balancing collaboration and autonomy, building high-trust networks, collective ownership and commons management, etc. You cannot fix these things with technology - technology will just magnify the underlying dynamics. This is related to my observations of the lack of diversity in these communities.<br />
<br />
4. People get all excited about the blockchain, but most of the things they seem to want to do with it could be achieved just as easily with a normal database. It seems like the cases where you actually need an objectively verifiable distributed ledger in a zero-trust system are quite rare in practice. If people want to run self-organising corporations, why haven't they make a start with a normal database already? Surely they can implement a blockchain once it scales or they run into a real need. Seems to me people are just excited about some new and shiny tech concept, and not actually into solving the deeper challenges of self-organisation. I have seen a LOT of money changing hands and ideas thrown around, but no living case studies of blockchain enabled networks of people doing real productive work and creating livelihoods and societies."<br />
(via email, May 2016) <br />
<br />
<br />
==The perils of [[Trustless Systems]]==<br />
<br />
'''Blockchains don’t offer us a trustless system, but rather a reassignment of trust!'''<br />
<br />
E J Spode:<br />
<br />
"Such are the perils of supposedly trust-free technology. It might make for good marketing copy, but the fact of the matter is that blockchain technology is larded through with trust. First, you need to trust the protocol of the cryptocurrency and/or DAO. This isn’t as simple as saying ‘I trust the maths’, for some actual human (or humans) wrote the code and hopefully debugged it, and we are at least trusting them to get it right, no? Well, in the case of The DAO, no, maybe they didn’t get it right.<br />
<br />
Second, you have to trust the ‘stakeholders’ (including miners) not to pull the rug out from under you with a hard fork. One of the objections to the hard fork was that it would create a precedent that the code would be changeable. But this objection exposes an unmentioned universal truth: the immutability of the blockchain is entirely a matter of trusting other humans not to fork it. Ethereum Classic Classic would be no more immutable than Etherum Classic, which was no more immutable than Ethereum. At best, the stakeholders – humans all – were showing that they were more trustworthy qua humans about not forking around with the blockchain. But at the same time, they obviously could change their minds about forking at any time. In other words, if Ethereum Classic is more trustworthy, it’s only because the humans behind it are. <br />
<br />
Third, if you are buying into Ethereum or The DAO or any other DAO, you are being asked to trust the people who review the algorithm and tell you what it does and whether it’s secure. But those people – computer scientists, say – are hardly incorruptible. Just as you can bribe an accountant to say that the books are clean, so too can you bribe a computer scientist. Moreover, you’re putting your trust in whatever filters you applied to select that computer scientist. (University or professional qualifications? A network of friends? The testimonials of satisfied customers – which is to say, the same method by which people selected Bernie Madoff as their financial advisor.)<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, even if you had it on divine authority that the code of a DAO was bug-free and immutable, there are necessary gateways of trust at the boundaries of the system. For example, suppose you wrote a smart contract to place bets on sporting events. You still have to trust the news feed that tells you who won the match to determine the winner of the bet. Or suppose you wrote a smart contract under which you were to be delivered a truck full of orange juice concentrate. The smart contract can’t control whether or not the product is polluted by lemons or some other substance. You have to trust the humans in the logistics chain, and the humans at the manufacturing end, to ensure your juice arrives unadulterated.<br />
<br />
Can’t these gateways to the system be trustless as well? Can’t smart contracts some day have code to call for robotic orange-pickers and robotic juice concentrate-makers who would summon their robotically driven trucks to deliver the orange juice concentrate straight to our door? Yes – in theory. But imagine the task of reviewing the code to ensure that every step in the process hadn’t been corrupted by a bug that uses security failures to highjack trucks, or that gives false approvals to adulterated orange juice. Perhaps we could write second-order programs to automate the testing of the first-order programs – but why do we trust those? Do we ultimately need automated automated-program-tester testers? Where does it end?<br />
<br />
By now, the answer should be obvious: it ends with other humans. Blockchains don’t offer us a trustless system, but rather a reassignment of trust. Instead of trusting our laws and institutions, we are being asked to trust stakeholders and miners, and programmers, and those who know enough coding to be able to verify the code. We aren’t actually trusting the blockchain technology; we are trusting the people that support the blockchain. The blockchain community is certainly new and different, and it talks a good game of algorithms and hashing power, which at least sounds better than tired slogans such as Prudential is rock solid and You are in good hands with Allstate. But miners aren’t necessarily any more reliable than the corporations they replace.<br />
<br />
The sorry case of The DAO raises another question: Why are people so eager to put their faith in blockchain technology and its human supporters, instead of in other social and economic organisations? The upheavals of 2016, from Brexit to Trump, suggest that there is widespread fatigue with traditional institutions. Governments can be bought. Banks are designed to service the wealthy, and to hell with the little guy. ‘The system is rigged’ is a common refrain.<br />
<br />
But instead of targeting the moral failures of the system and trying to reform it, the very concept of ‘trust’ has become suspect. Blockchain enthusiasts tend to cast trust as little more than a bug in our network of human interactions. To be sure, one of the weird features of trusting relationships is that, in order to trust someone, there has to be some chance that they will fail you. Trust involves risk – but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.<br />
<br />
Which brings us back to Buterin and the hard fork of The DAO. What made this event significant was not just what it demonstrated about the foibles of technology or the hubris of 20-something computer scientists. What it really exposed was the extent to which trust defines what it is to be human. Trust is about more than making sure I get my orange juice on time. Trust is what makes all relationships meaningful. Yes, we get burned by people we rely on, and this makes us disinclined to trust others. But when our faith is rewarded, it helps us forge closer relationships with others, be they our business partners or BFFs. Risk is a critical component to this bonding process. In a risk-free world, we wouldn’t find anything resembling intimacy, friendship, solidarity or alliance, because nothing would be at stake.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we ought to reconsider the desire to expunge trust, and instead focus on what should be done to strengthen it. One way to support trust is to hold institutions accountable when they betray it. When the US Department of Justice, for example, elected not to prosecute any of the bankers responsible for the 2008 financial collapse, the net effect was to undermine confidence in the system. They debased the principle of trust by showing that violating the public’s faith could be cost-free.<br />
<br />
Much of our system of trust is invisible to us – but it would be helpful if we could be more aware and appreciative all the same<br />
<br />
Second, trusting relationships should be celebrated, not scorned. When we believe in someone and they betray us, our friends might call us a sucker, an easy mark, a loser. But shouldn’t we celebrate these efforts to trust others – just as entrepreneurs talk up the value of failure on the road to innovation? Isn’t the correct response along the lines of: ‘I see why you trusted them, but isn’t it is terrible that they let you down?’<br />
<br />
Third, we should appreciate the trusting relations we engage in, and are rewarded by, every day. We’re constantly relying on others to help us with something or look after our financial affairs, and much of the time we simply take it for granted. In part, that’s because much of our system of trust is invisible to us – but it would be helpful if we could be more aware and appreciative all the same.<br />
<br />
Finally, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves with the idea that a technological fix can replace the human dimension of trust. Automation of trust is illusory. Rather than disparaging and cloaking human trust, we should face the brutal truth: we can’t escape the need to rely on other people, as fallible and imperfect as they might be. We need to nurture and nourish trust – not throw it away, like so much debased and worthless currency."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/trust-the-inside-story-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-ethereum)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Opportunities and Pitfalls for a progressive use of the blockhain==<br />
<br />
Source: In Trebor Scholz & Nathan Schneider (eds.). PlatformCoop The Book (2016) OR Books. '''This text is embargoed''' for diffusion until the publication of this book. Please do not distribute yet.<br />
<br />
Rachel O'Dwyer:<br />
<br />
"So let me show my hand. I'm interested in the blockchain (or blockchain-based technologies) as one tool that, in a very pragmatic way, could assist with cooperative activities, helping us to share resources, to arbitrate, adjudicate, disambiguate and make collective decisions. Some fledgling examples are LaZooz, an alternative ride-sharing app, Swarm, a fundraising app, and proposals for the use of distributed ledgers to manage land ownership or critical infrastructures like water and energy. Many of these activities are difficult outside of local communities or in the absence of some trusted intermediary. However, I also think that much of the current rhetoric around the blockchain hints at problems with the techno-utopian ideologies that surround digital activism, and points to the pitfalls these projects fall into time and again. ItÕs worth addressing these here.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Pitfall #1: We can replace messy and time-consuming social processes with elegant technical solutions===<br />
<br />
Fostering and scaling cooperation is really difficult. This is why we have institutions, norms, laws, and markets. We might not like them, but these mechanisms allow us to cooperate with others even when we donÕt know and trust them. They help us to make decisions and to divvy up tasks and to reach consensus. When we take these things awayÑwhen we break them downÑit can be very difficult to cooperate. Indeed, this is one of the big problems with alternative forms of organization outside of the state and the marketÑthose that are not structured by typical modes of governance such as rules, norms or pricing. These kinds of structureless collaboration generally only work at very local kin-communal scales where everybody already knows and trusts everyone else. In Ireland, for example, there were several<br />
long-term bank strikes in the 1970s. The economy didnÕt grind to a halt. Instead, local publicans stepped in and extended credit to their customers; the debtors were well known to the publicans who were in a good position to make an assessment on their credit worthiness. Community trust replaced a trustless monetary system. This kind of local arrangement wouldnÕt work in a larger or more atomised community. It probably wouldnÕt work in todayÕs Ireland because community ties are weaker.<br />
<br />
Bitcoin caused excitement when it proposed a technical solution to a problem that previously required a trusted intermediary money, or, more specifically, the problem of guaranteeing and controlling money supply and monitoring the repartition of funds on a global scale. It did this by developing a distributed database that is cryptographically verified by an entire network of peers and by linking the production of new money with the individual incentive to maintain this public repository. More recently this cryptographic database has also been used to manage laws, contracts, and property. While some of the more evolved applications involve verifying precious stones and supporting interbank loans, the proposal is that this database could also be used to support alternative worker platforms, allowing systems where people can organize, share or sell their labor without the need of a central entity controlling activities and trimming a generous margin off the top.<br />
<br />
Here the blockchain replaces a trusted third party such as the state or a platform with cryptographic proof. This is why hardcore libertarians and anarcho-communists both favor it. But let's be clear here, it doesn't replace<br />
all of the functions of an institution, just the function that allows us to trust in our interactions with others because we trust in certain judicial and bureaucratic processes. It doesn't stand in for all the slow and messy bureaucracy and debate and human processes that go into building cooperation, and it never will. The blockchain is what we call a ÒtrustlessÓ architecture. It<br />
stands in for trust in the absence of more traditional mechanisms like social networks and co-location. It allows cooperation without trust, in other words, something that is quite different from fostering or building trust. As the founding Bitcoin document details, proof-of- work is not a new form of trust, but the abdication of trust altogether as social confidence and judgment in favor of an algorithmic regulation. With a blockchain, it maybe doesn't matter so much whether I believe in or trust my fellow peers just so long as I trust in the technical efficiency of the protocol. The claim being made is not that we can engineer greater levels of cooperation or trust in friends, institutions or governments, but that we might dispense with social institutions altogether in favor of an elegant technical solution. This assumption is naive, its true, but it also betrays a worrying politics, or rather a drive to replace politics (as debate and dispute and things that produce connection and difference) with economics. This is not just a problem with blockchain evangelism, it's a core problem with the ideology of digital activism generally. The blockchain has more in common with the neoliberal governmentality that produces platform capitalists like Amazon and Uber and state-market coalitions than any radical alternative. Seen in this light, the call for blockchains forms part of a line of informational and administrative technologies such as punch cards, electronic ledgers and automated record keeping systems that work to administrate populations and to make politics disappear.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Pitfall #2: The technical can instantiate new social or political processes===<br />
<br />
Like a lot of peer-to-peer networks, blockchain applications conflate a technical architecture with a social or political mode of organization. We can see this kind of ideology at work when the CEO of Bitcoin Indonesia argues, "in its purest form, Blockchain is democracy". From this perspective, what makes Uber Uber and LaZooz. LaZooz comes down to technical differences at the level of topology and protocol. If only we can design the right technical system, in other words, the right kind of society is not too far behind. The last decade has shown us that there is no linear-causal relationship between decentralization in technical systems and egalitarian or equitable practices socially, politically or economically. This is not only because it is technologically determinist to assume so, or because networks involve layers of strata that exhibit contradictory affordances, but also because there's zero evidence that features such as decentralization or structureless continue to pose any kind of threat to capitalism. In fact, horizontality and decentralization -the very characteristics that peer production prizes so highly - have emerged as an ideal solution to many of the impasses of liberal economics. Today, Silicon Valley appropriates so many of the ideas of the left, anarchism, mobility, and cooperation, even limited forms of welfare. This can create the sense that technical fixes like the blockchain are part of some broader shift to a post-capitalist society, when this shift has not taken place. Indeed, the blockchain applications that are really gaining traction are those developed by large banks in collaboration with tech start-ups, applications to build private blockchains for greater asset management or automatic credit clearing between banks, or to allow cultural industries to combat piracy in a distributed network and manage the sale and ownership of digital goods more efficiently.<br />
<br />
<br />
While technical tools such as the blockchain might form part of a broader artillery for platform cooperativism, then, we also need to have a little perspective. We need to find ways to embrace not only technical solutions, but also people who have experience in community organizing and methods that foster trust, negotiate hierarchies and embrace difference. Because there is no magic app for platform cooperativism. And there never will be."<br />
(https://www.academia.edu/23524276/Blockchains_and_Their_Pitfalls)<br />
<br />
==The Blockchain's Major Design Flaw==<br />
<br />
'''Arthur Brock:'''<br />
<br />
"Stop the Nonsensus! (Nonsense Consensus): Systems will never scale if you require global consensus for local actions by independent agents. For example, I should not have to know where every dollar in the economy is when I want to buy something from you. That adds an overhead of ridiculous complexity for something which needs to follow the principle of pushing intelligence and agency to the edges rather than center. Likewise, an atom should be able to bond with another atom (see cartoon) without accounting for status every electron in the universe. However, Bitcoin and blockchains are built around authorized tokens embedded in every transaction/record, which embeds unnecessary complexity and limitations for scalability into every interaction. Tokens are not what makes a decentralized system work, cryptographic signatures and self-validating data structures are.<br />
<br />
Intrinsic Data Integrity: For a long time, data integrity has been conflated with the hosting, control, and access to the device on which the data is stored. So banks have big firewalls to keep you from hacking in and changing your account balance. But today we have self-validating data structures like hash-chains and Merkle-trees which leave evidence of tampering by breaking structural integrity, cryptographic hash, or counterparty signatures when the data is altered. This makes it possible to distribute the storage and management of data and ensure that the people holding it can't tamper with it. In other words, you could be an authority to show your own account balance, yet not be able to tamper with your account history. When implemented properly, this is the key to enabling massive scales of storage and throughput by enabling auditable data to be stored anywhere/everywhere instead of requiring agreement on single shared ledger.<br />
<br />
Distributed Process not Consensus: Let's learn a bit from tracking how scalable systems in nature and real world get things done. Speakers of a language each carry the means to generate sentences as needed, we don't store every sentence spoken in some global ledger. Cells each carry a copy of their instruction set (DNA), rather than a record of the state and type of every cell. What you need to distribute in a system of collective intelligence is the ability to distribute reliable processing according to shared agreements. Consensus then becomes something used for to ensure the integrity of the processing, rather than the medium upon which processing is executed. This approach, lets you confirm that your copy of the process is valid, so you can rely on it to work according to the agreed upon rules and proceed authoritatively without having to wait for the rest of the network to validate, verify and update itself with your state.<br />
<br />
Agents not Coins: Instead of starting with cryptographic coins or tokens as the fundamental thing that exists, start by having the agents/people/organizations (or their signatures and account IDs) be the primary things that exist. When each person has a copy of the process needed to participate, and their records are stored with intrinsic data integrity, that enable two people to perform a transaction without requiring approval or consensus of anyone else. My process audits your transaction chain to make sure you're in a valid state, yours audits my chain, and either rejects the transaction if it puts someone in an invalid state according to the coded agreements. I know, you have a lot of questions about to make sure this can happen reliably, but I'll drill into that later.<br />
<br />
Fractal not Global: You would think that the existence of the web would have taught us already that we can have shared access to pretty reliable, referenceable, information without us all having identical copies of it. Starting by creating a global ledger where each copy has to be in the same state is a totally different problem than having a fractal process for creating and organizing data which can be referenced by anyone wherever that data lives. It can still provide globally accessible agreement about data, but that agreement is constructed from fractally assembled reliable parts instead of requiring each part to reach global (or 51%) agreement to commit each element of data. One of the beautiful outcomes from this is such a massive reduction in the processing and storage requirements that it becomes feasible to run a full node on a mobile phone instead of requiring specialized mining hardware."<br />
(http://artbrock.com/blog/perspectives-blockchains-and-cryptocurrencies)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Three non-technological ways in which blockchains may still “fail”.==<br />
<br />
Tere Vaden:<br />
<br />
“Fail”, because failing is obviously relative. By now, there is no real doubt that blockchains deliver on their technological promise: tamper-proof distributed permissionless ledgers. But they may very well fail to deliver on their promise as a new shiny class of peer-to-peer technology disintermediating all those pesky central authorities into oblivion.<br />
<br />
===1. Poor usability for non-experts===<br />
<br />
Several generations of peer-to-peer technologies have promised a lot, delivered quite much, but still left a lingering taste of underachievement. While GNU/Linux — an operating system crucially dependent on a p2p development model — is clearly one of the resounding successes of open source, it still did not fulfill its promise in one crucial area (which in its early days was seen as one of the most important): desktop computers. Linux powers anything from toasters to supercomputers, but it hasn’t liberated the masses from Windows or Mac OS. In most of smartphones, Linux is in the shackles of Android.<br />
<br />
There are many reasons for why GNU/Linux hasn’t taken over, vendor lock-in being one of the major ones. But there is another issue that may be relevant to blockchains. When hackers write software for themselves — scratching their own itch — it is ready when it delivers what is needed. And this point of being ready for use is very different for a hacker and for a regular user. For too long, the installation and use of a Linux distribution was too hard for ordinary users. Even if Ubuntu and similar systems have largely solved that bottleneck now, the lesson stands: superior technology, if polished only to the point where it is good enough for hackers and early adopters, will not escape that ghetto. Let’s be honest: just the visual look of a Bitcoin address “13ktXxaJTPvBPfSyS7XALTP1i7nAeR2oZ9” is going to keep a big chunk of potential users away. At the moment, the user experience of even the most advanced blockchain apps is abysmal.<br />
<br />
<br />
===2. Domestication===<br />
<br />
The second danger is domestication, or, maybe better yet “commoditization”. As Robert Herian writes in Critical Legal Thinking:<br />
<br />
“Disruption, so-called and preached by many of the major global banks, to the extent that IBM are now claiming that more than half of those banks will be using the technology in the next three years, is anything but disruption because it leaves unchanged the conditions (norms and expectations) in which it occurs, namely those in which global financial capital has exclusive dominion over the social.”<br />
<br />
It is clear that the way the banks use blockchains in effectivising their databases and other back-office oprations, does very little for a peer-to-peer future. <br />
<br />
<br />
Furthermore, as Herian continues to argue, there is the<br />
<br />
- "Beyond the public and transparent blockchain, and thus any hope of preserving a common space if not exactly or politically-speaking a “commons”, we see a potent indication of the victories of normative liberal and, to a greater extent, global financial capitalism over the blockchain narrative. An ideological victory which is in no small part manifesting itself through the proliferation of permissioned enclosed ledgers which are altering the dynamic of blockchain development […] "<br />
<br />
<br />
Most of the resources in terms of money are certainly going to permissioned and private blockchain development and that will, for sure, lend its flavor to what blockchains are all about in the public mind. Moreover, as Herian indicates, this trend is in a worrying way reminiscent of the way in which other technological developments have encroached digital commons. However, is it so bad that banks and other institutions want to use permissioned blockchains? We are still allowed to use permissionless blockchains and build on them, right?<br />
<br />
<br />
===3. Marginalisation===<br />
<br />
Domestiction becomes a real problem when combined with another non-technological threat: marginalisation. Again, let’s look at recent history. Torrent technology is a superior way for distributing digital content. However, since its first and most prominent uses were related to illegal file-sharing, legislation and public PR campaigns have pushed the technology to the fringe (can you believe that PirateBay is still the most popular torrent tracking site?). Torrents are, of course, used for legal purposes, too, in many forms of content distribution, but again the full promise of the technology has been curtailed by pushing it into a socio-cultural margin.<br />
<br />
All of the three threats – marginalisation, domestication and ghettoised user experience — loom large over blockchains. Moreover, the three collude in forming an evil circle, reinforcing each other. There is no silver bullet agaist any of them. A lot of education, both for regulators and the general public, is needed in order to counteract marginalisation. Against ghettoisation, the most urgent need are real-world uses cases that are not limited to currency speculation or to transactions with high counterparty risk. The more diverse the community involved, the greater the possibility of avoiding marginalisation and pushing for overall usability. The free software and open source movements, for instance, have a history of initiatives and procedures for increasing the diversity of the communities and lowering barriers of entry. They can be reused, while at the same time looking for new ways, such as ethical design, of broadening the horizons of p2p technology development."<br />
(https://medium.com/economic-spacing/three-non-technological-ways-in-which-blockchains-may-still-fail-a8d3a7c238be#.8s6m8sgr5)<br />
<br />
==More Discussion==<br />
<br />
<br />
See: [[Blockchain - Discussion]] for more articles on the following topics:<br />
<br />
1 From the Invisible Hand to the Visible Hand<br />
<br />
2 Disintermediating Banking and User Accounts<br />
<br />
3 Why the Bitcoin ledger is potentially so important<br />
<br />
4 The Revolution will not be based on a global receipt depository!<br />
<br />
5 The Political Vision behind the ledger<br />
<br />
6 The Bitcoin Protocol Is More ‘Cloud’ Than ‘P2P’<br />
<br />
7 What Are the Challenges?<br />
<br />
8 Towards an internet of (block)chains<br />
<br />
9 How the blockchain works for trust<br />
<br />
10 The dispute on the size of blocks<br />
<br />
=The [[Blockchain Applications Directory]]=<br />
<br />
Compiled by Aeze Soo:<br />
<br />
==[[La Zooz]]==<br />
<br />
<br />
- Social Ride sharing : <br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BttJsLLOHo<br />
<br />
→ LaZooz.org<br />
<br />
" La’Zooz: The Decentralized, Crypto-Alternative to Uber [http://www.shareable.net/blog/lazooz-the-decentralized-crypto-alternative-to-uber]<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Backfeed]]==<br />
<br />
Backfeed develops foundational tools for Decentralized Collaborative Organizations, syncing the spontaneous actions of millions of people to promote an era of collaboration and decentralized value production.<br />
<br />
→ http://backfeed.cc<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[IPFS]]==<br />
<br />
A Permanent Web - A peer-to-peer hypermedia protocol<br />
→ http://ipfs.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Decentraland]]==<br />
<br />
- Virtual world - Blockchain<br />
→ http://decentraland.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Ascribe]]==<br />
<br />
- Creative commons on blockchain<br />
→ http://cc.ascribe.io<br />
<br />
→ http://creativecommons.fr/creative-commons-france-experimente-avec-ascribe-pour-soutenir-le-copyleft-avec-le-blockchain/<br />
<br />
==[[Proof of Existence]]== <br />
<br />
To certify documents<br />
<br />
→ http://proofofexistence.com<br />
→ http://github.com/maraoz/proofofexistence<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Group Currency]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://groupcurrency.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[uCoin]]== <br />
<br />
- UBI currency :<br />
<br />
→ http://ucoin.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitnation]]== <br />
- world : Virtual nation - Blockchain<br />
→ http://www.bitnation.world<br />
<br />
→ http://bitnation.co<br />
<br />
→ http://cryptonewsday.com/bitnation-releases-proof-of-concept-for-decentralized-government-platform/<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Basic Income Co]]==<br />
<br />
BasicIncome.co : Economy - A peer-to-peer secure network<br />
→ http://indiegogo.com/projects/basicincome-co-a-peer-to-peer-safety-net-network–2<br />
→ http://mybitnation.tumblr.com/post/105873406725/bitnation-announces-basic-income-application<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[OkTurtles]]==<br />
<br />
Foundation supporting beneficial decentralization technologies<br />
→ http://okturtles.com<br />
<br />
==[[Open Bazaar]]== <br />
<br />
Trade online directly to other users, using Bitcoin<br />
→ http://openbazaar.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Alexandria Decentralized Library]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://blocktech.com<br />
<br />
→ https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/alexandria-uses-block-chain-preserve-worlds-knowledge/<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Virtual Notary]]== <br />
<br />
Attestation service<br />
→ http://virtual-notary.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blocknet]]== <br />
<br />
A blockchain agnostic decentralized platform as a service<br />
<br />
→ http://blocknet.co<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockcypher]]== <br />
<br />
Blockchain services<br />
<br />
→ http://blockcypher.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[First Blockchain Incorporated]]==<br />
<br />
(NOT) The World’s First Stateless Company Incorporated In And By The Bitcoin Blockchain<br />
→ http://firstblockchain.com<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Me]]== <br />
<br />
A tool for creating verifiable IDs on the blockchain <br />
<br />
→ http://blockchainme.com<br />
<br />
→ Code source: https://github.com/kiaraRobles/blockchainMe<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Finyear]]==<br />
<br />
Laboratory of ideas and innovations at Finyear (http://www.finyear.com/labs)<br />
→ http://bl0ckcha1n.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Factom]]==<br />
<br />
A scalable data layer for the blockchain<br />
→ http://factom.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Summit]]==<br />
<br />
Summit blockchain<br />
→ http://blockchainsummit.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Eris Industries]]== <br />
<br />
The Distributed Application Platform<br />
→ http://erisindustries.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitmarkets]]==<br />
<br />
Voluntary : Bitmarkets<br />
→ https://github.com/voluntarynet/Bitmarkets<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockstream]]==<br />
<br />
Extending Bitcoin’s blockchain with Sidechains :<br />
→ http://blockstream.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Elements Project]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://elementsproject.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain University]]== <br />
<br />
- Courses :<br />
→ http://blockchainu.co<br />
<br />
<br />
==Blockchain London==<br />
<br />
Event - Conferences at London :<br />
→ http://blockchainlondon.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Institute for Blockchain Studies]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://blockchainstudies.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Info]]==<br />
<br />
Blockchain-Info : Explorator of Bitcoin blocks<br />
→ http://blockchain.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitcoin City]]==<br />
<br />
" Each city is a bitcoin transaction, on the road to the blockchain "<br />
<br />
→http://www.bitcoincity.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Crypto Graffiti]]==<br />
<br />
Store texts on the blockchain<br />
<br />
→ http://cryptograffiti.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Democracy OS]]== <br />
<br />
- "It’s time to design a system where we can delegate power to peers: people we can trust and hold accountable."<br />
<br />
- "We’re beginning to see trust built on distributed networks. Will the blockchain change the way we build power ?"<br />
<br />
- “We can secure power transactions (votes) making them valid in a network of peers where nobody is in charge.”<br />
<br />
- "When you want to do online voting, the key element is identity validation."<br />
<br />
- "We can build a democratic system where you don’t have to wait 3 years to change the people you delegated power to."<br />
<br />
"Power on the blockchain - DemocracyOS" :<br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOQS5wd6hU<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Streamium IO]]== <br />
<br />
- Manuel Aráoz : “Going live at DecentralizeAll currently”<br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tFSJTlKec<br />
<br />
=Blockchain Developer Assistance=<br />
<br />
<br />
"We help get developers on the blockchains" :<br />
<br />
BlockStrap :<br />
<br />
→ http://blockstrap.com<br />
<br />
NeuroWare :<br />
<br />
→http://neuroware.io<br />
<br />
BlockchainSpace<br />
<br />
→http://www.blockchain.space<br />
<br />
Blocksense - The Blockchain Experts : <br />
<br />
→https://blocksense.io<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* '''Read this first''': <br />
<br />
#[http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-blockchain-project/ Avoiding the pointless blockchain project]<br />
#[https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet]<br />
<br />
Article: "Blockchain and value systems in the sharing economy: The illustrative case of Backfeed". → http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Backfeed,_the_Blockchain,_and_Value_Systems_in_the_Sharing_Economy<br />
<br />
All about crypto-currencies → http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency/coins<br />
<br />
Documentary : Ulterior States [ IamSatoshi Documentary ]→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQGQXy0RIIo<br />
<br />
DecentralizeFM : → https://decentralize.fm<br />
<br />
Book - Eyrolles - "Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy" → http://amazon.fr/Blockchain-Blueprint-Economy-Melanie-Swan-ebook/dp/B00SNS9JLW<br />
<br />
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21650295-or-it-next-big-thing<br />
<br />
The draw and blockchain ( in french ) → http://dem0crat1e.fr/posts/tirage-au-sort-bitcoin<br />
<br />
Related entries:<br />
<br />
#[[Blockchain Companies]]<br />
#[[Internet of Chains]]<br />
#[[Open Source Sidechains]]: [[Sidechain Elements]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Money]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Infrastructure]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cryptoledger Applications]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Blockchain&diff=107697Blockchain2017-06-13T13:59:58Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: /* More Information */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= "a distributed cryptographic ledger shared amongst all nodes participating in the network, over which every successfully performed transaction is recorded".''' [http://www.wired.com/2014/03/decentralized-applications-built-bitcoin-great-except-whos-responsible-outcomes/]<br />
<br />
'''See, from [http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Rachel_O%E2%80%99Dwyer Rachel O'Dwyer]: [[How the Blockchain Might Support a Commons]]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
=Contextual Citation=<br />
<br />
"Why trust Bitcoin, or more specifically, why trust the technology that makes Bitcoin possible? In short, because it assumes everybody’s a crook, yet it still gets them to follow the rules."<br />
<br />
- Morgen E. Peck [http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''An important warning on the blockchain as a centralized infrastructure:'''<br />
<br />
"The need to replicate the whole chain of blocks on our computer is an insurmountable barrier to entry if you’re searching for an alternative to IBM, Amazon or Google. The Twister chain is still small, but think about how, to date, the initial synchronization for Bitcoin requires storage space of more than 65GB for the complete download of the blockchain. For any of us, having to reserve 65GB on our personal computers has a large cost. But for IBM, or Google, or any of the Chinese Bitcoin miners, it’s nothing. And let’s not even talk about the astronomical differences between the processing capabilities of the great monsters of scale compared to ours. Because blockchain is consensual, after a certain point of centralization, the rules of the system depend on very few users. For example, the bitcoin “update” would be unviable if the two more Chinese mining organizations had refused to implement it. A network of nodes designed this way has a power structure with clear centralizers—the owners of infrastructure—that in the end presents a threat to the distributed future of the Internet. In summary, when we use Blockchain technologies, the barrier to entry has a relatively small knowledge component—compiling and installing software—but an insurmountable infrastructure barrier beyond certain scales."<br />
<br />
- Manuel Ortega [https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet]<br />
<br />
=Definition=<br />
<br />
'''1. Via Aeze Soo:'''<br />
<br />
"A block chain is a distributed data store that maintains a continuously growing list of data records that are hardened against tampering and revision, even by operators of the data store's nodes. The most widely known application of a block chain is the public ledger of transactions for cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin. This record is enforced cryptographically and hosted on machines running the software."<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Via the Wikipedia:'''<br />
<br />
"A block chain, or blockchain, is a distributed database that maintains a continuously-growing list of data records hardened against tampering and revision. It consists of data structure blocks—which hold exclusively data in initial blockchain implementations, and both data and programs in some (for example, Ethereum) of the more recent implementations—with each block holding batches of individual transactions and the results of any blockchain executables. Each block contains a timestamp and information linking it to a previous block.<br />
<br />
The block chain is seen as the main technical innovation of bitcoin, where it serves as the public ledger of all bitcoin transactions. Bitcoin is peer-to-peer, every user is allowed to connect to the network, send new transactions to it, verify transactions, and create new blocks, which is why it is called permissionless. This original design has been the inspiration for other cryptocurrencies and distributed databases."<br />
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chain_(database))<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. by Jacob Aron:'''<br />
<br />
"The true innovation of Bitcoin's mysterious designer, Satoshi Nakamoto, is its underlying technology, the "block chain". That fundamental concept is being used to transform Bitcoin – and could even replace it altogether.<br />
<br />
So what is the block chain? It is a ledger of transactions that keeps Bitcoin secure and allows all users to agree on exactly who owns how many bitcoins. Each new block requires a record of recent transactions along with a string of letters and numbers, known as a hash, which is based on the previous block and produced using a cryptographic algorithm.<br />
<br />
Miners, people who run the peer-to-peer Bitcoin software, randomly generate hashes, competing to produce one with a value below a certain target difficulty and thus complete a new block and receive a reward, currently 25 bitcoins. This difficulty means faking a transaction is impossible unless you have more computing power than everyone else on the Bitcoin network combined. Confused? Don't worry, ordinary Bitcoin users needn't know the details of how the block chain works, just as people with a credit card don't bother learning banking network jargon. But those who do understand the power of the block chain are realising how Nakamoto's technology for mass agreement can be adapted. "You can replace that agreement with all sorts of different things and now you have a really powerful building block for any kind of distributed system," says Jeremy Clark of Concordia University in Montreal, Canada."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Primavera De Filippi''' <br />
<br />
"For many, bitcoin — the distributed, worldwide, decentralized crypto-currency — is all about money … or, as recent events have shown, about who invented it. Yet the actual innovation brought about by bitcoin is not the currency itself but the platform, which is commonly referred to as the “blockchain” — a distributed cryptographic ledger shared amongst all nodes participating in the network, over which every successfully performed transaction is recorded.<br />
<br />
And the blockchain is not limited to monetary applications. Borrowing from the same ideas (though not using the actual peer-to-peer network bitcoin runs on), a variety of new applications have adapted the bitcoin protocol to fulfill different purposes: Namecoin for distributed domain name management; Bitmessage and Twister for asynchronous communication; and, more recently, Ethereum (released only a month ago). Like many other peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, these platforms all rely on decentralized architectures to build and maintain network applications that are operated by the community for the community. (I’ve written before here in WIRED Opinion about one example, mesh networks, which can provide an internet-native model for building community and governance).<br />
<br />
Thus, while they enable a whole new set of possibilities, blockchain-based applications also present legal, technical, and social challenges similar to those raised by other P2P applications that came before them, such as BitTorrent, Tor, or Freenet."<br />
<br />
<br />
==The Blockchain as a universal ledger==<br />
<br />
Dominic Frisby:<br />
<br />
"Today there is a new system of digital record-keeping. Its impact could be equally large. It is called the blockchain.<br />
<br />
Imagine an enormous digital record. Anyone with internet access can look at the information within: it is open for all to see. Nobody is in charge of this record. It is not maintained by a person, a company or a government department, but by 8,000-9,000 computers at different locations around the world in a distributed network. Participation is quite voluntary. The computers’ owners choose to add their machines to the network because, in exchange for their computer’s services, they sometimes receive payment. You can add your computer to the network, if you so wish.<br />
<br />
All the information in the record is permanent – it cannot be changed – and each of the computers keeps a copy of the record to ensure this. If you wanted to hack the system, you would have to hack every computer on the network – and this has so far proved impossible, despite many trying, including the US National Security Agency’s finest. The collective power of all these computers is greater than the world’s top 500 supercomputers combined.<br />
<br />
New information is added to the record every few minutes, but it can be added only when all the computers signal their approval, which they do as soon as they have satisfactory proof that the information to be added is correct. Everybody knows how the system works, but nobody can change how it works. It is fully automated. Human decision-making or behaviour doesn’t enter into it.<br />
<br />
If a company or a government department were in charge of the record, it would be vulnerable – if the company went bust or the government department shut down, for example. But with a distributed record there is no single point of vulnerability. It is decentralised. At times, some computers might go awry, but that doesn’t matter. The copies on all the other computers and their unanimous approval for new information to be added will mean the record itself is safe.<br />
<br />
This is possibly the most significant and detailed record in all history, an open-source structure of permanent memory, which grows organically. It is known as the blockchain. It is the breakthrough tech behind the digital cash system, Bitcoin, but its impact will soon be far wider than just alternative money."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/how-blockchain-will-revolutionise-far-more-than-money)<br />
<br />
=How it works=<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"the blockchain is nothing more than a long string of transactions, each of which refers to an earlier record in the chain. But Bitcoin users do not directly make the updates to the blockchain. In order to transfer coins to someone else, you have to create a request and broadcast it over the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network. After that, it’s in the hands of the miners. They scoop up the requests and do a few checks to make sure that the signature is correct and that there are enough bitcoins to make the transaction; then they bundle the new records into a block and add it to the end of the blockchain.<br />
<br />
All miners work independently on their own version of the blockchain. When they finish a new block, they broadcast it to the rest of their peers, who check it, accept it, add it to the end of the chain, and pick up their work from this new starting point.<br />
<br />
The arrangement will work only if the miners agree on what the most recent version of the blockchain should look like. In other words, they all have to agree on a consensus version of it. But given the fact that they’re all strangers, they really have no reason to trust one another’s work. What’s to stop a miner from fiddling with earlier entries on the blockchain and undoing payments?<br />
<br />
The strategy that Satoshi Nakamoto (Bitcoin’s pseudonymous architect) devised for establishing consensus in his system is widely considered to be a breakthrough in distributed computing.<br />
<br />
“There have been consensus algorithms running since the eighties, where you come to consensus, providing a log of events on multiple machines, with all the machines participating in that network,” says Paul Snow, the founder of Factom, a service that condenses data and transfers it onto the Bitcoin blockchain. However, he says, these systems were successful only when the participants shared a common allegiance.<br />
<br />
Bitcoin replaces that allegiance with mathematical confidence. Given the cryptographic proof required to commit a transaction, we can already be confident that only people who own bitcoins can spend them. But a bitcoin miner can also be confident that the other miners are not changing entries on the blockchain, because in Bitcoin there is no going backward.<br />
<br />
That’s because the process of adding a new block to the blockchain is very difficult. Anyone who participates is required to devote large quantities of computing power—and therefore, electricity—toward running the new data through a set of calculations called hash functions. Only once this work is completed can the block be appended to the chain in a way that satisfies other miners on the network.<br />
<br />
“You’re building a giant wall,” explains Peter Kirby, the president of Factom. “And every time you want to agree to something, you put a thousand bricks on top of it. And you agree to something else and put another thousand bricks on top of it. And that makes it very, very, very difficult for someone to change a brick way down at the bottom of the wall.”<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
A Nakamoto blockchain, then, becomes more secure as more people participate in the network. But why would they? In the case of Bitcoin, it’s because they are paid to do it. Every time a block gets solved, a virgin transaction is created with a handful of newly minted bitcoins signed over to the first miner who completed the work.<br />
<br />
In old security models, you tried to lock out all of the greedy, dishonest people. Bitcoin, on the other hand, welcomes everyone, fully expecting them to act in their own self-interest, and then it uses their greed to secure the network.<br />
<br />
“This is, I think, the main contribution,” says Ittay Eyal, a computer scientist at Cornell who studies Bitcoin along with other decentralized networks. “Bitcoin causes an attacker to be better off by playing along than by attacking it. The incentive system leads a lot of people to contribute resources toward the welfare of the system.”"<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Typology=<br />
<br />
<br />
==The four segments==<br />
<br />
Graphic at https://d3ansictanv2wj.cloudfront.net/blockchain_app-1c3df0ef526f707f181e2038a5f8fbab.jpg<br />
<br />
<br />
William Mougayar:<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Currency Segment===<br />
<br />
"The currency-related segment targets money transfers, payments, tips, or funding applications. The end-user typically goes to an exchange or uses their own wallet to conduct such transactions, benefiting from transaction cost reductions, speeds in settlements, and freedom from central intermediaries. Today’s exchanges are centralized, but it’s likely we’ll see another generation of decentralized trusted exchanges. And although the current bitcoin wallets today are “dumb” wallets, they could become smarter, via an ability to launch smart contracts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Pegged Services Segment===<br />
<br />
Pegged services to the blockchain represent an interesting segment because these apps utilize the blockchain’s atomic unit, which is a “value store” capability, but they also build on top of that with their unique off-chain services. For example, decentralized identity or decentralized ownership is a horizontal blockchain service, but it can be applied to any other vertical segments, such as for videos, music, or photography, just to name a few.<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Smart Contract segment===<br />
<br />
Smart contracts are small programs or scripts that run on a blockchain and govern legal or contractual terms on their own. They represent a simple form of decentralization. They will become available in a variety of application areas, such as for wagers, family trusts, escrow, time stamping, proofs of work delivery, etc. In essence, they are about moving certain assets or value from one owner to another, based on some condition or event, between people or things. Smart contracts represent an “intermediate state” between parties, and we will trust these smart programs to verify and take action based on the logic behind these state changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
===The DAO segment===<br />
<br />
Legal issues aside, a Distributed Autonomous Organization is “kind of” incorporated on the blockchain because its governance is very dependent on the end-users who are part-owners, part-users, and part-nodes on that decentralized network. Key aspects of a DAO are that each user is also a “worker,” and by virtue of their “work,” they contribute to the value appreciation of the DAO via their collective participation or activity levels. Arguably, bitcoin itself is the “uber DAO.”<br />
(https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/understanding-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Technology=<br />
<br />
==The [[Blockchain Application Stack]]==<br />
<br />
Joel Monegro:<br />
<br />
"This is what I think the architecture of Internet applications is going to look like in 10 years. This is just a simple illustration and it leaves a lot of important insights and issues out. I’ll try my best to explain the thinking behind it below. To keep things short, we’ll run through every part of the stack from the bottom up, and do a deep dive on each in future posts.<br />
<br />
The basic idea is that everything inside the gray rectangles is decentralized and open source. For now I’m calling these the shared data and protocol layers. Nobody controls these parts of the system, and they’re accessible by any person or company. If we use bitcoin as an example, the blockchain is the shared data layer and the bitcoin protocol is a decentralized protocol that’s part of the shared protocol Layer.<br />
<br />
You’ll notice that each layer gets thinner the higher up you go. You’ll also notice that the shared data and protocol layers cover about 80% of the entire stack. Internet applications today are built on top of open, decentralized technologies like TCP/IP and HTTP, but if you were to graph the current Internet application stack like above, those open, decentralized protocols would probably only make up about 15% with everything on top being private and centralized.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Miners and the blockchain'''<br />
<br />
If you know a little about how bitcoin works, you know what miners are. In a nutshell, miners are the nodes in a network of computers who, together, verify all bitcoin transactions. In exchange, the algorithm rewards them with bitcoin. Because bitcoin has real-world value, the operators of these machines are incentivized to keep them running. If you’d like to learn more about mining, this is a great explanation of how they work.<br />
<br />
The blockchain is the public ledger that holds a permanent record of all bitcoin transactions, and is maintained by the miners. It’s not controlled by a single entity and it’s accessible by everyone. You can read more about the blockchain here.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Overlay networks'''<br />
<br />
This is where things start to get interesting. Developers are starting to build networks that work in parallel to the bitcoin blockchain to perform tasks that the bitcoin network can’t, but that make use of the bitcoin blockchain to, for instance, timestamp or validate their work.<br />
<br />
One example is Counterparty. Another might be sidechains. Whatever form these overlay networks take, the one thing they have in common is their connection to the bitcoin blockchain, and how they benefit from its network effects to achieve liquidity without having to bootstrap their own alternative cryptocurrency and/or blockchain like alternative solutions such as Ethereum require.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Decentralized protocols'''<br />
<br />
Thanks to the blockchain, for the first time we can develop open source, decentralized protocols with built-in data (thanks to overlay networks and the blockchain), validation, and transactions that are not controlled by a single entity. This is where the traditional architecture of software businesses begins to break down. The best example of a decentralized protocol on top of a shared data layer is bitcoin, and we’re already well aware of how it’s affecting money and finance.<br />
<br />
Companies like eBay, Facebook and Uber are very valuable because they benefit tremendously from the network effects that come from keeping all user information centralized in private silos and taking a cut of all the transactions.<br />
<br />
Decentralized protocols on top of the blockchain have the potential to undo every single part of the stacks that make these services valuable to consumers and investors. They can do this by, for example, creating common, decentralized data sets to which any one can plug into, and enabling peer-to-peer transactions powered by bitcoin.<br />
<br />
In fact, a number of promising teams have already begun working on the protocols that will disrupt the business models of the companies above. One example is Lazooz, a protocol for real-time ride sharing and another is OpenBazaar, a protocol for free, decentralized peer-to-peer marketplaces.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''4. Open source and commercial APIs'''<br />
<br />
Protocols are hard for the average developer to build on top of, so there’s an opportunity in making it easy to connect to them. Whether it’s a good business in the long term is up for debate, but I think it’s a very important part of the stack.<br />
<br />
Making it quick and easy for developers of any skill set to quickly build an application and experiment on top of these decentralized protocols is paramount to their success.<br />
<br />
These will be either commercial services or open source projects. Good examples of this trend are Chain's APIs and Coinbase’s Toshi for bitcoin. They both serve the same purpose, but Chain is a hosted, commercial service, and Toshi is open source.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''5. Applications'''<br />
<br />
This is the consumer-facing part of the stack. Applications built atop this architecture will, in most cases, work very similarly to the ones we have today – just like Coinbase works similarly to PayPal.<br />
<br />
The big difference to consumers, however, is that because they are built on decentralized protocols, they will be able to talk to each other, just like different email applications and bitcoin wallets can interoperate.<br />
<br />
One thing I like about this stack is that it’s growing from the bottom up. First we had miners, the blockchain, and bitcoin, and now we’re building everything else on top. As far as I know, the most significant revolutions in technology have been built this way."<br />
(http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-application-stack/)<br />
<br />
=Business Models=<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"There are currently a number of incentive structures surrounding blockchain technology and open source software:<br />
<br />
(1) Contribute open source code and make money via services (i.e. Peter Todd’s consulting)<br />
<br />
(2) Create a new close source software project based on the Bitcoin blockchain with a privately held speculative unit (i.e. legal equity in Coinbase)<br />
<br />
(3) Create an new technology set plugged into the Bitcoin blockchain with a privately held speculative unit (i.e. legal equity in Blockstream/Sidechains)<br />
<br />
(4) Create an entirely new unit with inherent utility on a new blockchain (BTC in Bitcoin, XRP in Ripple, ETH in Ethereum)<br />
<br />
(5) Create an entirely new unit with inherent utility on the Bitcoin blockchain (MSC in Mastercoin, XCP in Counterparty)"<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Comparing the Incentive Models==<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"For a long time, the primary model of open source software development has been in category one. The software itself is free. Hosting and other services around it are not. People can also build high value applications on top of the open source code, but these are usually closed source. This is the model that Ruby on Rails and other web frameworks have used fairly successfully as Joel Dietz has previously written.<br />
<br />
The second model is the typical business model. In this, the structure of legal equity binds both investors and developers to a future value that may not be realized for several years. This typically creates a group of a few people who are highly committed to a particular outcome, but may naturally come into odds. Historically there is also no way to incentivize any of the parties beyond employees and investors that may also have a vested interest in the platform (i.e. power users).<br />
<br />
The third model, by which I primarily refer to Sidechains, is still inchoate. In the Sidechains whitepaper it proposes demurrage as a method for incentivizing sidechain development. This seems to promote exactly the opposite set of incentives than what you would want. Effectively this means that assets on the main chain hold their value, while assets on a sidechain gradually decrease in value, while the difference is basically given away to miners. Also, the Sidechains project has no publicly stated business model, which is also a fairly significant concern. Any potential revenue on a service-based business will never be enough for the venture capitalists to get their necessary return, which basically forces them to either create a closed source product or otherwise leverage their position to “gate keep” and charge some sort of toll on network usage.<br />
<br />
The fourth model, though strongly disliked by many, is ironically closest to Bitcoin itself. It states fundamentally that there can be a speculative unit with attached technological innovation that is acquired, and by which the speculators will benefit as both utility and network grows. The somewhat unique feature of Ethereum and a few other related projects (e.g. DarkCoin) is that unlike earlier “altcoins,” these new projects do have significant additional utility that is not found on the Bitcoin Blockchain.<br />
<br />
Since all such projects extend the core Bitcoin technology with this additional utility, this effectively makes them competitors to the Bitcoin blockchain. Although early adopters and venture capitalist backers of Bitcoin had the hope that the network effects of Bitcoin would make it something like the TCP/IP protocal of internet money, it is entirely possible that some other competitor will surpass it. I suspect that whether or not this is the case will depend highly on whether or not anyone can make comparable utility and innovation compatible with Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
This leads to a fifth model that was perhaps under-appreciated until Ethereum came along. This is the possibility that a metacoin, so called because it works via inserting metadata into Bitcoin transactions, could provide much of the increased utility provided via a smart contracting layer without creating its own blockchain.<br />
<br />
Both four and five have very similar economic incentive structures. First of all, they are open to all participants and immediately liquid. Because of this it means that they naturally engage much more quickly a wider audience who are also incentivized to spread the word about that network. But, because of the immediate liquidity, there is no necessary long-term engagement. This affects both the development side and investing, and also means that there a fairly strong incentive to drive up the short time value for a project and exit at the peak. This likely results in a greater amount of capital, greater number of participants, with less depth. While potentially appropriate to the Facebook age, it is typically the case that startups require a few number of very intensely committed people due to the often intensely competitive nature of development, the occasional crisises that test resolve of key participants, and the general need for deferred compensation.<br />
<br />
An additional problem is that none of these projects have evolved business models independent of the appreciation of their new asset class. All effectively depend on driving up the price by increasing the underlying utility of the unit and size of their related network, something that, while feasible, remains a questionable choice for anything that expects to be around in 5–10 years. Also, it is quite possible that price appreciation in such an asset is limited relative to the benefits traditionally associated with equity (i.e. 1000x returns on a successful software exit from an early investment). Since venture capital is generally structured as taking high rewards for high risk, projects with capped rewards impossible for them to undertake from an investment perspective.<br />
<br />
Another very significant drawback is that even where economic incentives maybe aligned, there are basically no accountability structures due to the basically non-existant legal framework for entities receiving this sort of funding. In this case, Counterparty decided not to take funds whatsoever, whereas Ethereum structured their legal documentation to explicitly state that they were promising nothing in return whatsoever.<br />
<br />
As Vitalik recently noted, Ethereum also has a problem of having a dual purpose “product” offering and an “investment” offering, something Swarm founder Joel Dietz called misaligned incentives in an early piece on economics of Ethereum. It is problems like these that have probably caused two out of three Counterparty founders to begin working for a private corporation (Overstock), presumably with some additional equity-based incentivization in addition to the base counterparty unit. In this case, the Counterparty ecosystem now has participants both in categories (4) and (2), with potential conflicts of interest between the participants in area (2), but also the possibility for larger ecosystem growth presuming that those conflicts can adequately be mediated.<br />
<br />
So far we have only discussed the advantages and disadvantages of existing economic incentive structures. What about the future? What other possibilities can we expect to emerge?<br />
<br />
The first “composite” offering has been proposed by Reddit. This is to take an existing equity offering and distribute the benefits downwards to community users via cryptocurrency. This is an incredible opportunity, because it illustrates one of the key benefits of this ‘open’ incentivization model, it actually directly compensates the community members who contribute to network growth.<br />
<br />
The other model is Swarm itself, which, due to legal complexities, was deliberately vague about specific utility at the outset of its fundraising period, and instead described more generally the various categories of benefits that could be applied via these technologies (perk distribution, membership, privileged product access, financial rewards).<br />
<br />
This was sometimes described as sort of crypto social-contract with the intention of providing as much value as possible to its users as the legal infrastructure was developed in order to do so. Much of this increased value depended on ability to structure agreements via smart contracts, which was a technology that did not even exist in any usable form until one week ago."<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Potential Applications=<br />
<br />
by Dominic Frisby:<br />
<br />
"Coders are now developing ways to use blockchain tech for purposes beyond an alternative money system. From 2017, you will start to see some of the early applications creeping into your electronic lives.<br />
<br />
One application is in decentralised messaging. Just as you can send cash to somebody else with no intermediary using Bitcoin, so can you send messages – without Gmail, iMessage, WhatsApp, or whoever the provider is, having access to what’s being said. The same goes for social media. What you say will be between you and your friends or followers. Twitter or Facebook will have no access to it. The implications for privacy are enormous, raising a range of issues in the ongoing government surveillance discussion.<br />
<br />
We’ll see decentralised storage and cloud computing as well, considerably reducing the risk of storing data with a single provider. A company called Trustonic is working on a new blockchain-based mobile phone operating system to compete with Android and Mac OS.<br />
<br />
Just as the blockchain records where a bitcoin is at any given moment, and thus who owns it, so can blockchain be used to record the ownership of any asset and then to trade ownership of that asset. This has huge implications for the way stocks, bonds and futures, indeed all financial assets, are registered and traded. Registrars, stock markets, investment banks – disruption lies ahead for all of them. Their monopolies are all under threat from blockchain technology.<br />
<br />
Land and property ownership can also be recorded and traded on a blockchain. Honduras, where ownership disputes over beachfront property are commonplace, is already developing ways to record its land registries on a blockchain. In the UK, as much as 50 per cent of land is still unregistered, according to the investigative reporter Kevin Cahill’s book Who Owns Britain? (2001). The ownership of vehicles, tickets, diamonds, gold – just about anything – can be recorded and traded using blockchain technology – even the contents of your music and film libraries (though copyright law may inhibit that). Blockchain tokens will be as good as any deed of ownership – and will be significantly cheaper to provide.<br />
<br />
The Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto Polar has won many prizes for his work on ownership. His central thesis is that lack of clear property title is what has held back so many in the Third World for so long. Who owns what needs to be clear, recognised and protected – otherwise there will be no investment and development will be limited. But if ownership is clear, people can trade, exchange and prosper. The blockchain will, its keenest advocates hope, go some way to addressing that.<br />
<br />
Smart contracts could disrupt the legal profession and make it affordable to all, just as the internet has done with music and publishing<br />
<br />
Once ownership is clear, then contract rights and property rights follow. This brings us to the next wave of development in blockchain tech: automated contracts, or to use the jargon, ‘smart contracts’, a term coined by the US programmer Nick Szabo. We are moving beyond ownership into contracts that simultaneously represent ownership of a property and the conditions that come with that ownership. It is all very well knowing that a bond, say, is owned by a certain person, but that bond may come with certain conditions – it might generate interest, it might need to be repaid by a certain time, it might incur penalties, if certain criteria are not met. These conditions could be encoded in a blockchain and all the corresponding actions automated.<br />
<br />
Whether it is the initial agreement, the arbitration of a dispute or its execution, every stage of a contract has, historically, been evaluated and acted on by people. A smart contract automates the rules, checks the conditions and then acts on them, minimising human involvement – and thus cost. Even complicated business arrangements can be coded and packaged as a smart contract for a fraction of the cost of drafting, disputing or executing a traditional contract.<br />
<br />
One of the criticisms of the current legal system is that only the very rich or those on legal aid can afford it: everyone else is excluded. Smart contracts have the potential to disrupt the legal profession and make it affordable to all, just as the internet has done with both music and publishing.<br />
<br />
This all has enormous implications for the way we do business. It is possible that blockchain tech will do the work of bankers, lawyers, administrators and registrars to a much higher standard for a fraction of the price.<br />
<br />
As well as ownership, blockchain tech can prove authenticity. From notarisation – the authentication of documents – to certification, the applications are multifold. It is of particular use to manufacturers, particularly of designer goods and top-end electrical goods, where the value is the brand. We will know that this is a genuine Louis Vuitton bag, because it was recorded on the blockchain at the time of its manufacture.<br />
<br />
Blockchain tech will also have a role to play in the authentication of you. At the moment, we use a system of usernames and passwords to prove identity online. It is clunky and vulnerable to fraud. We won’t be using that for much longer. One company is even looking at a blockchain tech system to replace current car- and home-locking systems. Once inside your home, blockchain tech will find use in the internet of things, linking your home network to the cloud and the electrical devices around your home.<br />
<br />
From identity, it is a small step to reputation. Think of the importance of a TripAdvisor or eBay rating, or a positive Amazon review. Online reputation has become essential to a seller’s business model and has brought about a wholesale improvement in standards. Thanks to TripAdvisor, what was an ordinary hotel will now treat you like a king or queen in order to ensure you give it five stars. The service you get from an Uber driver is likely to be much better than that of an ordinary cabbie, because he or she wants a good rating.<br />
<br />
There will be no suspect recounts in Florida! The blockchain will also usher in the possibility of more direct democracy<br />
<br />
The feedback system has been fundamental to the success of the online black market, too. Bad sellers get bad ratings. Good sellers get good ones. Buyers go to the sellers with good ratings. The black market is no longer the rip-off shop without recourse it once was. The feedback system has made the role of trading standards authorities, consumer protection groups and other business regulators redundant. They look clunky, slow and out of date.<br />
<br />
Once your online reputation can be stored on the blockchain (ie not held by one company such as TripAdvisor, but decentralised) everyone will want a good one. The need to preserve and protect reputation will mean, simply, that people behave better. Sony is looking at ways to harness this whereby your education reputation is put on the blockchain – the grades you got at school, your university degree, your work experience, your qualifications, your resumé, the endorsements you receive from people you’ve done business with. LinkedIn is probably doing something similar. There is an obvious use for this in medical records too, but also in criminal records – not just for individuals, but for companies. If, say, a mining company has a bad reputation for polluting the environment, it might be less likely to win a commission for a project, or to get permission to build it.<br />
<br />
We are also seeing the development of new voting apps. The implications of this are enormous. Elections and referenda are expensive undertakings – the campaigning, the staff, the counting of the ballot papers. But you will soon be able to vote from your mobile phone in a way that is 10 times more secure than the current US or UK systems, at a fraction of the cost and fraud-free. What’s more, you will be able to audit your vote to make sure it is counted, while preserving your anonymity. Not even a corrupt government will be able to manipulate such a system, once it is in place. There will be no suspect recounts in Florida! The blockchain will also usher in the possibility of more direct democracy: once the cost and possibility of fraud are eliminated, there are fewer excuses for not going back to the electorate on key issues."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/how-blockchain-will-revolutionise-far-more-than-money)<br />
<br />
==Identity==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"So what can you do with a Nakamoto blockchain? The most simple applications, the ones we are likely to see in the near future, will make use of them as basic storage systems that take advantage of the unique properties of the network.<br />
<br />
People who are interested in transparency and access are looking at the blockchain as a possible place to organize government records and to include the public in the legislative process, by giving people a forum for publishing, debating, and voting on new proposals.<br />
<br />
Because the blockchain gives each entry a rough time stamp, it can also be used as a decentralized notary. Imagine, for example, taking a picture of a dent in your rental car and loading it into a Bitcoin transaction. By looking at what block the transaction went into, you could later prove that the dent existed before you left the parking lot.<br />
<br />
Because Bitcoin transactions are secured by strong cryptography, the blockchain can also replace our standard user name–and–password strategy for identity verification. In such a system, a Bitcoin address could be tagged with a user name, while the private key would stand in as a password. Anyone could then ask you to prove your identity by using your private key to solve the same cryptographic puzzle that you would normally solve when making a Bitcoin transaction."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Censorship==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Nakamoto blockchains also solve the problem of censorship. Once inserted into the chain, metadata cannot be removed. Developers have used this crucial feature to build a new censorship-resistant version of Twitter (called Twister), and a decentralized domain-name registry (Namecoin).<br />
<br />
“Everything that we own, everything that we do, is governed by these big piles of records,” says Factom’s Kirby. “A bank is just a big stack of records. An insurance company is just a big stack of records. An economy is basically just a big stack of records. And if you can take this concept of…a giant global accounting ledger and say, ‘Now we can organize all the records in the world this way,’ well, it turns out that’s really exciting.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Finance as a Commons]], using the Blockchain==<br />
<br />
Raymond Aitken:<br />
<br />
"What seems important is that it represents a distributed but powerful computing power, and incorruptible database, which can be used as a ledger-transactional system, as well as a notary system for publicly recording rights, including monetary/economic rights. In the event of a bail-in, the majority of the world's population and their enterprises, will have every incentive to transfer their accounts to such a system (which has a very different paradigm than Bitcoin).<br />
<br />
My questions are:<br />
<br />
(1) can the block-chain technology be architechtured into a decentralised operating system and commons block-chain platform, to provide banking as a public service, both at the local and international scale?<br />
<br />
(2) Can it be architectured as the framework of a new international monetary system, in accordance with the proposals of the French-Swiss economist, Michel Laloux (whose book I am translating into English), so that<br />
<br />
(3) money needed for regeneration of the economic commons (the 4 factors of production mentioned in my last email), as well as for solidarity (welfare) purposes - without dependency on the centralised State?"<br />
(email, August 2015)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Trust==<br />
<br />
Gideon Greenspan:<br />
<br />
"If multiple entities are writing to the database, there also needs to be some degree of mistrust between those entities. In other words, blockchains are a technology for databases with multiple non-trusting writers.<br />
<br />
You might think that mistrust only arises between separate organizations, such as the banks trading in a marketplace or the companies involved in a supply chain. But it can also exist within a single large organization, for example between departments or the operations in different countries.<br />
<br />
What do I specifically mean by mistrust? I mean that one user is not willing to let another modify database entries which it “owns”. Similarly, when it comes to reading the database’s contents, one user will not accept as gospel the “truth” as reported by another user, because each has different economic or political incentives.<br />
<br />
So the problem, as defined so far, is enabling a database with multiple non-trusting writers. And there’s already a well-known solution to this problem: the trusted intermediary. That is, someone who all the writers trust, even if they don’t fully trust each other. Indeed, the world is filled with databases of this nature, such as the ledger of accounts in a bank. Your bank controls the database and ensures that every transaction is valid and authorized by the customer whose funds it moves. No matter how politely you ask, your bank will never let you modify their database directly.<br />
<br />
Blockchains remove the need for trusted intermediaries by enabling databases with multiple non-trusting writers to be modified directly. No central gatekeeper is required to verify transactions and authenticate their source. Instead, the definition of a transaction is extended to include a proof of authorization and a proof of validity. Transactions can therefore be independently verified and processed by every node which maintains a copy of the database.<br />
<br />
But the question you need to ask is: Do you want or need this disintermediation? Given your use case, is there anything wrong with having a central party who maintains an authoritative database and acts as the transaction gatekeeper? Good reasons to prefer a blockchain-based database over a trusted intermediary might include lower costs, faster transactions, automatic reconciliation, new regulation or a simple inability to find a suitable intermediary.<br />
<br />
<br />
So blockchains make sense for databases that are shared by multiple writers who don’t entirely trust each other, and who modify that database directly. But that’s still not enough. Blockchains truly shine where there is some interaction between the transactions created by these writers.<br />
<br />
What do I mean by interaction? In the fullest sense, this means that transactions created by different writers often depend on one other. For example, let’s say Alice sends some funds to Bob and then Bob sends some on to Charlie. In this case, Bob’s transaction is dependent on Alice’s one, and there’s no way to verify Bob’s transaction without checking Alice’s first. Because of this dependency, the transactions naturally belong together in a single shared database.<br />
<br />
Taking this further, one nice feature of blockchains is that transactions can be created collaboratively by multiple writers, without either party exposing themselves to risk. This is what allows delivery versus payment settlement to be performed safely over a blockchain, without requiring a trusted intermediary.<br />
<br />
A weaker case can also be made for situations where transactions from different writers are cross-correlated with each other, even if they remain independent. One example might be a shared identity database in which multiple entities validate different aspects of consumers’ identities. Although each such certification stands alone, the blockchain provides a useful way to bring everything together in a unified way.<br />
<br />
If we have a database modified directly by multiple writers, and those writers don’t fully trust each other, then the database must contain embedded rules restricting the transactions performed.<br />
<br />
These rules are fundamentally different from the constraints that appear in traditional databases, because they relate to the legitimacy of transformations rather than the state of the database at a particular point in time. Every transaction is checked against these rules by every node in the network, and those that fail are rejected and not relayed on.<br />
<br />
Asset ledgers contain a simple example of this type of rule, to prevent transactions creating assets out of thin air. The rule states that the total quantity of each asset in the ledger must be the same before and after every transaction."<br />
(http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-blockchain-project/)<br />
<br />
=Examples=<br />
<br />
BY PRIMAVERA DE FILIPPI:<br />
<br />
"the blockchain is not limited to monetary applications. Borrowing from the same ideas (though not using the actual peer-to-peer network bitcoin runs on), a variety of new applications have adapted the bitcoin protocol to fulfill different purposes: Namecoin for distributed domain name management; Bitmessage and Twister for asynchronous communication; and, more recently, Ethereum (released only a month ago). Like many other peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, these platforms all rely on decentralized architectures to build and maintain network applications that are operated by the community for the community."<br />
(http://www.wired.com/2014/03/decentralized-applications-built-bitcoin-great-except-whos-responsible-outcomes/)<br />
<br />
==Ethereum==<br />
<br />
"One of those tapping into its power is Vitalik Buterin, a 19-year-old developer from Toronto, Canada. Last week he launched Ethereum, a new platform that will not just allow for multiple cryptocurrencies, as they are known, but also promises to host a range of decentralised applications on a single block chain. Making systems decentralised is appealing because the authorities will find them hard to shut down.<br />
<br />
Initially, Ethereum users will be able to exchange bitcoins for a new currency – ether. Then, ether will be mined just like Bitcoin. But acquiring another form of digital money is not the point. Ethereum is meant to work like an operating system for cryptocurrencies. Developers can create apps, such as social networks or file storage, that sit on Ethereum's network as part of an app store.<br />
<br />
Ethereum allows for the creation of complex, yet decentralised, economic tools like financial derivatives, in which two parties can bet on the rise and fall of an asset, or crop insurance that pays out to a farmer according to a weather data feed. Creating decentralised versions of Dropbox or eBay should be possible too, claims Buterin.<br />
<br />
Other developers are attempting to achieve the same results by overlaying new code on the existing Bitcoin block chain. One example is the concept of "coloured" coins: with bitcoins labelled to represent other assets such as gold, cars or even houses, you transfer ownership when you trade the labelled coin.<br />
<br />
Buterin says Ethereum is much more flexible. "Bitcoin is great as a form of digital money, but its scripting language is too weak for any kind of serious advanced applications to be built on top."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Decentralized Autonomous Corporations==<br />
<br />
"One of the more advanced concepts being touted for a next-generation Bitcoin is the idea of decentralised autonomous corporations (DAC) – companies with no directors. These would follow a pre-programmed business model and are managed entirely by the block chain. In this case the block chain acts as a way for the DAC to store financial accounts and record shareholder votes.<br />
<br />
In a way, Bitcoin is actually the first DAC, says Daniel Larimer, a developer in Blacksburg, Virginia. People who own bitcoins are shareholders in the company, which offers financial services, earns revenue through transaction fees and pays a salary to its employees, the miners. But no one is in charge.<br />
<br />
Larimer has started his own DAC, called BitSharesX, which he says can perform the actions of a bank, lending other currencies to customers, who can provide BitShares as collateral. Other potential business models for a DAC include election services and lotteries, all run automatically. "The key to a DAC is that it should not depend on any one person."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Official Records==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Last year, Manuel Araoz, an Argentinean programmer who now works for BitPay, one of the original Bitcoin payment providers, created a service that enables users to condense any document and embed it into a transaction on the blockchain. A lot of people are now getting excited about the possibility of using this kind of application to store official records. The two examples that come up most often at conferences are property titles and documents proving “prior art” in intellectual property cases. In the case of titles, you’re basically layering a new form of property onto a Bitcoin transaction. Once a deed to a house is associated with a particular value on the Bitcoin blockchain, it can be transferred from party to party without the need for a paper trail.<br />
<br />
In the case of prior art, a document embedded in the blockchain would carry with it a rough time stamp (depending on the rate at which new blocks are being added to the chain), which inventors could later use in patent disputes to prove that they had the first claim to an idea. The same solution would extend to any situation where a human notary was necessary.<br />
<br />
According to Gavin Andresen, one of the developers who works on the core Bitcoin protocol, these applications could be especially useful for underdeveloped nations where governments lack a good way of tracking and transmitting official documents."<br />
<br />
“I think the places where it makes the most sense are the places where they don’t already have a functioning system, they don’t have some legacy way of accomplishing something that the blockchain can help them accomplish,” says Andresen. “The example of property records, deeds to houses. Here in the United States, in Europe, and in other developed world nations, we have this whole system that’s all about keeping track of who owns property and then taxing them. There are parts of the world where that just doesn’t exist yet.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Voting==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"There are several groups (Agora, BitCongress, Swarm) that are looking for ways to use the Bitcoin blockchain to enable online voting. Most of the schemes would involve sending a tiny fraction of a specially tagged bitcoin (or a similar token) to every voter. The voter could then sign it over to anyone on a list of candidates. The candidate with the most bitcoins at the end of the vote would win. One of the benefits of a system like this is that voters could divide their votes among candidates. The results are also completely transparent and visible to anyone who has downloaded a copy of the blockchain. On one hand, this is good because you can conduct a public audit of the vote. On the other hand, it opens the door for vote selling.<br />
<br />
The BitCongress application, which is still under development, goes further and seeks to carve out a space for all the steps in governance. The group wants to provide a forum for debate, a process for voting, and a place for representatives to publish legislative proposals, all on the Bitcoin blockchain."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Identity Verification==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Today, when we need to log on to websites or applications, we usually prove our identities by supplying passwords. As a result, we are accustomed to managing many different passwords on many different websites. We are also trusting these Web services to keep our passwords, and therefore our identities, safe.<br />
<br />
Onename uses the blockchain to link your name to a Bitcoin address, which you can then prove you control by signing a digital message with your private key (similar to what you do when you spend bitcoins). The developers describe the service as a universal passport for the Internet. They imagine that in the future, instead of signing in to applications with a Facebook account, we will refer to a Onename identity stored on the blockchain.<br />
<br />
For example, “If you want to release your medical records to an application, it is important that you are in unique control of your medical records. You’re not going to trust Facebook,” says Ryan Shea, the cofounder of Onename. “This can even be extended to things like authorizing access to your home, opening your garage door, really any action that is tied to identity. So you could see this being used anywhere on the Web where identity is required.”<br />
<br />
In this scenario, you never have to reveal your private key to anyone, and you retain complete control over (and responsibility for) the integrity of your online identity."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Distributed Domain-Name Server==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"[[Namecoin]] is an altcoin that was established in 2011. The code is nearly identical to that of Bitcoin, but it uses its own Nakamoto blockchain. Rather than tracking financial transactions, it records domain names and their corresponding IP addresses to provide a more secure, censorship-resistant alternative to the way we usually access websites on the Internet.<br />
<br />
When you type a conventional URL (like Spectrum.ieee.org) into a browser, you rely on a centralized third party, called a domain-name server, to look up the URL in a directory and find the numerical IP address of the server you want to connect to. When the U.S. government wants to disable a website, one easy way is for it to demand that the domain-name server, or DNS, refuse to resolve the offending URL. In this case, even though the IP address you want is sitting there in a database on its server, the DNS sends you to a Digital Millennium Copyright Act website takedown notice instead of routing you to your destination. Because the databases are centralized, they are also good targets for hackers. If an attacker can manage to either change an IP address in the directory or send you a false one, he can divert your traffic toward a nefarious website.<br />
<br />
Namecoin was created to solve both of these problems. With a Namecoin client, you can look up any .bit URL and be sure that the corresponding IP address is the same as the one that originally registered it.<br />
<br />
“With Nakamoto blockchains, it’s very, very difficult to remove data from the blockchain once it’s already in there. And it’s not really feasible to insert fraudulent data that claims to be from an address that it really isn’t,” says Jeremy Rand, one of the Namecoin developers. “What this means is, if I register a name in the Namecoin blockchain, no one else can reverse that transaction and remove it from the blockchain, and no one else can hijack it.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
=History=<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"<br />
The Second Wave of Blockchain Innovation<br />
<br />
The last months have included intense discussion on the feasibility and desirability of various economic forms of Blockchain innovation, including the ominous title of an article in Techcrunch, “A Bitcoin Battle is Brewing.” Although they contain many of the same principles that made Bitcoin successful, other digital assets have often been criticized and dismissed as “speculative.” However, recent usages of cryptoledger systems (c.f. “appcoins,” cryptoequity, smart contracts) often include substantial technological innovation and can be used to solve long standing problems both in investment and corporate governance.<br />
<br />
History<br />
<br />
In the mid-90s Nick Szabo, the inventor of smart contracts, noted the many fascinating things that could be done with programmable money. Another one of his best ideas, “Bit gold,” was later implemented as Bitcoin, a distributed network with unique incentivization mechanism for growth. It included a rudimentary scripting language that allowed you to send a unit, a “coin,” to another participant in the network. This was enough for it to rise in value from mere pennies to a high of over $1,000.<br />
<br />
In 2013 J.R. Willet drafted “Second Bitcoin Whitepaper” and proposed that the Bitcoin blockchain be extended with more advanced smart contract capability, encoded via metadata. His proposed way to finance the development of this new functionality was to create a new type of token that gave access to these advanced features. This was called the “Master” coin.<br />
<br />
J.R. sold $600,000 worth of Mastercoins for Bitcoins in the first ever “crowdsale” in the summer of 2013. By the end of that calendar year, they had appreciated 74x in value. Investors rejoiced. But not all was well in the world of Mastercoin. Instead of full-time developers crunching away in hope of some future event, founders weren’t working full time and most people were employed via “bounties.” All of the best developers interested in the idea were quietly drifting away from the project. These notably included Vitalik Buterin and Adam Krellenstein, both of whom would attempt to solve the same problem in their own way.<br />
<br />
In early 2014, Adam Krellenstein, a self taught programmer, created a re-implementation of the Mastercoin idea from scratch. Like Mastercoin, it contained an implementation of certain smart contract ideas, primarily implementations of existing financial tools. This included asset issuance, asset trading, dividends, and betting. It was released as Counterparty and approximately $1.5mm worth of Bitcoin were transferred into this new system.<br />
<br />
Around the same time, Vitalik Buterin developed the first proof of concept of Ethereum, an abstraction of the same idea. Instead of programming the specific desired features of smart contracts, Vitalik proposed creating a toolkit that allows anyone to program their own smart contract. While theoretically possible to implement in a similar context on the Bitcoin blockchain, Vitalik believed that there were many other aspects of Blockchain architecture that could be improved, including file storage, clearing times, and proofing against special hardware. Vitalik initiated his own crowdsale to finance this blockchain, which gathered approximately $15mm worth of Bitcoins.<br />
<br />
As numerous other projects followed a similar model for funding in 2014, including Counterparty, Maidsafe, Storj, Supernet, Gems, and SWARM, there was a precipitous decline in the value of the progenitor. Mastercoins returned from a peak of almost 100 times return on investment to a price close to the original sale."<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
First, '''read this: [https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet]!'''<br />
<br />
For more, see also: [[Blockchain - Discussion]] <br />
<br />
Zacqary Adam Green:<br />
<br />
"Bitcoin’s real contribution to the world is its source code. The blockchain, the network protocol, the cryptographic verification — anyone can take this and build a currency with any economic properties their community needs. I’m not convinced that bitcoin’s Austrian School properties can sustain a global (or even local) economy, but you know what? That’s okay. If I ever feel the bitcoin economy has become too unequal, unbalanced, or stagnant, it’s now trivial for me to start my own damn currency.<br />
<br />
A single bitcoin belongs is a measurement like a centimeter, but the bitcoin community is a social network. People use bitcoin because other people they trade with use bitcoin. If my town is running low on bitcoin but has a lot of resources to share internally, we can create our own local currency to free up bitcoin for importing and exporting. Or I could join an online network of artists who work on one another’s projects, and we’d create our own internal currency that plays by whatever rules we need it to.<br />
<br />
There is no perfect monetary system for every situation. Bitcoin is not going to be the one world currency, and it doesn’t need to be. A lot of people compare Bitcoin to the Internet, but it’s more like CompuServe. It’s the first of many digital, non-state currencies to come, that will all interoperate with each other in ways we can’t even dream of yet."<br />
(http://falkvinge.net/2013/11/06/bitcoins-real-revolution-isnt-hard-money-its-economic-panarchy/ )<br />
<br />
==The blockchain as a potential opportunity for a true sharing economy==<br />
<br />
Primavera De Filippi:<br />
<br />
"Blockchain technology thus facilitates the emergence of new forms of organizations, which are not only dematerialized but also decentralized. These organizations — which have no director or CEO, or any sort of hierarchical structure — are administered, collectively, by all individuals interacting on a blockchain. As such, it is important not to confuse them with the traditional model of “crowd-sourcing,” where people contribute to a platform but do not benefit from the success of that platform. Blockchain technologies can support a much more cooperative form of crowd-sourcing — sometimes referred to as “platform cooperativism”— where users qualify both as contributors and shareholders of the platforms to which they contribute. And since there is no intermediary operator, the value produced within these platforms can be more equally redistributed among those who have contributed to the value creation.<br />
With this new opportunity for increased “cooperativism,” we’re moving toward a true sharing or collaborative economy — one that is not controlled by a few large intermediary operators, but that is governed by and for the people.<br />
<br />
There’s nothing new about that, you might say — haven’t we heard these promises before? Wasn’t the mainstream deployment of the internet supposed to level the playing field for individuals and small businesses competing against corporate giants? And yet, as time went by, most of the promises and dreams of the early internet days faded away, as big giants formed and took control over our digital landscape.<br />
<br />
Today we have a new opportunity to fulfill these promises. Blockchain technology makes it possible to replace the model of top-down hierarchical organizations with a system of distributed, bottom-up cooperation. This shift could change the way wealth is distributed in the first place, enabling people to cooperate toward the creation of a common good, while ensuring that everyone will be duly compensated for their efforts and contributions.<br />
<br />
And yet nothing should be taken for granted. Just as the internet has evolved from a highly decentralized infrastructure into an increasingly centralized system controlled by only a few large online operators, there is always the risk that big giants will eventually form in the blockchain space. We’ve lost our first window of opportunity with the internet. If we, as a society, really value the concept of a true sharing economy, where the individuals doing the work are fairly rewarded for their efforts, it behooves us all to engage and experiment with this emergent technology, to explore the new opportunities it provides and deploy large, successful, community-driven applications that enable us to resist the formation of blockchain giants."<br />
(https://hbr.org/2017/03/what-blockchain-means-for-the-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis, Primavera De Filippi & Vasilis Kostakis: <br />
<br />
"Technology can facilitate distributed systems to scale and become viable; however it is the genuine dynamics of sharing and the underlying human sociality that should guide the design and deployment of technological solutions. To this direction, there is a high duty for an interdisciplinary and inclusive approach, involving ICT along with social sciences, as well as philosophy and ethics, so as to avoid getting locked in narrow theoretical and empirical perspectives. […] <br />
<br />
We introduced a mechanism for decentralised consensus through the case of Backfeed, which relies on participatory evaluations and reputation-based influence. Finally, a token-based economic model was presented, which tentatively integrates this new system of value, providing the final layer of value actualisation. The tokens issued through collaborative processes represent a fair share of the created value and a reward for the contributors, and simultaneously they reflect the perceived value of the products and services they produce. Certain opportunities and limitations have been identified in relation to Backfeed and blockchain technology. On one hand, the Backfeed protocol can help productive communities, which engage in social sharing to create commons, to enact their own systems of value, through an inclusive, consensus-based approach. Simultaneously, it allows them to interface with one another and the market, and eventually scale and become sustainable. It thus can help us envision an ecosystem composed by a variety of value systems that fuel the circulation of commons in a sharing economy. In such an ecosystem value would become perceptible in a way that it shifts away from the logic of utility maximisation, towards the general benefit for the society.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the application of Backfeed, and in fact any similar system of evaluation, poses certain challenges to the internal relations in productive communities, related to trust, reciprocity and intrinsic motives. Moreover, the technology is still at a very early stage and more empirical data are necessary to support its real life application. More generally, there are well-justified doubts on the extent that the blockchain alone can help communities solve issues concerning power and influence. At the same time, with the technology yet to reach a dominant design, it is too early to predict how it would operate on large scale. In any case, regardless of the development of blockchain technology or the eventual success of Backfeed as a project, its conceptual model allegedly presents an interesting scenario for the sharing economy and the role the latter can play in societies." <br />
(Article: Blockchain and value systems in the sharing economy: The illustrative case of Backfeed. See: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Backfeed,_the_Blockchain,_and_Value_Systems_in_the_Sharing_Economy)<br />
<br />
==The key questions about the blockchain==<br />
<br />
Alanna Krause:<br />
<br />
1. Ethereum and similar blockchain enabled systems may distribute the verification of the ledger, but they are still centralised systems that easily become controlled by a few big players with more infrastructure resources. The contracts and transaction ledger may be decentralised, but the infrastructure isn't.<br />
<br />
2. Decentralisation in and of itself will not lead to P2P principles, or more social justice. In face, it has just as much power to great exacerbate social inequality. The most likely outcome of widespread adoption of block-chain enabled decentralised technologies is simply increased efficiency and wealth for big banks and governments. The discourse around the blockchain does not seem to acknowledge this. This WILL be co-opted (already is).<br />
<br />
3. I sense a deep lack of understanding of the social dynamics behind truly P2P ways of working and living in the blockchain community. People seem to want to "program" away what I consider the real challenges of confronting power dynamics, synthesising diversity, meeting different human needs, balancing collaboration and autonomy, building high-trust networks, collective ownership and commons management, etc. You cannot fix these things with technology - technology will just magnify the underlying dynamics. This is related to my observations of the lack of diversity in these communities.<br />
<br />
4. People get all excited about the blockchain, but most of the things they seem to want to do with it could be achieved just as easily with a normal database. It seems like the cases where you actually need an objectively verifiable distributed ledger in a zero-trust system are quite rare in practice. If people want to run self-organising corporations, why haven't they make a start with a normal database already? Surely they can implement a blockchain once it scales or they run into a real need. Seems to me people are just excited about some new and shiny tech concept, and not actually into solving the deeper challenges of self-organisation. I have seen a LOT of money changing hands and ideas thrown around, but no living case studies of blockchain enabled networks of people doing real productive work and creating livelihoods and societies."<br />
(via email, May 2016) <br />
<br />
<br />
==The perils of [[Trustless Systems]]==<br />
<br />
'''Blockchains don’t offer us a trustless system, but rather a reassignment of trust!'''<br />
<br />
E J Spode:<br />
<br />
"Such are the perils of supposedly trust-free technology. It might make for good marketing copy, but the fact of the matter is that blockchain technology is larded through with trust. First, you need to trust the protocol of the cryptocurrency and/or DAO. This isn’t as simple as saying ‘I trust the maths’, for some actual human (or humans) wrote the code and hopefully debugged it, and we are at least trusting them to get it right, no? Well, in the case of The DAO, no, maybe they didn’t get it right.<br />
<br />
Second, you have to trust the ‘stakeholders’ (including miners) not to pull the rug out from under you with a hard fork. One of the objections to the hard fork was that it would create a precedent that the code would be changeable. But this objection exposes an unmentioned universal truth: the immutability of the blockchain is entirely a matter of trusting other humans not to fork it. Ethereum Classic Classic would be no more immutable than Etherum Classic, which was no more immutable than Ethereum. At best, the stakeholders – humans all – were showing that they were more trustworthy qua humans about not forking around with the blockchain. But at the same time, they obviously could change their minds about forking at any time. In other words, if Ethereum Classic is more trustworthy, it’s only because the humans behind it are. <br />
<br />
Third, if you are buying into Ethereum or The DAO or any other DAO, you are being asked to trust the people who review the algorithm and tell you what it does and whether it’s secure. But those people – computer scientists, say – are hardly incorruptible. Just as you can bribe an accountant to say that the books are clean, so too can you bribe a computer scientist. Moreover, you’re putting your trust in whatever filters you applied to select that computer scientist. (University or professional qualifications? A network of friends? The testimonials of satisfied customers – which is to say, the same method by which people selected Bernie Madoff as their financial advisor.)<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, even if you had it on divine authority that the code of a DAO was bug-free and immutable, there are necessary gateways of trust at the boundaries of the system. For example, suppose you wrote a smart contract to place bets on sporting events. You still have to trust the news feed that tells you who won the match to determine the winner of the bet. Or suppose you wrote a smart contract under which you were to be delivered a truck full of orange juice concentrate. The smart contract can’t control whether or not the product is polluted by lemons or some other substance. You have to trust the humans in the logistics chain, and the humans at the manufacturing end, to ensure your juice arrives unadulterated.<br />
<br />
Can’t these gateways to the system be trustless as well? Can’t smart contracts some day have code to call for robotic orange-pickers and robotic juice concentrate-makers who would summon their robotically driven trucks to deliver the orange juice concentrate straight to our door? Yes – in theory. But imagine the task of reviewing the code to ensure that every step in the process hadn’t been corrupted by a bug that uses security failures to highjack trucks, or that gives false approvals to adulterated orange juice. Perhaps we could write second-order programs to automate the testing of the first-order programs – but why do we trust those? Do we ultimately need automated automated-program-tester testers? Where does it end?<br />
<br />
By now, the answer should be obvious: it ends with other humans. Blockchains don’t offer us a trustless system, but rather a reassignment of trust. Instead of trusting our laws and institutions, we are being asked to trust stakeholders and miners, and programmers, and those who know enough coding to be able to verify the code. We aren’t actually trusting the blockchain technology; we are trusting the people that support the blockchain. The blockchain community is certainly new and different, and it talks a good game of algorithms and hashing power, which at least sounds better than tired slogans such as Prudential is rock solid and You are in good hands with Allstate. But miners aren’t necessarily any more reliable than the corporations they replace.<br />
<br />
The sorry case of The DAO raises another question: Why are people so eager to put their faith in blockchain technology and its human supporters, instead of in other social and economic organisations? The upheavals of 2016, from Brexit to Trump, suggest that there is widespread fatigue with traditional institutions. Governments can be bought. Banks are designed to service the wealthy, and to hell with the little guy. ‘The system is rigged’ is a common refrain.<br />
<br />
But instead of targeting the moral failures of the system and trying to reform it, the very concept of ‘trust’ has become suspect. Blockchain enthusiasts tend to cast trust as little more than a bug in our network of human interactions. To be sure, one of the weird features of trusting relationships is that, in order to trust someone, there has to be some chance that they will fail you. Trust involves risk – but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.<br />
<br />
Which brings us back to Buterin and the hard fork of The DAO. What made this event significant was not just what it demonstrated about the foibles of technology or the hubris of 20-something computer scientists. What it really exposed was the extent to which trust defines what it is to be human. Trust is about more than making sure I get my orange juice on time. Trust is what makes all relationships meaningful. Yes, we get burned by people we rely on, and this makes us disinclined to trust others. But when our faith is rewarded, it helps us forge closer relationships with others, be they our business partners or BFFs. Risk is a critical component to this bonding process. In a risk-free world, we wouldn’t find anything resembling intimacy, friendship, solidarity or alliance, because nothing would be at stake.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we ought to reconsider the desire to expunge trust, and instead focus on what should be done to strengthen it. One way to support trust is to hold institutions accountable when they betray it. When the US Department of Justice, for example, elected not to prosecute any of the bankers responsible for the 2008 financial collapse, the net effect was to undermine confidence in the system. They debased the principle of trust by showing that violating the public’s faith could be cost-free.<br />
<br />
Much of our system of trust is invisible to us – but it would be helpful if we could be more aware and appreciative all the same<br />
<br />
Second, trusting relationships should be celebrated, not scorned. When we believe in someone and they betray us, our friends might call us a sucker, an easy mark, a loser. But shouldn’t we celebrate these efforts to trust others – just as entrepreneurs talk up the value of failure on the road to innovation? Isn’t the correct response along the lines of: ‘I see why you trusted them, but isn’t it is terrible that they let you down?’<br />
<br />
Third, we should appreciate the trusting relations we engage in, and are rewarded by, every day. We’re constantly relying on others to help us with something or look after our financial affairs, and much of the time we simply take it for granted. In part, that’s because much of our system of trust is invisible to us – but it would be helpful if we could be more aware and appreciative all the same.<br />
<br />
Finally, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves with the idea that a technological fix can replace the human dimension of trust. Automation of trust is illusory. Rather than disparaging and cloaking human trust, we should face the brutal truth: we can’t escape the need to rely on other people, as fallible and imperfect as they might be. We need to nurture and nourish trust – not throw it away, like so much debased and worthless currency."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/trust-the-inside-story-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-ethereum)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Opportunities and Pitfalls for a progressive use of the blockhain==<br />
<br />
Source: In Trebor Scholz & Nathan Schneider (eds.). PlatformCoop The Book (2016) OR Books. '''This text is embargoed''' for diffusion until the publication of this book. Please do not distribute yet.<br />
<br />
Rachel O'Dwyer:<br />
<br />
"So let me show my hand. I'm interested in the blockchain (or blockchain-based technologies) as one tool that, in a very pragmatic way, could assist with cooperative activities, helping us to share resources, to arbitrate, adjudicate, disambiguate and make collective decisions. Some fledgling examples are LaZooz, an alternative ride-sharing app, Swarm, a fundraising app, and proposals for the use of distributed ledgers to manage land ownership or critical infrastructures like water and energy. Many of these activities are difficult outside of local communities or in the absence of some trusted intermediary. However, I also think that much of the current rhetoric around the blockchain hints at problems with the techno-utopian ideologies that surround digital activism, and points to the pitfalls these projects fall into time and again. ItÕs worth addressing these here.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Pitfall #1: We can replace messy and time-consuming social processes with elegant technical solutions===<br />
<br />
Fostering and scaling cooperation is really difficult. This is why we have institutions, norms, laws, and markets. We might not like them, but these mechanisms allow us to cooperate with others even when we donÕt know and trust them. They help us to make decisions and to divvy up tasks and to reach consensus. When we take these things awayÑwhen we break them downÑit can be very difficult to cooperate. Indeed, this is one of the big problems with alternative forms of organization outside of the state and the marketÑthose that are not structured by typical modes of governance such as rules, norms or pricing. These kinds of structureless collaboration generally only work at very local kin-communal scales where everybody already knows and trusts everyone else. In Ireland, for example, there were several<br />
long-term bank strikes in the 1970s. The economy didnÕt grind to a halt. Instead, local publicans stepped in and extended credit to their customers; the debtors were well known to the publicans who were in a good position to make an assessment on their credit worthiness. Community trust replaced a trustless monetary system. This kind of local arrangement wouldnÕt work in a larger or more atomised community. It probably wouldnÕt work in todayÕs Ireland because community ties are weaker.<br />
<br />
Bitcoin caused excitement when it proposed a technical solution to a problem that previously required a trusted intermediary money, or, more specifically, the problem of guaranteeing and controlling money supply and monitoring the repartition of funds on a global scale. It did this by developing a distributed database that is cryptographically verified by an entire network of peers and by linking the production of new money with the individual incentive to maintain this public repository. More recently this cryptographic database has also been used to manage laws, contracts, and property. While some of the more evolved applications involve verifying precious stones and supporting interbank loans, the proposal is that this database could also be used to support alternative worker platforms, allowing systems where people can organize, share or sell their labor without the need of a central entity controlling activities and trimming a generous margin off the top.<br />
<br />
Here the blockchain replaces a trusted third party such as the state or a platform with cryptographic proof. This is why hardcore libertarians and anarcho-communists both favor it. But let's be clear here, it doesn't replace<br />
all of the functions of an institution, just the function that allows us to trust in our interactions with others because we trust in certain judicial and bureaucratic processes. It doesn't stand in for all the slow and messy bureaucracy and debate and human processes that go into building cooperation, and it never will. The blockchain is what we call a ÒtrustlessÓ architecture. It<br />
stands in for trust in the absence of more traditional mechanisms like social networks and co-location. It allows cooperation without trust, in other words, something that is quite different from fostering or building trust. As the founding Bitcoin document details, proof-of- work is not a new form of trust, but the abdication of trust altogether as social confidence and judgment in favor of an algorithmic regulation. With a blockchain, it maybe doesn't matter so much whether I believe in or trust my fellow peers just so long as I trust in the technical efficiency of the protocol. The claim being made is not that we can engineer greater levels of cooperation or trust in friends, institutions or governments, but that we might dispense with social institutions altogether in favor of an elegant technical solution. This assumption is naive, its true, but it also betrays a worrying politics, or rather a drive to replace politics (as debate and dispute and things that produce connection and difference) with economics. This is not just a problem with blockchain evangelism, it's a core problem with the ideology of digital activism generally. The blockchain has more in common with the neoliberal governmentality that produces platform capitalists like Amazon and Uber and state-market coalitions than any radical alternative. Seen in this light, the call for blockchains forms part of a line of informational and administrative technologies such as punch cards, electronic ledgers and automated record keeping systems that work to administrate populations and to make politics disappear.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Pitfall #2: The technical can instantiate new social or political processes===<br />
<br />
Like a lot of peer-to-peer networks, blockchain applications conflate a technical architecture with a social or political mode of organization. We can see this kind of ideology at work when the CEO of Bitcoin Indonesia argues, "in its purest form, Blockchain is democracy". From this perspective, what makes Uber Uber and LaZooz. LaZooz comes down to technical differences at the level of topology and protocol. If only we can design the right technical system, in other words, the right kind of society is not too far behind. The last decade has shown us that there is no linear-causal relationship between decentralization in technical systems and egalitarian or equitable practices socially, politically or economically. This is not only because it is technologically determinist to assume so, or because networks involve layers of strata that exhibit contradictory affordances, but also because there's zero evidence that features such as decentralization or structureless continue to pose any kind of threat to capitalism. In fact, horizontality and decentralization -the very characteristics that peer production prizes so highly - have emerged as an ideal solution to many of the impasses of liberal economics. Today, Silicon Valley appropriates so many of the ideas of the left, anarchism, mobility, and cooperation, even limited forms of welfare. This can create the sense that technical fixes like the blockchain are part of some broader shift to a post-capitalist society, when this shift has not taken place. Indeed, the blockchain applications that are really gaining traction are those developed by large banks in collaboration with tech start-ups, applications to build private blockchains for greater asset management or automatic credit clearing between banks, or to allow cultural industries to combat piracy in a distributed network and manage the sale and ownership of digital goods more efficiently.<br />
<br />
<br />
While technical tools such as the blockchain might form part of a broader artillery for platform cooperativism, then, we also need to have a little perspective. We need to find ways to embrace not only technical solutions, but also people who have experience in community organizing and methods that foster trust, negotiate hierarchies and embrace difference. Because there is no magic app for platform cooperativism. And there never will be."<br />
(https://www.academia.edu/23524276/Blockchains_and_Their_Pitfalls)<br />
<br />
==The Blockchain's Major Design Flaw==<br />
<br />
'''Arthur Brock:'''<br />
<br />
"Stop the Nonsensus! (Nonsense Consensus): Systems will never scale if you require global consensus for local actions by independent agents. For example, I should not have to know where every dollar in the economy is when I want to buy something from you. That adds an overhead of ridiculous complexity for something which needs to follow the principle of pushing intelligence and agency to the edges rather than center. Likewise, an atom should be able to bond with another atom (see cartoon) without accounting for status every electron in the universe. However, Bitcoin and blockchains are built around authorized tokens embedded in every transaction/record, which embeds unnecessary complexity and limitations for scalability into every interaction. Tokens are not what makes a decentralized system work, cryptographic signatures and self-validating data structures are.<br />
<br />
Intrinsic Data Integrity: For a long time, data integrity has been conflated with the hosting, control, and access to the device on which the data is stored. So banks have big firewalls to keep you from hacking in and changing your account balance. But today we have self-validating data structures like hash-chains and Merkle-trees which leave evidence of tampering by breaking structural integrity, cryptographic hash, or counterparty signatures when the data is altered. This makes it possible to distribute the storage and management of data and ensure that the people holding it can't tamper with it. In other words, you could be an authority to show your own account balance, yet not be able to tamper with your account history. When implemented properly, this is the key to enabling massive scales of storage and throughput by enabling auditable data to be stored anywhere/everywhere instead of requiring agreement on single shared ledger.<br />
<br />
Distributed Process not Consensus: Let's learn a bit from tracking how scalable systems in nature and real world get things done. Speakers of a language each carry the means to generate sentences as needed, we don't store every sentence spoken in some global ledger. Cells each carry a copy of their instruction set (DNA), rather than a record of the state and type of every cell. What you need to distribute in a system of collective intelligence is the ability to distribute reliable processing according to shared agreements. Consensus then becomes something used for to ensure the integrity of the processing, rather than the medium upon which processing is executed. This approach, lets you confirm that your copy of the process is valid, so you can rely on it to work according to the agreed upon rules and proceed authoritatively without having to wait for the rest of the network to validate, verify and update itself with your state.<br />
<br />
Agents not Coins: Instead of starting with cryptographic coins or tokens as the fundamental thing that exists, start by having the agents/people/organizations (or their signatures and account IDs) be the primary things that exist. When each person has a copy of the process needed to participate, and their records are stored with intrinsic data integrity, that enable two people to perform a transaction without requiring approval or consensus of anyone else. My process audits your transaction chain to make sure you're in a valid state, yours audits my chain, and either rejects the transaction if it puts someone in an invalid state according to the coded agreements. I know, you have a lot of questions about to make sure this can happen reliably, but I'll drill into that later.<br />
<br />
Fractal not Global: You would think that the existence of the web would have taught us already that we can have shared access to pretty reliable, referenceable, information without us all having identical copies of it. Starting by creating a global ledger where each copy has to be in the same state is a totally different problem than having a fractal process for creating and organizing data which can be referenced by anyone wherever that data lives. It can still provide globally accessible agreement about data, but that agreement is constructed from fractally assembled reliable parts instead of requiring each part to reach global (or 51%) agreement to commit each element of data. One of the beautiful outcomes from this is such a massive reduction in the processing and storage requirements that it becomes feasible to run a full node on a mobile phone instead of requiring specialized mining hardware."<br />
(http://artbrock.com/blog/perspectives-blockchains-and-cryptocurrencies)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Three non-technological ways in which blockchains may still “fail”.==<br />
<br />
Tere Vaden:<br />
<br />
“Fail”, because failing is obviously relative. By now, there is no real doubt that blockchains deliver on their technological promise: tamper-proof distributed permissionless ledgers. But they may very well fail to deliver on their promise as a new shiny class of peer-to-peer technology disintermediating all those pesky central authorities into oblivion.<br />
<br />
===1. Poor usability for non-experts===<br />
<br />
Several generations of peer-to-peer technologies have promised a lot, delivered quite much, but still left a lingering taste of underachievement. While GNU/Linux — an operating system crucially dependent on a p2p development model — is clearly one of the resounding successes of open source, it still did not fulfill its promise in one crucial area (which in its early days was seen as one of the most important): desktop computers. Linux powers anything from toasters to supercomputers, but it hasn’t liberated the masses from Windows or Mac OS. In most of smartphones, Linux is in the shackles of Android.<br />
<br />
There are many reasons for why GNU/Linux hasn’t taken over, vendor lock-in being one of the major ones. But there is another issue that may be relevant to blockchains. When hackers write software for themselves — scratching their own itch — it is ready when it delivers what is needed. And this point of being ready for use is very different for a hacker and for a regular user. For too long, the installation and use of a Linux distribution was too hard for ordinary users. Even if Ubuntu and similar systems have largely solved that bottleneck now, the lesson stands: superior technology, if polished only to the point where it is good enough for hackers and early adopters, will not escape that ghetto. Let’s be honest: just the visual look of a Bitcoin address “13ktXxaJTPvBPfSyS7XALTP1i7nAeR2oZ9” is going to keep a big chunk of potential users away. At the moment, the user experience of even the most advanced blockchain apps is abysmal.<br />
<br />
<br />
===2. Domestication===<br />
<br />
The second danger is domestication, or, maybe better yet “commoditization”. As Robert Herian writes in Critical Legal Thinking:<br />
<br />
“Disruption, so-called and preached by many of the major global banks, to the extent that IBM are now claiming that more than half of those banks will be using the technology in the next three years, is anything but disruption because it leaves unchanged the conditions (norms and expectations) in which it occurs, namely those in which global financial capital has exclusive dominion over the social.”<br />
<br />
It is clear that the way the banks use blockchains in effectivising their databases and other back-office oprations, does very little for a peer-to-peer future. <br />
<br />
<br />
Furthermore, as Herian continues to argue, there is the<br />
<br />
- "Beyond the public and transparent blockchain, and thus any hope of preserving a common space if not exactly or politically-speaking a “commons”, we see a potent indication of the victories of normative liberal and, to a greater extent, global financial capitalism over the blockchain narrative. An ideological victory which is in no small part manifesting itself through the proliferation of permissioned enclosed ledgers which are altering the dynamic of blockchain development […] "<br />
<br />
<br />
Most of the resources in terms of money are certainly going to permissioned and private blockchain development and that will, for sure, lend its flavor to what blockchains are all about in the public mind. Moreover, as Herian indicates, this trend is in a worrying way reminiscent of the way in which other technological developments have encroached digital commons. However, is it so bad that banks and other institutions want to use permissioned blockchains? We are still allowed to use permissionless blockchains and build on them, right?<br />
<br />
<br />
===3. Marginalisation===<br />
<br />
Domestiction becomes a real problem when combined with another non-technological threat: marginalisation. Again, let’s look at recent history. Torrent technology is a superior way for distributing digital content. However, since its first and most prominent uses were related to illegal file-sharing, legislation and public PR campaigns have pushed the technology to the fringe (can you believe that PirateBay is still the most popular torrent tracking site?). Torrents are, of course, used for legal purposes, too, in many forms of content distribution, but again the full promise of the technology has been curtailed by pushing it into a socio-cultural margin.<br />
<br />
All of the three threats – marginalisation, domestication and ghettoised user experience — loom large over blockchains. Moreover, the three collude in forming an evil circle, reinforcing each other. There is no silver bullet agaist any of them. A lot of education, both for regulators and the general public, is needed in order to counteract marginalisation. Against ghettoisation, the most urgent need are real-world uses cases that are not limited to currency speculation or to transactions with high counterparty risk. The more diverse the community involved, the greater the possibility of avoiding marginalisation and pushing for overall usability. The free software and open source movements, for instance, have a history of initiatives and procedures for increasing the diversity of the communities and lowering barriers of entry. They can be reused, while at the same time looking for new ways, such as ethical design, of broadening the horizons of p2p technology development."<br />
(https://medium.com/economic-spacing/three-non-technological-ways-in-which-blockchains-may-still-fail-a8d3a7c238be#.8s6m8sgr5)<br />
<br />
==More Discussion==<br />
<br />
<br />
See: [[Blockchain - Discussion]] for more articles on the following topics:<br />
<br />
1 From the Invisible Hand to the Visible Hand<br />
<br />
2 Disintermediating Banking and User Accounts<br />
<br />
3 Why the Bitcoin ledger is potentially so important<br />
<br />
4 The Revolution will not be based on a global receipt depository!<br />
<br />
5 The Political Vision behind the ledger<br />
<br />
6 The Bitcoin Protocol Is More ‘Cloud’ Than ‘P2P’<br />
<br />
7 What Are the Challenges?<br />
<br />
8 Towards an internet of (block)chains<br />
<br />
9 How the blockchain works for trust<br />
<br />
10 The dispute on the size of blocks<br />
<br />
=The [[Blockchain Applications Directory]]=<br />
<br />
Compiled by Aeze Soo:<br />
<br />
==[[La Zooz]]==<br />
<br />
<br />
- Social Ride sharing : <br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BttJsLLOHo<br />
<br />
→ LaZooz.org<br />
<br />
" La’Zooz: The Decentralized, Crypto-Alternative to Uber [http://www.shareable.net/blog/lazooz-the-decentralized-crypto-alternative-to-uber]<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Backfeed]]==<br />
<br />
Backfeed develops foundational tools for Decentralized Collaborative Organizations, syncing the spontaneous actions of millions of people to promote an era of collaboration and decentralized value production.<br />
<br />
→ http://backfeed.cc<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[IPFS]]==<br />
<br />
A Permanent Web - A peer-to-peer hypermedia protocol<br />
→ http://ipfs.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Decentraland]]==<br />
<br />
- Virtual world - Blockchain<br />
→ http://decentraland.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Ascribe]]==<br />
<br />
- Creative commons on blockchain<br />
→ http://cc.ascribe.io<br />
<br />
→ http://creativecommons.fr/creative-commons-france-experimente-avec-ascribe-pour-soutenir-le-copyleft-avec-le-blockchain/<br />
<br />
==[[Proof of Existence]]== <br />
<br />
To certify documents<br />
<br />
→ http://proofofexistence.com<br />
→ http://github.com/maraoz/proofofexistence<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Group Currency]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://groupcurrency.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[uCoin]]== <br />
<br />
- UBI currency :<br />
<br />
→ http://ucoin.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitnation]]== <br />
- world : Virtual nation - Blockchain<br />
→ http://www.bitnation.world<br />
<br />
→ http://bitnation.co<br />
<br />
→ http://cryptonewsday.com/bitnation-releases-proof-of-concept-for-decentralized-government-platform/<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Basic Income Co]]==<br />
<br />
BasicIncome.co : Economy - A peer-to-peer secure network<br />
→ http://indiegogo.com/projects/basicincome-co-a-peer-to-peer-safety-net-network–2<br />
→ http://mybitnation.tumblr.com/post/105873406725/bitnation-announces-basic-income-application<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[OkTurtles]]==<br />
<br />
Foundation supporting beneficial decentralization technologies<br />
→ http://okturtles.com<br />
<br />
==[[Open Bazaar]]== <br />
<br />
Trade online directly to other users, using Bitcoin<br />
→ http://openbazaar.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Alexandria Decentralized Library]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://blocktech.com<br />
<br />
→ https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/alexandria-uses-block-chain-preserve-worlds-knowledge/<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Virtual Notary]]== <br />
<br />
Attestation service<br />
→ http://virtual-notary.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blocknet]]== <br />
<br />
A blockchain agnostic decentralized platform as a service<br />
<br />
→ http://blocknet.co<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockcypher]]== <br />
<br />
Blockchain services<br />
<br />
→ http://blockcypher.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[First Blockchain Incorporated]]==<br />
<br />
(NOT) The World’s First Stateless Company Incorporated In And By The Bitcoin Blockchain<br />
→ http://firstblockchain.com<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Me]]== <br />
<br />
A tool for creating verifiable IDs on the blockchain <br />
<br />
→ http://blockchainme.com<br />
<br />
→ Code source: https://github.com/kiaraRobles/blockchainMe<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Finyear]]==<br />
<br />
Laboratory of ideas and innovations at Finyear (http://www.finyear.com/labs)<br />
→ http://bl0ckcha1n.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Factom]]==<br />
<br />
A scalable data layer for the blockchain<br />
→ http://factom.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Summit]]==<br />
<br />
Summit blockchain<br />
→ http://blockchainsummit.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Eris Industries]]== <br />
<br />
The Distributed Application Platform<br />
→ http://erisindustries.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitmarkets]]==<br />
<br />
Voluntary : Bitmarkets<br />
→ https://github.com/voluntarynet/Bitmarkets<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockstream]]==<br />
<br />
Extending Bitcoin’s blockchain with Sidechains :<br />
→ http://blockstream.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Elements Project]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://elementsproject.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain University]]== <br />
<br />
- Courses :<br />
→ http://blockchainu.co<br />
<br />
<br />
==Blockchain London==<br />
<br />
Event - Conferences at London :<br />
→ http://blockchainlondon.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Institute for Blockchain Studies]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://blockchainstudies.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Info]]==<br />
<br />
Blockchain-Info : Explorator of Bitcoin blocks<br />
→ http://blockchain.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitcoin City]]==<br />
<br />
" Each city is a bitcoin transaction, on the road to the blockchain "<br />
<br />
→http://www.bitcoincity.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Crypto Graffiti]]==<br />
<br />
Store texts on the blockchain<br />
<br />
→ http://cryptograffiti.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Democracy OS]]== <br />
<br />
- "It’s time to design a system where we can delegate power to peers: people we can trust and hold accountable."<br />
<br />
- "We’re beginning to see trust built on distributed networks. Will the blockchain change the way we build power ?"<br />
<br />
- “We can secure power transactions (votes) making them valid in a network of peers where nobody is in charge.”<br />
<br />
- "When you want to do online voting, the key element is identity validation."<br />
<br />
- "We can build a democratic system where you don’t have to wait 3 years to change the people you delegated power to."<br />
<br />
"Power on the blockchain - DemocracyOS" :<br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOQS5wd6hU<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Streamium IO]]== <br />
<br />
- Manuel Aráoz : “Going live at DecentralizeAll currently”<br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tFSJTlKec<br />
<br />
=Blockchain Developer Assistance=<br />
<br />
<br />
"We help get developers on the blockchains" :<br />
<br />
BlockStrap :<br />
<br />
→ http://blockstrap.com<br />
<br />
NeuroWare :<br />
<br />
→http://neuroware.io<br />
<br />
BlockchainSpace<br />
<br />
→http://www.blockchain.space<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* '''Read this first''': <br />
<br />
#[http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-blockchain-project/ Avoiding the pointless blockchain project]<br />
#[https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet]<br />
<br />
Article: "Blockchain and value systems in the sharing economy: The illustrative case of Backfeed". → http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Backfeed,_the_Blockchain,_and_Value_Systems_in_the_Sharing_Economy<br />
<br />
All about crypto-currencies → http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency/coins<br />
<br />
Documentary : Ulterior States [ IamSatoshi Documentary ]→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQGQXy0RIIo<br />
<br />
DecentralizeFM : → https://decentralize.fm<br />
<br />
Book - Eyrolles - "Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy" → http://amazon.fr/Blockchain-Blueprint-Economy-Melanie-Swan-ebook/dp/B00SNS9JLW<br />
<br />
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21650295-or-it-next-big-thing<br />
<br />
The draw and blockchain ( in french ) → http://dem0crat1e.fr/posts/tirage-au-sort-bitcoin<br />
<br />
Related entries:<br />
<br />
#[[Blockchain Companies]]<br />
#[[Internet of Chains]]<br />
#[[Open Source Sidechains]]: [[Sidechain Elements]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Money]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Infrastructure]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cryptoledger Applications]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Blockchain&diff=107696Blockchain2017-06-13T13:58:29Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: /* The blockchain as a potential opportunity for a true sharing economy */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= "a distributed cryptographic ledger shared amongst all nodes participating in the network, over which every successfully performed transaction is recorded".''' [http://www.wired.com/2014/03/decentralized-applications-built-bitcoin-great-except-whos-responsible-outcomes/]<br />
<br />
'''See, from [http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Rachel_O%E2%80%99Dwyer Rachel O'Dwyer]: [[How the Blockchain Might Support a Commons]]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
=Contextual Citation=<br />
<br />
"Why trust Bitcoin, or more specifically, why trust the technology that makes Bitcoin possible? In short, because it assumes everybody’s a crook, yet it still gets them to follow the rules."<br />
<br />
- Morgen E. Peck [http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''An important warning on the blockchain as a centralized infrastructure:'''<br />
<br />
"The need to replicate the whole chain of blocks on our computer is an insurmountable barrier to entry if you’re searching for an alternative to IBM, Amazon or Google. The Twister chain is still small, but think about how, to date, the initial synchronization for Bitcoin requires storage space of more than 65GB for the complete download of the blockchain. For any of us, having to reserve 65GB on our personal computers has a large cost. But for IBM, or Google, or any of the Chinese Bitcoin miners, it’s nothing. And let’s not even talk about the astronomical differences between the processing capabilities of the great monsters of scale compared to ours. Because blockchain is consensual, after a certain point of centralization, the rules of the system depend on very few users. For example, the bitcoin “update” would be unviable if the two more Chinese mining organizations had refused to implement it. A network of nodes designed this way has a power structure with clear centralizers—the owners of infrastructure—that in the end presents a threat to the distributed future of the Internet. In summary, when we use Blockchain technologies, the barrier to entry has a relatively small knowledge component—compiling and installing software—but an insurmountable infrastructure barrier beyond certain scales."<br />
<br />
- Manuel Ortega [https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet]<br />
<br />
=Definition=<br />
<br />
'''1. Via Aeze Soo:'''<br />
<br />
"A block chain is a distributed data store that maintains a continuously growing list of data records that are hardened against tampering and revision, even by operators of the data store's nodes. The most widely known application of a block chain is the public ledger of transactions for cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin. This record is enforced cryptographically and hosted on machines running the software."<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Via the Wikipedia:'''<br />
<br />
"A block chain, or blockchain, is a distributed database that maintains a continuously-growing list of data records hardened against tampering and revision. It consists of data structure blocks—which hold exclusively data in initial blockchain implementations, and both data and programs in some (for example, Ethereum) of the more recent implementations—with each block holding batches of individual transactions and the results of any blockchain executables. Each block contains a timestamp and information linking it to a previous block.<br />
<br />
The block chain is seen as the main technical innovation of bitcoin, where it serves as the public ledger of all bitcoin transactions. Bitcoin is peer-to-peer, every user is allowed to connect to the network, send new transactions to it, verify transactions, and create new blocks, which is why it is called permissionless. This original design has been the inspiration for other cryptocurrencies and distributed databases."<br />
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chain_(database))<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. by Jacob Aron:'''<br />
<br />
"The true innovation of Bitcoin's mysterious designer, Satoshi Nakamoto, is its underlying technology, the "block chain". That fundamental concept is being used to transform Bitcoin – and could even replace it altogether.<br />
<br />
So what is the block chain? It is a ledger of transactions that keeps Bitcoin secure and allows all users to agree on exactly who owns how many bitcoins. Each new block requires a record of recent transactions along with a string of letters and numbers, known as a hash, which is based on the previous block and produced using a cryptographic algorithm.<br />
<br />
Miners, people who run the peer-to-peer Bitcoin software, randomly generate hashes, competing to produce one with a value below a certain target difficulty and thus complete a new block and receive a reward, currently 25 bitcoins. This difficulty means faking a transaction is impossible unless you have more computing power than everyone else on the Bitcoin network combined. Confused? Don't worry, ordinary Bitcoin users needn't know the details of how the block chain works, just as people with a credit card don't bother learning banking network jargon. But those who do understand the power of the block chain are realising how Nakamoto's technology for mass agreement can be adapted. "You can replace that agreement with all sorts of different things and now you have a really powerful building block for any kind of distributed system," says Jeremy Clark of Concordia University in Montreal, Canada."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Primavera De Filippi''' <br />
<br />
"For many, bitcoin — the distributed, worldwide, decentralized crypto-currency — is all about money … or, as recent events have shown, about who invented it. Yet the actual innovation brought about by bitcoin is not the currency itself but the platform, which is commonly referred to as the “blockchain” — a distributed cryptographic ledger shared amongst all nodes participating in the network, over which every successfully performed transaction is recorded.<br />
<br />
And the blockchain is not limited to monetary applications. Borrowing from the same ideas (though not using the actual peer-to-peer network bitcoin runs on), a variety of new applications have adapted the bitcoin protocol to fulfill different purposes: Namecoin for distributed domain name management; Bitmessage and Twister for asynchronous communication; and, more recently, Ethereum (released only a month ago). Like many other peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, these platforms all rely on decentralized architectures to build and maintain network applications that are operated by the community for the community. (I’ve written before here in WIRED Opinion about one example, mesh networks, which can provide an internet-native model for building community and governance).<br />
<br />
Thus, while they enable a whole new set of possibilities, blockchain-based applications also present legal, technical, and social challenges similar to those raised by other P2P applications that came before them, such as BitTorrent, Tor, or Freenet."<br />
<br />
<br />
==The Blockchain as a universal ledger==<br />
<br />
Dominic Frisby:<br />
<br />
"Today there is a new system of digital record-keeping. Its impact could be equally large. It is called the blockchain.<br />
<br />
Imagine an enormous digital record. Anyone with internet access can look at the information within: it is open for all to see. Nobody is in charge of this record. It is not maintained by a person, a company or a government department, but by 8,000-9,000 computers at different locations around the world in a distributed network. Participation is quite voluntary. The computers’ owners choose to add their machines to the network because, in exchange for their computer’s services, they sometimes receive payment. You can add your computer to the network, if you so wish.<br />
<br />
All the information in the record is permanent – it cannot be changed – and each of the computers keeps a copy of the record to ensure this. If you wanted to hack the system, you would have to hack every computer on the network – and this has so far proved impossible, despite many trying, including the US National Security Agency’s finest. The collective power of all these computers is greater than the world’s top 500 supercomputers combined.<br />
<br />
New information is added to the record every few minutes, but it can be added only when all the computers signal their approval, which they do as soon as they have satisfactory proof that the information to be added is correct. Everybody knows how the system works, but nobody can change how it works. It is fully automated. Human decision-making or behaviour doesn’t enter into it.<br />
<br />
If a company or a government department were in charge of the record, it would be vulnerable – if the company went bust or the government department shut down, for example. But with a distributed record there is no single point of vulnerability. It is decentralised. At times, some computers might go awry, but that doesn’t matter. The copies on all the other computers and their unanimous approval for new information to be added will mean the record itself is safe.<br />
<br />
This is possibly the most significant and detailed record in all history, an open-source structure of permanent memory, which grows organically. It is known as the blockchain. It is the breakthrough tech behind the digital cash system, Bitcoin, but its impact will soon be far wider than just alternative money."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/how-blockchain-will-revolutionise-far-more-than-money)<br />
<br />
=How it works=<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"the blockchain is nothing more than a long string of transactions, each of which refers to an earlier record in the chain. But Bitcoin users do not directly make the updates to the blockchain. In order to transfer coins to someone else, you have to create a request and broadcast it over the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network. After that, it’s in the hands of the miners. They scoop up the requests and do a few checks to make sure that the signature is correct and that there are enough bitcoins to make the transaction; then they bundle the new records into a block and add it to the end of the blockchain.<br />
<br />
All miners work independently on their own version of the blockchain. When they finish a new block, they broadcast it to the rest of their peers, who check it, accept it, add it to the end of the chain, and pick up their work from this new starting point.<br />
<br />
The arrangement will work only if the miners agree on what the most recent version of the blockchain should look like. In other words, they all have to agree on a consensus version of it. But given the fact that they’re all strangers, they really have no reason to trust one another’s work. What’s to stop a miner from fiddling with earlier entries on the blockchain and undoing payments?<br />
<br />
The strategy that Satoshi Nakamoto (Bitcoin’s pseudonymous architect) devised for establishing consensus in his system is widely considered to be a breakthrough in distributed computing.<br />
<br />
“There have been consensus algorithms running since the eighties, where you come to consensus, providing a log of events on multiple machines, with all the machines participating in that network,” says Paul Snow, the founder of Factom, a service that condenses data and transfers it onto the Bitcoin blockchain. However, he says, these systems were successful only when the participants shared a common allegiance.<br />
<br />
Bitcoin replaces that allegiance with mathematical confidence. Given the cryptographic proof required to commit a transaction, we can already be confident that only people who own bitcoins can spend them. But a bitcoin miner can also be confident that the other miners are not changing entries on the blockchain, because in Bitcoin there is no going backward.<br />
<br />
That’s because the process of adding a new block to the blockchain is very difficult. Anyone who participates is required to devote large quantities of computing power—and therefore, electricity—toward running the new data through a set of calculations called hash functions. Only once this work is completed can the block be appended to the chain in a way that satisfies other miners on the network.<br />
<br />
“You’re building a giant wall,” explains Peter Kirby, the president of Factom. “And every time you want to agree to something, you put a thousand bricks on top of it. And you agree to something else and put another thousand bricks on top of it. And that makes it very, very, very difficult for someone to change a brick way down at the bottom of the wall.”<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
A Nakamoto blockchain, then, becomes more secure as more people participate in the network. But why would they? In the case of Bitcoin, it’s because they are paid to do it. Every time a block gets solved, a virgin transaction is created with a handful of newly minted bitcoins signed over to the first miner who completed the work.<br />
<br />
In old security models, you tried to lock out all of the greedy, dishonest people. Bitcoin, on the other hand, welcomes everyone, fully expecting them to act in their own self-interest, and then it uses their greed to secure the network.<br />
<br />
“This is, I think, the main contribution,” says Ittay Eyal, a computer scientist at Cornell who studies Bitcoin along with other decentralized networks. “Bitcoin causes an attacker to be better off by playing along than by attacking it. The incentive system leads a lot of people to contribute resources toward the welfare of the system.”"<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Typology=<br />
<br />
<br />
==The four segments==<br />
<br />
Graphic at https://d3ansictanv2wj.cloudfront.net/blockchain_app-1c3df0ef526f707f181e2038a5f8fbab.jpg<br />
<br />
<br />
William Mougayar:<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Currency Segment===<br />
<br />
"The currency-related segment targets money transfers, payments, tips, or funding applications. The end-user typically goes to an exchange or uses their own wallet to conduct such transactions, benefiting from transaction cost reductions, speeds in settlements, and freedom from central intermediaries. Today’s exchanges are centralized, but it’s likely we’ll see another generation of decentralized trusted exchanges. And although the current bitcoin wallets today are “dumb” wallets, they could become smarter, via an ability to launch smart contracts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Pegged Services Segment===<br />
<br />
Pegged services to the blockchain represent an interesting segment because these apps utilize the blockchain’s atomic unit, which is a “value store” capability, but they also build on top of that with their unique off-chain services. For example, decentralized identity or decentralized ownership is a horizontal blockchain service, but it can be applied to any other vertical segments, such as for videos, music, or photography, just to name a few.<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Smart Contract segment===<br />
<br />
Smart contracts are small programs or scripts that run on a blockchain and govern legal or contractual terms on their own. They represent a simple form of decentralization. They will become available in a variety of application areas, such as for wagers, family trusts, escrow, time stamping, proofs of work delivery, etc. In essence, they are about moving certain assets or value from one owner to another, based on some condition or event, between people or things. Smart contracts represent an “intermediate state” between parties, and we will trust these smart programs to verify and take action based on the logic behind these state changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
===The DAO segment===<br />
<br />
Legal issues aside, a Distributed Autonomous Organization is “kind of” incorporated on the blockchain because its governance is very dependent on the end-users who are part-owners, part-users, and part-nodes on that decentralized network. Key aspects of a DAO are that each user is also a “worker,” and by virtue of their “work,” they contribute to the value appreciation of the DAO via their collective participation or activity levels. Arguably, bitcoin itself is the “uber DAO.”<br />
(https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/understanding-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Technology=<br />
<br />
==The [[Blockchain Application Stack]]==<br />
<br />
Joel Monegro:<br />
<br />
"This is what I think the architecture of Internet applications is going to look like in 10 years. This is just a simple illustration and it leaves a lot of important insights and issues out. I’ll try my best to explain the thinking behind it below. To keep things short, we’ll run through every part of the stack from the bottom up, and do a deep dive on each in future posts.<br />
<br />
The basic idea is that everything inside the gray rectangles is decentralized and open source. For now I’m calling these the shared data and protocol layers. Nobody controls these parts of the system, and they’re accessible by any person or company. If we use bitcoin as an example, the blockchain is the shared data layer and the bitcoin protocol is a decentralized protocol that’s part of the shared protocol Layer.<br />
<br />
You’ll notice that each layer gets thinner the higher up you go. You’ll also notice that the shared data and protocol layers cover about 80% of the entire stack. Internet applications today are built on top of open, decentralized technologies like TCP/IP and HTTP, but if you were to graph the current Internet application stack like above, those open, decentralized protocols would probably only make up about 15% with everything on top being private and centralized.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Miners and the blockchain'''<br />
<br />
If you know a little about how bitcoin works, you know what miners are. In a nutshell, miners are the nodes in a network of computers who, together, verify all bitcoin transactions. In exchange, the algorithm rewards them with bitcoin. Because bitcoin has real-world value, the operators of these machines are incentivized to keep them running. If you’d like to learn more about mining, this is a great explanation of how they work.<br />
<br />
The blockchain is the public ledger that holds a permanent record of all bitcoin transactions, and is maintained by the miners. It’s not controlled by a single entity and it’s accessible by everyone. You can read more about the blockchain here.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Overlay networks'''<br />
<br />
This is where things start to get interesting. Developers are starting to build networks that work in parallel to the bitcoin blockchain to perform tasks that the bitcoin network can’t, but that make use of the bitcoin blockchain to, for instance, timestamp or validate their work.<br />
<br />
One example is Counterparty. Another might be sidechains. Whatever form these overlay networks take, the one thing they have in common is their connection to the bitcoin blockchain, and how they benefit from its network effects to achieve liquidity without having to bootstrap their own alternative cryptocurrency and/or blockchain like alternative solutions such as Ethereum require.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Decentralized protocols'''<br />
<br />
Thanks to the blockchain, for the first time we can develop open source, decentralized protocols with built-in data (thanks to overlay networks and the blockchain), validation, and transactions that are not controlled by a single entity. This is where the traditional architecture of software businesses begins to break down. The best example of a decentralized protocol on top of a shared data layer is bitcoin, and we’re already well aware of how it’s affecting money and finance.<br />
<br />
Companies like eBay, Facebook and Uber are very valuable because they benefit tremendously from the network effects that come from keeping all user information centralized in private silos and taking a cut of all the transactions.<br />
<br />
Decentralized protocols on top of the blockchain have the potential to undo every single part of the stacks that make these services valuable to consumers and investors. They can do this by, for example, creating common, decentralized data sets to which any one can plug into, and enabling peer-to-peer transactions powered by bitcoin.<br />
<br />
In fact, a number of promising teams have already begun working on the protocols that will disrupt the business models of the companies above. One example is Lazooz, a protocol for real-time ride sharing and another is OpenBazaar, a protocol for free, decentralized peer-to-peer marketplaces.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''4. Open source and commercial APIs'''<br />
<br />
Protocols are hard for the average developer to build on top of, so there’s an opportunity in making it easy to connect to them. Whether it’s a good business in the long term is up for debate, but I think it’s a very important part of the stack.<br />
<br />
Making it quick and easy for developers of any skill set to quickly build an application and experiment on top of these decentralized protocols is paramount to their success.<br />
<br />
These will be either commercial services or open source projects. Good examples of this trend are Chain's APIs and Coinbase’s Toshi for bitcoin. They both serve the same purpose, but Chain is a hosted, commercial service, and Toshi is open source.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''5. Applications'''<br />
<br />
This is the consumer-facing part of the stack. Applications built atop this architecture will, in most cases, work very similarly to the ones we have today – just like Coinbase works similarly to PayPal.<br />
<br />
The big difference to consumers, however, is that because they are built on decentralized protocols, they will be able to talk to each other, just like different email applications and bitcoin wallets can interoperate.<br />
<br />
One thing I like about this stack is that it’s growing from the bottom up. First we had miners, the blockchain, and bitcoin, and now we’re building everything else on top. As far as I know, the most significant revolutions in technology have been built this way."<br />
(http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-application-stack/)<br />
<br />
=Business Models=<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"There are currently a number of incentive structures surrounding blockchain technology and open source software:<br />
<br />
(1) Contribute open source code and make money via services (i.e. Peter Todd’s consulting)<br />
<br />
(2) Create a new close source software project based on the Bitcoin blockchain with a privately held speculative unit (i.e. legal equity in Coinbase)<br />
<br />
(3) Create an new technology set plugged into the Bitcoin blockchain with a privately held speculative unit (i.e. legal equity in Blockstream/Sidechains)<br />
<br />
(4) Create an entirely new unit with inherent utility on a new blockchain (BTC in Bitcoin, XRP in Ripple, ETH in Ethereum)<br />
<br />
(5) Create an entirely new unit with inherent utility on the Bitcoin blockchain (MSC in Mastercoin, XCP in Counterparty)"<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Comparing the Incentive Models==<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"For a long time, the primary model of open source software development has been in category one. The software itself is free. Hosting and other services around it are not. People can also build high value applications on top of the open source code, but these are usually closed source. This is the model that Ruby on Rails and other web frameworks have used fairly successfully as Joel Dietz has previously written.<br />
<br />
The second model is the typical business model. In this, the structure of legal equity binds both investors and developers to a future value that may not be realized for several years. This typically creates a group of a few people who are highly committed to a particular outcome, but may naturally come into odds. Historically there is also no way to incentivize any of the parties beyond employees and investors that may also have a vested interest in the platform (i.e. power users).<br />
<br />
The third model, by which I primarily refer to Sidechains, is still inchoate. In the Sidechains whitepaper it proposes demurrage as a method for incentivizing sidechain development. This seems to promote exactly the opposite set of incentives than what you would want. Effectively this means that assets on the main chain hold their value, while assets on a sidechain gradually decrease in value, while the difference is basically given away to miners. Also, the Sidechains project has no publicly stated business model, which is also a fairly significant concern. Any potential revenue on a service-based business will never be enough for the venture capitalists to get their necessary return, which basically forces them to either create a closed source product or otherwise leverage their position to “gate keep” and charge some sort of toll on network usage.<br />
<br />
The fourth model, though strongly disliked by many, is ironically closest to Bitcoin itself. It states fundamentally that there can be a speculative unit with attached technological innovation that is acquired, and by which the speculators will benefit as both utility and network grows. The somewhat unique feature of Ethereum and a few other related projects (e.g. DarkCoin) is that unlike earlier “altcoins,” these new projects do have significant additional utility that is not found on the Bitcoin Blockchain.<br />
<br />
Since all such projects extend the core Bitcoin technology with this additional utility, this effectively makes them competitors to the Bitcoin blockchain. Although early adopters and venture capitalist backers of Bitcoin had the hope that the network effects of Bitcoin would make it something like the TCP/IP protocal of internet money, it is entirely possible that some other competitor will surpass it. I suspect that whether or not this is the case will depend highly on whether or not anyone can make comparable utility and innovation compatible with Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
This leads to a fifth model that was perhaps under-appreciated until Ethereum came along. This is the possibility that a metacoin, so called because it works via inserting metadata into Bitcoin transactions, could provide much of the increased utility provided via a smart contracting layer without creating its own blockchain.<br />
<br />
Both four and five have very similar economic incentive structures. First of all, they are open to all participants and immediately liquid. Because of this it means that they naturally engage much more quickly a wider audience who are also incentivized to spread the word about that network. But, because of the immediate liquidity, there is no necessary long-term engagement. This affects both the development side and investing, and also means that there a fairly strong incentive to drive up the short time value for a project and exit at the peak. This likely results in a greater amount of capital, greater number of participants, with less depth. While potentially appropriate to the Facebook age, it is typically the case that startups require a few number of very intensely committed people due to the often intensely competitive nature of development, the occasional crisises that test resolve of key participants, and the general need for deferred compensation.<br />
<br />
An additional problem is that none of these projects have evolved business models independent of the appreciation of their new asset class. All effectively depend on driving up the price by increasing the underlying utility of the unit and size of their related network, something that, while feasible, remains a questionable choice for anything that expects to be around in 5–10 years. Also, it is quite possible that price appreciation in such an asset is limited relative to the benefits traditionally associated with equity (i.e. 1000x returns on a successful software exit from an early investment). Since venture capital is generally structured as taking high rewards for high risk, projects with capped rewards impossible for them to undertake from an investment perspective.<br />
<br />
Another very significant drawback is that even where economic incentives maybe aligned, there are basically no accountability structures due to the basically non-existant legal framework for entities receiving this sort of funding. In this case, Counterparty decided not to take funds whatsoever, whereas Ethereum structured their legal documentation to explicitly state that they were promising nothing in return whatsoever.<br />
<br />
As Vitalik recently noted, Ethereum also has a problem of having a dual purpose “product” offering and an “investment” offering, something Swarm founder Joel Dietz called misaligned incentives in an early piece on economics of Ethereum. It is problems like these that have probably caused two out of three Counterparty founders to begin working for a private corporation (Overstock), presumably with some additional equity-based incentivization in addition to the base counterparty unit. In this case, the Counterparty ecosystem now has participants both in categories (4) and (2), with potential conflicts of interest between the participants in area (2), but also the possibility for larger ecosystem growth presuming that those conflicts can adequately be mediated.<br />
<br />
So far we have only discussed the advantages and disadvantages of existing economic incentive structures. What about the future? What other possibilities can we expect to emerge?<br />
<br />
The first “composite” offering has been proposed by Reddit. This is to take an existing equity offering and distribute the benefits downwards to community users via cryptocurrency. This is an incredible opportunity, because it illustrates one of the key benefits of this ‘open’ incentivization model, it actually directly compensates the community members who contribute to network growth.<br />
<br />
The other model is Swarm itself, which, due to legal complexities, was deliberately vague about specific utility at the outset of its fundraising period, and instead described more generally the various categories of benefits that could be applied via these technologies (perk distribution, membership, privileged product access, financial rewards).<br />
<br />
This was sometimes described as sort of crypto social-contract with the intention of providing as much value as possible to its users as the legal infrastructure was developed in order to do so. Much of this increased value depended on ability to structure agreements via smart contracts, which was a technology that did not even exist in any usable form until one week ago."<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Potential Applications=<br />
<br />
by Dominic Frisby:<br />
<br />
"Coders are now developing ways to use blockchain tech for purposes beyond an alternative money system. From 2017, you will start to see some of the early applications creeping into your electronic lives.<br />
<br />
One application is in decentralised messaging. Just as you can send cash to somebody else with no intermediary using Bitcoin, so can you send messages – without Gmail, iMessage, WhatsApp, or whoever the provider is, having access to what’s being said. The same goes for social media. What you say will be between you and your friends or followers. Twitter or Facebook will have no access to it. The implications for privacy are enormous, raising a range of issues in the ongoing government surveillance discussion.<br />
<br />
We’ll see decentralised storage and cloud computing as well, considerably reducing the risk of storing data with a single provider. A company called Trustonic is working on a new blockchain-based mobile phone operating system to compete with Android and Mac OS.<br />
<br />
Just as the blockchain records where a bitcoin is at any given moment, and thus who owns it, so can blockchain be used to record the ownership of any asset and then to trade ownership of that asset. This has huge implications for the way stocks, bonds and futures, indeed all financial assets, are registered and traded. Registrars, stock markets, investment banks – disruption lies ahead for all of them. Their monopolies are all under threat from blockchain technology.<br />
<br />
Land and property ownership can also be recorded and traded on a blockchain. Honduras, where ownership disputes over beachfront property are commonplace, is already developing ways to record its land registries on a blockchain. In the UK, as much as 50 per cent of land is still unregistered, according to the investigative reporter Kevin Cahill’s book Who Owns Britain? (2001). The ownership of vehicles, tickets, diamonds, gold – just about anything – can be recorded and traded using blockchain technology – even the contents of your music and film libraries (though copyright law may inhibit that). Blockchain tokens will be as good as any deed of ownership – and will be significantly cheaper to provide.<br />
<br />
The Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto Polar has won many prizes for his work on ownership. His central thesis is that lack of clear property title is what has held back so many in the Third World for so long. Who owns what needs to be clear, recognised and protected – otherwise there will be no investment and development will be limited. But if ownership is clear, people can trade, exchange and prosper. The blockchain will, its keenest advocates hope, go some way to addressing that.<br />
<br />
Smart contracts could disrupt the legal profession and make it affordable to all, just as the internet has done with music and publishing<br />
<br />
Once ownership is clear, then contract rights and property rights follow. This brings us to the next wave of development in blockchain tech: automated contracts, or to use the jargon, ‘smart contracts’, a term coined by the US programmer Nick Szabo. We are moving beyond ownership into contracts that simultaneously represent ownership of a property and the conditions that come with that ownership. It is all very well knowing that a bond, say, is owned by a certain person, but that bond may come with certain conditions – it might generate interest, it might need to be repaid by a certain time, it might incur penalties, if certain criteria are not met. These conditions could be encoded in a blockchain and all the corresponding actions automated.<br />
<br />
Whether it is the initial agreement, the arbitration of a dispute or its execution, every stage of a contract has, historically, been evaluated and acted on by people. A smart contract automates the rules, checks the conditions and then acts on them, minimising human involvement – and thus cost. Even complicated business arrangements can be coded and packaged as a smart contract for a fraction of the cost of drafting, disputing or executing a traditional contract.<br />
<br />
One of the criticisms of the current legal system is that only the very rich or those on legal aid can afford it: everyone else is excluded. Smart contracts have the potential to disrupt the legal profession and make it affordable to all, just as the internet has done with both music and publishing.<br />
<br />
This all has enormous implications for the way we do business. It is possible that blockchain tech will do the work of bankers, lawyers, administrators and registrars to a much higher standard for a fraction of the price.<br />
<br />
As well as ownership, blockchain tech can prove authenticity. From notarisation – the authentication of documents – to certification, the applications are multifold. It is of particular use to manufacturers, particularly of designer goods and top-end electrical goods, where the value is the brand. We will know that this is a genuine Louis Vuitton bag, because it was recorded on the blockchain at the time of its manufacture.<br />
<br />
Blockchain tech will also have a role to play in the authentication of you. At the moment, we use a system of usernames and passwords to prove identity online. It is clunky and vulnerable to fraud. We won’t be using that for much longer. One company is even looking at a blockchain tech system to replace current car- and home-locking systems. Once inside your home, blockchain tech will find use in the internet of things, linking your home network to the cloud and the electrical devices around your home.<br />
<br />
From identity, it is a small step to reputation. Think of the importance of a TripAdvisor or eBay rating, or a positive Amazon review. Online reputation has become essential to a seller’s business model and has brought about a wholesale improvement in standards. Thanks to TripAdvisor, what was an ordinary hotel will now treat you like a king or queen in order to ensure you give it five stars. The service you get from an Uber driver is likely to be much better than that of an ordinary cabbie, because he or she wants a good rating.<br />
<br />
There will be no suspect recounts in Florida! The blockchain will also usher in the possibility of more direct democracy<br />
<br />
The feedback system has been fundamental to the success of the online black market, too. Bad sellers get bad ratings. Good sellers get good ones. Buyers go to the sellers with good ratings. The black market is no longer the rip-off shop without recourse it once was. The feedback system has made the role of trading standards authorities, consumer protection groups and other business regulators redundant. They look clunky, slow and out of date.<br />
<br />
Once your online reputation can be stored on the blockchain (ie not held by one company such as TripAdvisor, but decentralised) everyone will want a good one. The need to preserve and protect reputation will mean, simply, that people behave better. Sony is looking at ways to harness this whereby your education reputation is put on the blockchain – the grades you got at school, your university degree, your work experience, your qualifications, your resumé, the endorsements you receive from people you’ve done business with. LinkedIn is probably doing something similar. There is an obvious use for this in medical records too, but also in criminal records – not just for individuals, but for companies. If, say, a mining company has a bad reputation for polluting the environment, it might be less likely to win a commission for a project, or to get permission to build it.<br />
<br />
We are also seeing the development of new voting apps. The implications of this are enormous. Elections and referenda are expensive undertakings – the campaigning, the staff, the counting of the ballot papers. But you will soon be able to vote from your mobile phone in a way that is 10 times more secure than the current US or UK systems, at a fraction of the cost and fraud-free. What’s more, you will be able to audit your vote to make sure it is counted, while preserving your anonymity. Not even a corrupt government will be able to manipulate such a system, once it is in place. There will be no suspect recounts in Florida! The blockchain will also usher in the possibility of more direct democracy: once the cost and possibility of fraud are eliminated, there are fewer excuses for not going back to the electorate on key issues."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/how-blockchain-will-revolutionise-far-more-than-money)<br />
<br />
==Identity==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"So what can you do with a Nakamoto blockchain? The most simple applications, the ones we are likely to see in the near future, will make use of them as basic storage systems that take advantage of the unique properties of the network.<br />
<br />
People who are interested in transparency and access are looking at the blockchain as a possible place to organize government records and to include the public in the legislative process, by giving people a forum for publishing, debating, and voting on new proposals.<br />
<br />
Because the blockchain gives each entry a rough time stamp, it can also be used as a decentralized notary. Imagine, for example, taking a picture of a dent in your rental car and loading it into a Bitcoin transaction. By looking at what block the transaction went into, you could later prove that the dent existed before you left the parking lot.<br />
<br />
Because Bitcoin transactions are secured by strong cryptography, the blockchain can also replace our standard user name–and–password strategy for identity verification. In such a system, a Bitcoin address could be tagged with a user name, while the private key would stand in as a password. Anyone could then ask you to prove your identity by using your private key to solve the same cryptographic puzzle that you would normally solve when making a Bitcoin transaction."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Censorship==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Nakamoto blockchains also solve the problem of censorship. Once inserted into the chain, metadata cannot be removed. Developers have used this crucial feature to build a new censorship-resistant version of Twitter (called Twister), and a decentralized domain-name registry (Namecoin).<br />
<br />
“Everything that we own, everything that we do, is governed by these big piles of records,” says Factom’s Kirby. “A bank is just a big stack of records. An insurance company is just a big stack of records. An economy is basically just a big stack of records. And if you can take this concept of…a giant global accounting ledger and say, ‘Now we can organize all the records in the world this way,’ well, it turns out that’s really exciting.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Finance as a Commons]], using the Blockchain==<br />
<br />
Raymond Aitken:<br />
<br />
"What seems important is that it represents a distributed but powerful computing power, and incorruptible database, which can be used as a ledger-transactional system, as well as a notary system for publicly recording rights, including monetary/economic rights. In the event of a bail-in, the majority of the world's population and their enterprises, will have every incentive to transfer their accounts to such a system (which has a very different paradigm than Bitcoin).<br />
<br />
My questions are:<br />
<br />
(1) can the block-chain technology be architechtured into a decentralised operating system and commons block-chain platform, to provide banking as a public service, both at the local and international scale?<br />
<br />
(2) Can it be architectured as the framework of a new international monetary system, in accordance with the proposals of the French-Swiss economist, Michel Laloux (whose book I am translating into English), so that<br />
<br />
(3) money needed for regeneration of the economic commons (the 4 factors of production mentioned in my last email), as well as for solidarity (welfare) purposes - without dependency on the centralised State?"<br />
(email, August 2015)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Trust==<br />
<br />
Gideon Greenspan:<br />
<br />
"If multiple entities are writing to the database, there also needs to be some degree of mistrust between those entities. In other words, blockchains are a technology for databases with multiple non-trusting writers.<br />
<br />
You might think that mistrust only arises between separate organizations, such as the banks trading in a marketplace or the companies involved in a supply chain. But it can also exist within a single large organization, for example between departments or the operations in different countries.<br />
<br />
What do I specifically mean by mistrust? I mean that one user is not willing to let another modify database entries which it “owns”. Similarly, when it comes to reading the database’s contents, one user will not accept as gospel the “truth” as reported by another user, because each has different economic or political incentives.<br />
<br />
So the problem, as defined so far, is enabling a database with multiple non-trusting writers. And there’s already a well-known solution to this problem: the trusted intermediary. That is, someone who all the writers trust, even if they don’t fully trust each other. Indeed, the world is filled with databases of this nature, such as the ledger of accounts in a bank. Your bank controls the database and ensures that every transaction is valid and authorized by the customer whose funds it moves. No matter how politely you ask, your bank will never let you modify their database directly.<br />
<br />
Blockchains remove the need for trusted intermediaries by enabling databases with multiple non-trusting writers to be modified directly. No central gatekeeper is required to verify transactions and authenticate their source. Instead, the definition of a transaction is extended to include a proof of authorization and a proof of validity. Transactions can therefore be independently verified and processed by every node which maintains a copy of the database.<br />
<br />
But the question you need to ask is: Do you want or need this disintermediation? Given your use case, is there anything wrong with having a central party who maintains an authoritative database and acts as the transaction gatekeeper? Good reasons to prefer a blockchain-based database over a trusted intermediary might include lower costs, faster transactions, automatic reconciliation, new regulation or a simple inability to find a suitable intermediary.<br />
<br />
<br />
So blockchains make sense for databases that are shared by multiple writers who don’t entirely trust each other, and who modify that database directly. But that’s still not enough. Blockchains truly shine where there is some interaction between the transactions created by these writers.<br />
<br />
What do I mean by interaction? In the fullest sense, this means that transactions created by different writers often depend on one other. For example, let’s say Alice sends some funds to Bob and then Bob sends some on to Charlie. In this case, Bob’s transaction is dependent on Alice’s one, and there’s no way to verify Bob’s transaction without checking Alice’s first. Because of this dependency, the transactions naturally belong together in a single shared database.<br />
<br />
Taking this further, one nice feature of blockchains is that transactions can be created collaboratively by multiple writers, without either party exposing themselves to risk. This is what allows delivery versus payment settlement to be performed safely over a blockchain, without requiring a trusted intermediary.<br />
<br />
A weaker case can also be made for situations where transactions from different writers are cross-correlated with each other, even if they remain independent. One example might be a shared identity database in which multiple entities validate different aspects of consumers’ identities. Although each such certification stands alone, the blockchain provides a useful way to bring everything together in a unified way.<br />
<br />
If we have a database modified directly by multiple writers, and those writers don’t fully trust each other, then the database must contain embedded rules restricting the transactions performed.<br />
<br />
These rules are fundamentally different from the constraints that appear in traditional databases, because they relate to the legitimacy of transformations rather than the state of the database at a particular point in time. Every transaction is checked against these rules by every node in the network, and those that fail are rejected and not relayed on.<br />
<br />
Asset ledgers contain a simple example of this type of rule, to prevent transactions creating assets out of thin air. The rule states that the total quantity of each asset in the ledger must be the same before and after every transaction."<br />
(http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-blockchain-project/)<br />
<br />
=Examples=<br />
<br />
BY PRIMAVERA DE FILIPPI:<br />
<br />
"the blockchain is not limited to monetary applications. Borrowing from the same ideas (though not using the actual peer-to-peer network bitcoin runs on), a variety of new applications have adapted the bitcoin protocol to fulfill different purposes: Namecoin for distributed domain name management; Bitmessage and Twister for asynchronous communication; and, more recently, Ethereum (released only a month ago). Like many other peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, these platforms all rely on decentralized architectures to build and maintain network applications that are operated by the community for the community."<br />
(http://www.wired.com/2014/03/decentralized-applications-built-bitcoin-great-except-whos-responsible-outcomes/)<br />
<br />
==Ethereum==<br />
<br />
"One of those tapping into its power is Vitalik Buterin, a 19-year-old developer from Toronto, Canada. Last week he launched Ethereum, a new platform that will not just allow for multiple cryptocurrencies, as they are known, but also promises to host a range of decentralised applications on a single block chain. Making systems decentralised is appealing because the authorities will find them hard to shut down.<br />
<br />
Initially, Ethereum users will be able to exchange bitcoins for a new currency – ether. Then, ether will be mined just like Bitcoin. But acquiring another form of digital money is not the point. Ethereum is meant to work like an operating system for cryptocurrencies. Developers can create apps, such as social networks or file storage, that sit on Ethereum's network as part of an app store.<br />
<br />
Ethereum allows for the creation of complex, yet decentralised, economic tools like financial derivatives, in which two parties can bet on the rise and fall of an asset, or crop insurance that pays out to a farmer according to a weather data feed. Creating decentralised versions of Dropbox or eBay should be possible too, claims Buterin.<br />
<br />
Other developers are attempting to achieve the same results by overlaying new code on the existing Bitcoin block chain. One example is the concept of "coloured" coins: with bitcoins labelled to represent other assets such as gold, cars or even houses, you transfer ownership when you trade the labelled coin.<br />
<br />
Buterin says Ethereum is much more flexible. "Bitcoin is great as a form of digital money, but its scripting language is too weak for any kind of serious advanced applications to be built on top."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Decentralized Autonomous Corporations==<br />
<br />
"One of the more advanced concepts being touted for a next-generation Bitcoin is the idea of decentralised autonomous corporations (DAC) – companies with no directors. These would follow a pre-programmed business model and are managed entirely by the block chain. In this case the block chain acts as a way for the DAC to store financial accounts and record shareholder votes.<br />
<br />
In a way, Bitcoin is actually the first DAC, says Daniel Larimer, a developer in Blacksburg, Virginia. People who own bitcoins are shareholders in the company, which offers financial services, earns revenue through transaction fees and pays a salary to its employees, the miners. But no one is in charge.<br />
<br />
Larimer has started his own DAC, called BitSharesX, which he says can perform the actions of a bank, lending other currencies to customers, who can provide BitShares as collateral. Other potential business models for a DAC include election services and lotteries, all run automatically. "The key to a DAC is that it should not depend on any one person."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Official Records==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Last year, Manuel Araoz, an Argentinean programmer who now works for BitPay, one of the original Bitcoin payment providers, created a service that enables users to condense any document and embed it into a transaction on the blockchain. A lot of people are now getting excited about the possibility of using this kind of application to store official records. The two examples that come up most often at conferences are property titles and documents proving “prior art” in intellectual property cases. In the case of titles, you’re basically layering a new form of property onto a Bitcoin transaction. Once a deed to a house is associated with a particular value on the Bitcoin blockchain, it can be transferred from party to party without the need for a paper trail.<br />
<br />
In the case of prior art, a document embedded in the blockchain would carry with it a rough time stamp (depending on the rate at which new blocks are being added to the chain), which inventors could later use in patent disputes to prove that they had the first claim to an idea. The same solution would extend to any situation where a human notary was necessary.<br />
<br />
According to Gavin Andresen, one of the developers who works on the core Bitcoin protocol, these applications could be especially useful for underdeveloped nations where governments lack a good way of tracking and transmitting official documents."<br />
<br />
“I think the places where it makes the most sense are the places where they don’t already have a functioning system, they don’t have some legacy way of accomplishing something that the blockchain can help them accomplish,” says Andresen. “The example of property records, deeds to houses. Here in the United States, in Europe, and in other developed world nations, we have this whole system that’s all about keeping track of who owns property and then taxing them. There are parts of the world where that just doesn’t exist yet.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Voting==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"There are several groups (Agora, BitCongress, Swarm) that are looking for ways to use the Bitcoin blockchain to enable online voting. Most of the schemes would involve sending a tiny fraction of a specially tagged bitcoin (or a similar token) to every voter. The voter could then sign it over to anyone on a list of candidates. The candidate with the most bitcoins at the end of the vote would win. One of the benefits of a system like this is that voters could divide their votes among candidates. The results are also completely transparent and visible to anyone who has downloaded a copy of the blockchain. On one hand, this is good because you can conduct a public audit of the vote. On the other hand, it opens the door for vote selling.<br />
<br />
The BitCongress application, which is still under development, goes further and seeks to carve out a space for all the steps in governance. The group wants to provide a forum for debate, a process for voting, and a place for representatives to publish legislative proposals, all on the Bitcoin blockchain."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Identity Verification==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Today, when we need to log on to websites or applications, we usually prove our identities by supplying passwords. As a result, we are accustomed to managing many different passwords on many different websites. We are also trusting these Web services to keep our passwords, and therefore our identities, safe.<br />
<br />
Onename uses the blockchain to link your name to a Bitcoin address, which you can then prove you control by signing a digital message with your private key (similar to what you do when you spend bitcoins). The developers describe the service as a universal passport for the Internet. They imagine that in the future, instead of signing in to applications with a Facebook account, we will refer to a Onename identity stored on the blockchain.<br />
<br />
For example, “If you want to release your medical records to an application, it is important that you are in unique control of your medical records. You’re not going to trust Facebook,” says Ryan Shea, the cofounder of Onename. “This can even be extended to things like authorizing access to your home, opening your garage door, really any action that is tied to identity. So you could see this being used anywhere on the Web where identity is required.”<br />
<br />
In this scenario, you never have to reveal your private key to anyone, and you retain complete control over (and responsibility for) the integrity of your online identity."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Distributed Domain-Name Server==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"[[Namecoin]] is an altcoin that was established in 2011. The code is nearly identical to that of Bitcoin, but it uses its own Nakamoto blockchain. Rather than tracking financial transactions, it records domain names and their corresponding IP addresses to provide a more secure, censorship-resistant alternative to the way we usually access websites on the Internet.<br />
<br />
When you type a conventional URL (like Spectrum.ieee.org) into a browser, you rely on a centralized third party, called a domain-name server, to look up the URL in a directory and find the numerical IP address of the server you want to connect to. When the U.S. government wants to disable a website, one easy way is for it to demand that the domain-name server, or DNS, refuse to resolve the offending URL. In this case, even though the IP address you want is sitting there in a database on its server, the DNS sends you to a Digital Millennium Copyright Act website takedown notice instead of routing you to your destination. Because the databases are centralized, they are also good targets for hackers. If an attacker can manage to either change an IP address in the directory or send you a false one, he can divert your traffic toward a nefarious website.<br />
<br />
Namecoin was created to solve both of these problems. With a Namecoin client, you can look up any .bit URL and be sure that the corresponding IP address is the same as the one that originally registered it.<br />
<br />
“With Nakamoto blockchains, it’s very, very difficult to remove data from the blockchain once it’s already in there. And it’s not really feasible to insert fraudulent data that claims to be from an address that it really isn’t,” says Jeremy Rand, one of the Namecoin developers. “What this means is, if I register a name in the Namecoin blockchain, no one else can reverse that transaction and remove it from the blockchain, and no one else can hijack it.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
=History=<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"<br />
The Second Wave of Blockchain Innovation<br />
<br />
The last months have included intense discussion on the feasibility and desirability of various economic forms of Blockchain innovation, including the ominous title of an article in Techcrunch, “A Bitcoin Battle is Brewing.” Although they contain many of the same principles that made Bitcoin successful, other digital assets have often been criticized and dismissed as “speculative.” However, recent usages of cryptoledger systems (c.f. “appcoins,” cryptoequity, smart contracts) often include substantial technological innovation and can be used to solve long standing problems both in investment and corporate governance.<br />
<br />
History<br />
<br />
In the mid-90s Nick Szabo, the inventor of smart contracts, noted the many fascinating things that could be done with programmable money. Another one of his best ideas, “Bit gold,” was later implemented as Bitcoin, a distributed network with unique incentivization mechanism for growth. It included a rudimentary scripting language that allowed you to send a unit, a “coin,” to another participant in the network. This was enough for it to rise in value from mere pennies to a high of over $1,000.<br />
<br />
In 2013 J.R. Willet drafted “Second Bitcoin Whitepaper” and proposed that the Bitcoin blockchain be extended with more advanced smart contract capability, encoded via metadata. His proposed way to finance the development of this new functionality was to create a new type of token that gave access to these advanced features. This was called the “Master” coin.<br />
<br />
J.R. sold $600,000 worth of Mastercoins for Bitcoins in the first ever “crowdsale” in the summer of 2013. By the end of that calendar year, they had appreciated 74x in value. Investors rejoiced. But not all was well in the world of Mastercoin. Instead of full-time developers crunching away in hope of some future event, founders weren’t working full time and most people were employed via “bounties.” All of the best developers interested in the idea were quietly drifting away from the project. These notably included Vitalik Buterin and Adam Krellenstein, both of whom would attempt to solve the same problem in their own way.<br />
<br />
In early 2014, Adam Krellenstein, a self taught programmer, created a re-implementation of the Mastercoin idea from scratch. Like Mastercoin, it contained an implementation of certain smart contract ideas, primarily implementations of existing financial tools. This included asset issuance, asset trading, dividends, and betting. It was released as Counterparty and approximately $1.5mm worth of Bitcoin were transferred into this new system.<br />
<br />
Around the same time, Vitalik Buterin developed the first proof of concept of Ethereum, an abstraction of the same idea. Instead of programming the specific desired features of smart contracts, Vitalik proposed creating a toolkit that allows anyone to program their own smart contract. While theoretically possible to implement in a similar context on the Bitcoin blockchain, Vitalik believed that there were many other aspects of Blockchain architecture that could be improved, including file storage, clearing times, and proofing against special hardware. Vitalik initiated his own crowdsale to finance this blockchain, which gathered approximately $15mm worth of Bitcoins.<br />
<br />
As numerous other projects followed a similar model for funding in 2014, including Counterparty, Maidsafe, Storj, Supernet, Gems, and SWARM, there was a precipitous decline in the value of the progenitor. Mastercoins returned from a peak of almost 100 times return on investment to a price close to the original sale."<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
First, '''read this: [https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet]!'''<br />
<br />
For more, see also: [[Blockchain - Discussion]] <br />
<br />
Zacqary Adam Green:<br />
<br />
"Bitcoin’s real contribution to the world is its source code. The blockchain, the network protocol, the cryptographic verification — anyone can take this and build a currency with any economic properties their community needs. I’m not convinced that bitcoin’s Austrian School properties can sustain a global (or even local) economy, but you know what? That’s okay. If I ever feel the bitcoin economy has become too unequal, unbalanced, or stagnant, it’s now trivial for me to start my own damn currency.<br />
<br />
A single bitcoin belongs is a measurement like a centimeter, but the bitcoin community is a social network. People use bitcoin because other people they trade with use bitcoin. If my town is running low on bitcoin but has a lot of resources to share internally, we can create our own local currency to free up bitcoin for importing and exporting. Or I could join an online network of artists who work on one another’s projects, and we’d create our own internal currency that plays by whatever rules we need it to.<br />
<br />
There is no perfect monetary system for every situation. Bitcoin is not going to be the one world currency, and it doesn’t need to be. A lot of people compare Bitcoin to the Internet, but it’s more like CompuServe. It’s the first of many digital, non-state currencies to come, that will all interoperate with each other in ways we can’t even dream of yet."<br />
(http://falkvinge.net/2013/11/06/bitcoins-real-revolution-isnt-hard-money-its-economic-panarchy/ )<br />
<br />
==The blockchain as a potential opportunity for a true sharing economy==<br />
<br />
Primavera De Filippi:<br />
<br />
"Blockchain technology thus facilitates the emergence of new forms of organizations, which are not only dematerialized but also decentralized. These organizations — which have no director or CEO, or any sort of hierarchical structure — are administered, collectively, by all individuals interacting on a blockchain. As such, it is important not to confuse them with the traditional model of “crowd-sourcing,” where people contribute to a platform but do not benefit from the success of that platform. Blockchain technologies can support a much more cooperative form of crowd-sourcing — sometimes referred to as “platform cooperativism”— where users qualify both as contributors and shareholders of the platforms to which they contribute. And since there is no intermediary operator, the value produced within these platforms can be more equally redistributed among those who have contributed to the value creation.<br />
With this new opportunity for increased “cooperativism,” we’re moving toward a true sharing or collaborative economy — one that is not controlled by a few large intermediary operators, but that is governed by and for the people.<br />
<br />
There’s nothing new about that, you might say — haven’t we heard these promises before? Wasn’t the mainstream deployment of the internet supposed to level the playing field for individuals and small businesses competing against corporate giants? And yet, as time went by, most of the promises and dreams of the early internet days faded away, as big giants formed and took control over our digital landscape.<br />
<br />
Today we have a new opportunity to fulfill these promises. Blockchain technology makes it possible to replace the model of top-down hierarchical organizations with a system of distributed, bottom-up cooperation. This shift could change the way wealth is distributed in the first place, enabling people to cooperate toward the creation of a common good, while ensuring that everyone will be duly compensated for their efforts and contributions.<br />
<br />
And yet nothing should be taken for granted. Just as the internet has evolved from a highly decentralized infrastructure into an increasingly centralized system controlled by only a few large online operators, there is always the risk that big giants will eventually form in the blockchain space. We’ve lost our first window of opportunity with the internet. If we, as a society, really value the concept of a true sharing economy, where the individuals doing the work are fairly rewarded for their efforts, it behooves us all to engage and experiment with this emergent technology, to explore the new opportunities it provides and deploy large, successful, community-driven applications that enable us to resist the formation of blockchain giants."<br />
(https://hbr.org/2017/03/what-blockchain-means-for-the-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis, Primavera De Filippi & Vasilis Kostakis: <br />
<br />
"Technology can facilitate distributed systems to scale and become viable; however it is the genuine dynamics of sharing and the underlying human sociality that should guide the design and deployment of technological solutions. To this direction, there is a high duty for an interdisciplinary and inclusive approach, involving ICT along with social sciences, as well as philosophy and ethics, so as to avoid getting locked in narrow theoretical and empirical perspectives. […] <br />
<br />
We introduced a mechanism for decentralised consensus through the case of Backfeed, which relies on participatory evaluations and reputation-based influence. Finally, a token-based economic model was presented, which tentatively integrates this new system of value, providing the final layer of value actualisation. The tokens issued through collaborative processes represent a fair share of the created value and a reward for the contributors, and simultaneously they reflect the perceived value of the products and services they produce. Certain opportunities and limitations have been identified in relation to Backfeed and blockchain technology. On one hand, the Backfeed protocol can help productive communities, which engage in social sharing to create commons, to enact their own systems of value, through an inclusive, consensus-based approach. Simultaneously, it allows them to interface with one another and the market, and eventually scale and become sustainable. It thus can help us envision an ecosystem composed by a variety of value systems that fuel the circulation of commons in a sharing economy. In such an ecosystem value would become perceptible in a way that it shifts away from the logic of utility maximisation, towards the general benefit for the society.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the application of Backfeed, and in fact any similar system of evaluation, poses certain challenges to the internal relations in productive communities, related to trust, reciprocity and intrinsic motives. Moreover, the technology is still at a very early stage and more empirical data are necessary to support its real life application. More generally, there are well-justified doubts on the extent that the blockchain alone can help communities solve issues concerning power and influence. At the same time, with the technology yet to reach a dominant design, it is too early to predict how it would operate on large scale. In any case, regardless of the development of blockchain technology or the eventual success of Backfeed as a project, its conceptual model allegedly presents an interesting scenario for the sharing economy and the role the latter can play in societies." <br />
(Article: Blockchain and value systems in the sharing economy: The illustrative case of Backfeed. See: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Backfeed,_the_Blockchain,_and_Value_Systems_in_the_Sharing_Economy)<br />
<br />
==The key questions about the blockchain==<br />
<br />
Alanna Krause:<br />
<br />
1. Ethereum and similar blockchain enabled systems may distribute the verification of the ledger, but they are still centralised systems that easily become controlled by a few big players with more infrastructure resources. The contracts and transaction ledger may be decentralised, but the infrastructure isn't.<br />
<br />
2. Decentralisation in and of itself will not lead to P2P principles, or more social justice. In face, it has just as much power to great exacerbate social inequality. The most likely outcome of widespread adoption of block-chain enabled decentralised technologies is simply increased efficiency and wealth for big banks and governments. The discourse around the blockchain does not seem to acknowledge this. This WILL be co-opted (already is).<br />
<br />
3. I sense a deep lack of understanding of the social dynamics behind truly P2P ways of working and living in the blockchain community. People seem to want to "program" away what I consider the real challenges of confronting power dynamics, synthesising diversity, meeting different human needs, balancing collaboration and autonomy, building high-trust networks, collective ownership and commons management, etc. You cannot fix these things with technology - technology will just magnify the underlying dynamics. This is related to my observations of the lack of diversity in these communities.<br />
<br />
4. People get all excited about the blockchain, but most of the things they seem to want to do with it could be achieved just as easily with a normal database. It seems like the cases where you actually need an objectively verifiable distributed ledger in a zero-trust system are quite rare in practice. If people want to run self-organising corporations, why haven't they make a start with a normal database already? Surely they can implement a blockchain once it scales or they run into a real need. Seems to me people are just excited about some new and shiny tech concept, and not actually into solving the deeper challenges of self-organisation. I have seen a LOT of money changing hands and ideas thrown around, but no living case studies of blockchain enabled networks of people doing real productive work and creating livelihoods and societies."<br />
(via email, May 2016) <br />
<br />
<br />
==The perils of [[Trustless Systems]]==<br />
<br />
'''Blockchains don’t offer us a trustless system, but rather a reassignment of trust!'''<br />
<br />
E J Spode:<br />
<br />
"Such are the perils of supposedly trust-free technology. It might make for good marketing copy, but the fact of the matter is that blockchain technology is larded through with trust. First, you need to trust the protocol of the cryptocurrency and/or DAO. This isn’t as simple as saying ‘I trust the maths’, for some actual human (or humans) wrote the code and hopefully debugged it, and we are at least trusting them to get it right, no? Well, in the case of The DAO, no, maybe they didn’t get it right.<br />
<br />
Second, you have to trust the ‘stakeholders’ (including miners) not to pull the rug out from under you with a hard fork. One of the objections to the hard fork was that it would create a precedent that the code would be changeable. But this objection exposes an unmentioned universal truth: the immutability of the blockchain is entirely a matter of trusting other humans not to fork it. Ethereum Classic Classic would be no more immutable than Etherum Classic, which was no more immutable than Ethereum. At best, the stakeholders – humans all – were showing that they were more trustworthy qua humans about not forking around with the blockchain. But at the same time, they obviously could change their minds about forking at any time. In other words, if Ethereum Classic is more trustworthy, it’s only because the humans behind it are. <br />
<br />
Third, if you are buying into Ethereum or The DAO or any other DAO, you are being asked to trust the people who review the algorithm and tell you what it does and whether it’s secure. But those people – computer scientists, say – are hardly incorruptible. Just as you can bribe an accountant to say that the books are clean, so too can you bribe a computer scientist. Moreover, you’re putting your trust in whatever filters you applied to select that computer scientist. (University or professional qualifications? A network of friends? The testimonials of satisfied customers – which is to say, the same method by which people selected Bernie Madoff as their financial advisor.)<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, even if you had it on divine authority that the code of a DAO was bug-free and immutable, there are necessary gateways of trust at the boundaries of the system. For example, suppose you wrote a smart contract to place bets on sporting events. You still have to trust the news feed that tells you who won the match to determine the winner of the bet. Or suppose you wrote a smart contract under which you were to be delivered a truck full of orange juice concentrate. The smart contract can’t control whether or not the product is polluted by lemons or some other substance. You have to trust the humans in the logistics chain, and the humans at the manufacturing end, to ensure your juice arrives unadulterated.<br />
<br />
Can’t these gateways to the system be trustless as well? Can’t smart contracts some day have code to call for robotic orange-pickers and robotic juice concentrate-makers who would summon their robotically driven trucks to deliver the orange juice concentrate straight to our door? Yes – in theory. But imagine the task of reviewing the code to ensure that every step in the process hadn’t been corrupted by a bug that uses security failures to highjack trucks, or that gives false approvals to adulterated orange juice. Perhaps we could write second-order programs to automate the testing of the first-order programs – but why do we trust those? Do we ultimately need automated automated-program-tester testers? Where does it end?<br />
<br />
By now, the answer should be obvious: it ends with other humans. Blockchains don’t offer us a trustless system, but rather a reassignment of trust. Instead of trusting our laws and institutions, we are being asked to trust stakeholders and miners, and programmers, and those who know enough coding to be able to verify the code. We aren’t actually trusting the blockchain technology; we are trusting the people that support the blockchain. The blockchain community is certainly new and different, and it talks a good game of algorithms and hashing power, which at least sounds better than tired slogans such as Prudential is rock solid and You are in good hands with Allstate. But miners aren’t necessarily any more reliable than the corporations they replace.<br />
<br />
The sorry case of The DAO raises another question: Why are people so eager to put their faith in blockchain technology and its human supporters, instead of in other social and economic organisations? The upheavals of 2016, from Brexit to Trump, suggest that there is widespread fatigue with traditional institutions. Governments can be bought. Banks are designed to service the wealthy, and to hell with the little guy. ‘The system is rigged’ is a common refrain.<br />
<br />
But instead of targeting the moral failures of the system and trying to reform it, the very concept of ‘trust’ has become suspect. Blockchain enthusiasts tend to cast trust as little more than a bug in our network of human interactions. To be sure, one of the weird features of trusting relationships is that, in order to trust someone, there has to be some chance that they will fail you. Trust involves risk – but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.<br />
<br />
Which brings us back to Buterin and the hard fork of The DAO. What made this event significant was not just what it demonstrated about the foibles of technology or the hubris of 20-something computer scientists. What it really exposed was the extent to which trust defines what it is to be human. Trust is about more than making sure I get my orange juice on time. Trust is what makes all relationships meaningful. Yes, we get burned by people we rely on, and this makes us disinclined to trust others. But when our faith is rewarded, it helps us forge closer relationships with others, be they our business partners or BFFs. Risk is a critical component to this bonding process. In a risk-free world, we wouldn’t find anything resembling intimacy, friendship, solidarity or alliance, because nothing would be at stake.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we ought to reconsider the desire to expunge trust, and instead focus on what should be done to strengthen it. One way to support trust is to hold institutions accountable when they betray it. When the US Department of Justice, for example, elected not to prosecute any of the bankers responsible for the 2008 financial collapse, the net effect was to undermine confidence in the system. They debased the principle of trust by showing that violating the public’s faith could be cost-free.<br />
<br />
Much of our system of trust is invisible to us – but it would be helpful if we could be more aware and appreciative all the same<br />
<br />
Second, trusting relationships should be celebrated, not scorned. When we believe in someone and they betray us, our friends might call us a sucker, an easy mark, a loser. But shouldn’t we celebrate these efforts to trust others – just as entrepreneurs talk up the value of failure on the road to innovation? Isn’t the correct response along the lines of: ‘I see why you trusted them, but isn’t it is terrible that they let you down?’<br />
<br />
Third, we should appreciate the trusting relations we engage in, and are rewarded by, every day. We’re constantly relying on others to help us with something or look after our financial affairs, and much of the time we simply take it for granted. In part, that’s because much of our system of trust is invisible to us – but it would be helpful if we could be more aware and appreciative all the same.<br />
<br />
Finally, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves with the idea that a technological fix can replace the human dimension of trust. Automation of trust is illusory. Rather than disparaging and cloaking human trust, we should face the brutal truth: we can’t escape the need to rely on other people, as fallible and imperfect as they might be. We need to nurture and nourish trust – not throw it away, like so much debased and worthless currency."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/trust-the-inside-story-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-ethereum)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Opportunities and Pitfalls for a progressive use of the blockhain==<br />
<br />
Source: In Trebor Scholz & Nathan Schneider (eds.). PlatformCoop The Book (2016) OR Books. '''This text is embargoed''' for diffusion until the publication of this book. Please do not distribute yet.<br />
<br />
Rachel O'Dwyer:<br />
<br />
"So let me show my hand. I'm interested in the blockchain (or blockchain-based technologies) as one tool that, in a very pragmatic way, could assist with cooperative activities, helping us to share resources, to arbitrate, adjudicate, disambiguate and make collective decisions. Some fledgling examples are LaZooz, an alternative ride-sharing app, Swarm, a fundraising app, and proposals for the use of distributed ledgers to manage land ownership or critical infrastructures like water and energy. Many of these activities are difficult outside of local communities or in the absence of some trusted intermediary. However, I also think that much of the current rhetoric around the blockchain hints at problems with the techno-utopian ideologies that surround digital activism, and points to the pitfalls these projects fall into time and again. ItÕs worth addressing these here.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Pitfall #1: We can replace messy and time-consuming social processes with elegant technical solutions===<br />
<br />
Fostering and scaling cooperation is really difficult. This is why we have institutions, norms, laws, and markets. We might not like them, but these mechanisms allow us to cooperate with others even when we donÕt know and trust them. They help us to make decisions and to divvy up tasks and to reach consensus. When we take these things awayÑwhen we break them downÑit can be very difficult to cooperate. Indeed, this is one of the big problems with alternative forms of organization outside of the state and the marketÑthose that are not structured by typical modes of governance such as rules, norms or pricing. These kinds of structureless collaboration generally only work at very local kin-communal scales where everybody already knows and trusts everyone else. In Ireland, for example, there were several<br />
long-term bank strikes in the 1970s. The economy didnÕt grind to a halt. Instead, local publicans stepped in and extended credit to their customers; the debtors were well known to the publicans who were in a good position to make an assessment on their credit worthiness. Community trust replaced a trustless monetary system. This kind of local arrangement wouldnÕt work in a larger or more atomised community. It probably wouldnÕt work in todayÕs Ireland because community ties are weaker.<br />
<br />
Bitcoin caused excitement when it proposed a technical solution to a problem that previously required a trusted intermediary money, or, more specifically, the problem of guaranteeing and controlling money supply and monitoring the repartition of funds on a global scale. It did this by developing a distributed database that is cryptographically verified by an entire network of peers and by linking the production of new money with the individual incentive to maintain this public repository. More recently this cryptographic database has also been used to manage laws, contracts, and property. While some of the more evolved applications involve verifying precious stones and supporting interbank loans, the proposal is that this database could also be used to support alternative worker platforms, allowing systems where people can organize, share or sell their labor without the need of a central entity controlling activities and trimming a generous margin off the top.<br />
<br />
Here the blockchain replaces a trusted third party such as the state or a platform with cryptographic proof. This is why hardcore libertarians and anarcho-communists both favor it. But let's be clear here, it doesn't replace<br />
all of the functions of an institution, just the function that allows us to trust in our interactions with others because we trust in certain judicial and bureaucratic processes. It doesn't stand in for all the slow and messy bureaucracy and debate and human processes that go into building cooperation, and it never will. The blockchain is what we call a ÒtrustlessÓ architecture. It<br />
stands in for trust in the absence of more traditional mechanisms like social networks and co-location. It allows cooperation without trust, in other words, something that is quite different from fostering or building trust. As the founding Bitcoin document details, proof-of- work is not a new form of trust, but the abdication of trust altogether as social confidence and judgment in favor of an algorithmic regulation. With a blockchain, it maybe doesn't matter so much whether I believe in or trust my fellow peers just so long as I trust in the technical efficiency of the protocol. The claim being made is not that we can engineer greater levels of cooperation or trust in friends, institutions or governments, but that we might dispense with social institutions altogether in favor of an elegant technical solution. This assumption is naive, its true, but it also betrays a worrying politics, or rather a drive to replace politics (as debate and dispute and things that produce connection and difference) with economics. This is not just a problem with blockchain evangelism, it's a core problem with the ideology of digital activism generally. The blockchain has more in common with the neoliberal governmentality that produces platform capitalists like Amazon and Uber and state-market coalitions than any radical alternative. Seen in this light, the call for blockchains forms part of a line of informational and administrative technologies such as punch cards, electronic ledgers and automated record keeping systems that work to administrate populations and to make politics disappear.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Pitfall #2: The technical can instantiate new social or political processes===<br />
<br />
Like a lot of peer-to-peer networks, blockchain applications conflate a technical architecture with a social or political mode of organization. We can see this kind of ideology at work when the CEO of Bitcoin Indonesia argues, "in its purest form, Blockchain is democracy". From this perspective, what makes Uber Uber and LaZooz. LaZooz comes down to technical differences at the level of topology and protocol. If only we can design the right technical system, in other words, the right kind of society is not too far behind. The last decade has shown us that there is no linear-causal relationship between decentralization in technical systems and egalitarian or equitable practices socially, politically or economically. This is not only because it is technologically determinist to assume so, or because networks involve layers of strata that exhibit contradictory affordances, but also because there's zero evidence that features such as decentralization or structureless continue to pose any kind of threat to capitalism. In fact, horizontality and decentralization -the very characteristics that peer production prizes so highly - have emerged as an ideal solution to many of the impasses of liberal economics. Today, Silicon Valley appropriates so many of the ideas of the left, anarchism, mobility, and cooperation, even limited forms of welfare. This can create the sense that technical fixes like the blockchain are part of some broader shift to a post-capitalist society, when this shift has not taken place. Indeed, the blockchain applications that are really gaining traction are those developed by large banks in collaboration with tech start-ups, applications to build private blockchains for greater asset management or automatic credit clearing between banks, or to allow cultural industries to combat piracy in a distributed network and manage the sale and ownership of digital goods more efficiently.<br />
<br />
<br />
While technical tools such as the blockchain might form part of a broader artillery for platform cooperativism, then, we also need to have a little perspective. We need to find ways to embrace not only technical solutions, but also people who have experience in community organizing and methods that foster trust, negotiate hierarchies and embrace difference. Because there is no magic app for platform cooperativism. And there never will be."<br />
(https://www.academia.edu/23524276/Blockchains_and_Their_Pitfalls)<br />
<br />
==The Blockchain's Major Design Flaw==<br />
<br />
'''Arthur Brock:'''<br />
<br />
"Stop the Nonsensus! (Nonsense Consensus): Systems will never scale if you require global consensus for local actions by independent agents. For example, I should not have to know where every dollar in the economy is when I want to buy something from you. That adds an overhead of ridiculous complexity for something which needs to follow the principle of pushing intelligence and agency to the edges rather than center. Likewise, an atom should be able to bond with another atom (see cartoon) without accounting for status every electron in the universe. However, Bitcoin and blockchains are built around authorized tokens embedded in every transaction/record, which embeds unnecessary complexity and limitations for scalability into every interaction. Tokens are not what makes a decentralized system work, cryptographic signatures and self-validating data structures are.<br />
<br />
Intrinsic Data Integrity: For a long time, data integrity has been conflated with the hosting, control, and access to the device on which the data is stored. So banks have big firewalls to keep you from hacking in and changing your account balance. But today we have self-validating data structures like hash-chains and Merkle-trees which leave evidence of tampering by breaking structural integrity, cryptographic hash, or counterparty signatures when the data is altered. This makes it possible to distribute the storage and management of data and ensure that the people holding it can't tamper with it. In other words, you could be an authority to show your own account balance, yet not be able to tamper with your account history. When implemented properly, this is the key to enabling massive scales of storage and throughput by enabling auditable data to be stored anywhere/everywhere instead of requiring agreement on single shared ledger.<br />
<br />
Distributed Process not Consensus: Let's learn a bit from tracking how scalable systems in nature and real world get things done. Speakers of a language each carry the means to generate sentences as needed, we don't store every sentence spoken in some global ledger. Cells each carry a copy of their instruction set (DNA), rather than a record of the state and type of every cell. What you need to distribute in a system of collective intelligence is the ability to distribute reliable processing according to shared agreements. Consensus then becomes something used for to ensure the integrity of the processing, rather than the medium upon which processing is executed. This approach, lets you confirm that your copy of the process is valid, so you can rely on it to work according to the agreed upon rules and proceed authoritatively without having to wait for the rest of the network to validate, verify and update itself with your state.<br />
<br />
Agents not Coins: Instead of starting with cryptographic coins or tokens as the fundamental thing that exists, start by having the agents/people/organizations (or their signatures and account IDs) be the primary things that exist. When each person has a copy of the process needed to participate, and their records are stored with intrinsic data integrity, that enable two people to perform a transaction without requiring approval or consensus of anyone else. My process audits your transaction chain to make sure you're in a valid state, yours audits my chain, and either rejects the transaction if it puts someone in an invalid state according to the coded agreements. I know, you have a lot of questions about to make sure this can happen reliably, but I'll drill into that later.<br />
<br />
Fractal not Global: You would think that the existence of the web would have taught us already that we can have shared access to pretty reliable, referenceable, information without us all having identical copies of it. Starting by creating a global ledger where each copy has to be in the same state is a totally different problem than having a fractal process for creating and organizing data which can be referenced by anyone wherever that data lives. It can still provide globally accessible agreement about data, but that agreement is constructed from fractally assembled reliable parts instead of requiring each part to reach global (or 51%) agreement to commit each element of data. One of the beautiful outcomes from this is such a massive reduction in the processing and storage requirements that it becomes feasible to run a full node on a mobile phone instead of requiring specialized mining hardware."<br />
(http://artbrock.com/blog/perspectives-blockchains-and-cryptocurrencies)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Three non-technological ways in which blockchains may still “fail”.==<br />
<br />
Tere Vaden:<br />
<br />
“Fail”, because failing is obviously relative. By now, there is no real doubt that blockchains deliver on their technological promise: tamper-proof distributed permissionless ledgers. But they may very well fail to deliver on their promise as a new shiny class of peer-to-peer technology disintermediating all those pesky central authorities into oblivion.<br />
<br />
===1. Poor usability for non-experts===<br />
<br />
Several generations of peer-to-peer technologies have promised a lot, delivered quite much, but still left a lingering taste of underachievement. While GNU/Linux — an operating system crucially dependent on a p2p development model — is clearly one of the resounding successes of open source, it still did not fulfill its promise in one crucial area (which in its early days was seen as one of the most important): desktop computers. Linux powers anything from toasters to supercomputers, but it hasn’t liberated the masses from Windows or Mac OS. In most of smartphones, Linux is in the shackles of Android.<br />
<br />
There are many reasons for why GNU/Linux hasn’t taken over, vendor lock-in being one of the major ones. But there is another issue that may be relevant to blockchains. When hackers write software for themselves — scratching their own itch — it is ready when it delivers what is needed. And this point of being ready for use is very different for a hacker and for a regular user. For too long, the installation and use of a Linux distribution was too hard for ordinary users. Even if Ubuntu and similar systems have largely solved that bottleneck now, the lesson stands: superior technology, if polished only to the point where it is good enough for hackers and early adopters, will not escape that ghetto. Let’s be honest: just the visual look of a Bitcoin address “13ktXxaJTPvBPfSyS7XALTP1i7nAeR2oZ9” is going to keep a big chunk of potential users away. At the moment, the user experience of even the most advanced blockchain apps is abysmal.<br />
<br />
<br />
===2. Domestication===<br />
<br />
The second danger is domestication, or, maybe better yet “commoditization”. As Robert Herian writes in Critical Legal Thinking:<br />
<br />
“Disruption, so-called and preached by many of the major global banks, to the extent that IBM are now claiming that more than half of those banks will be using the technology in the next three years, is anything but disruption because it leaves unchanged the conditions (norms and expectations) in which it occurs, namely those in which global financial capital has exclusive dominion over the social.”<br />
<br />
It is clear that the way the banks use blockchains in effectivising their databases and other back-office oprations, does very little for a peer-to-peer future. <br />
<br />
<br />
Furthermore, as Herian continues to argue, there is the<br />
<br />
- "Beyond the public and transparent blockchain, and thus any hope of preserving a common space if not exactly or politically-speaking a “commons”, we see a potent indication of the victories of normative liberal and, to a greater extent, global financial capitalism over the blockchain narrative. An ideological victory which is in no small part manifesting itself through the proliferation of permissioned enclosed ledgers which are altering the dynamic of blockchain development […] "<br />
<br />
<br />
Most of the resources in terms of money are certainly going to permissioned and private blockchain development and that will, for sure, lend its flavor to what blockchains are all about in the public mind. Moreover, as Herian indicates, this trend is in a worrying way reminiscent of the way in which other technological developments have encroached digital commons. However, is it so bad that banks and other institutions want to use permissioned blockchains? We are still allowed to use permissionless blockchains and build on them, right?<br />
<br />
<br />
===3. Marginalisation===<br />
<br />
Domestiction becomes a real problem when combined with another non-technological threat: marginalisation. Again, let’s look at recent history. Torrent technology is a superior way for distributing digital content. However, since its first and most prominent uses were related to illegal file-sharing, legislation and public PR campaigns have pushed the technology to the fringe (can you believe that PirateBay is still the most popular torrent tracking site?). Torrents are, of course, used for legal purposes, too, in many forms of content distribution, but again the full promise of the technology has been curtailed by pushing it into a socio-cultural margin.<br />
<br />
All of the three threats – marginalisation, domestication and ghettoised user experience — loom large over blockchains. Moreover, the three collude in forming an evil circle, reinforcing each other. There is no silver bullet agaist any of them. A lot of education, both for regulators and the general public, is needed in order to counteract marginalisation. Against ghettoisation, the most urgent need are real-world uses cases that are not limited to currency speculation or to transactions with high counterparty risk. The more diverse the community involved, the greater the possibility of avoiding marginalisation and pushing for overall usability. The free software and open source movements, for instance, have a history of initiatives and procedures for increasing the diversity of the communities and lowering barriers of entry. They can be reused, while at the same time looking for new ways, such as ethical design, of broadening the horizons of p2p technology development."<br />
(https://medium.com/economic-spacing/three-non-technological-ways-in-which-blockchains-may-still-fail-a8d3a7c238be#.8s6m8sgr5)<br />
<br />
==More Discussion==<br />
<br />
<br />
See: [[Blockchain - Discussion]] for more articles on the following topics:<br />
<br />
1 From the Invisible Hand to the Visible Hand<br />
<br />
2 Disintermediating Banking and User Accounts<br />
<br />
3 Why the Bitcoin ledger is potentially so important<br />
<br />
4 The Revolution will not be based on a global receipt depository!<br />
<br />
5 The Political Vision behind the ledger<br />
<br />
6 The Bitcoin Protocol Is More ‘Cloud’ Than ‘P2P’<br />
<br />
7 What Are the Challenges?<br />
<br />
8 Towards an internet of (block)chains<br />
<br />
9 How the blockchain works for trust<br />
<br />
10 The dispute on the size of blocks<br />
<br />
=The [[Blockchain Applications Directory]]=<br />
<br />
Compiled by Aeze Soo:<br />
<br />
==[[La Zooz]]==<br />
<br />
<br />
- Social Ride sharing : <br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BttJsLLOHo<br />
<br />
→ LaZooz.org<br />
<br />
" La’Zooz: The Decentralized, Crypto-Alternative to Uber [http://www.shareable.net/blog/lazooz-the-decentralized-crypto-alternative-to-uber]<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Backfeed]]==<br />
<br />
Backfeed develops foundational tools for Decentralized Collaborative Organizations, syncing the spontaneous actions of millions of people to promote an era of collaboration and decentralized value production.<br />
<br />
→ http://backfeed.cc<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[IPFS]]==<br />
<br />
A Permanent Web - A peer-to-peer hypermedia protocol<br />
→ http://ipfs.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Decentraland]]==<br />
<br />
- Virtual world - Blockchain<br />
→ http://decentraland.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Ascribe]]==<br />
<br />
- Creative commons on blockchain<br />
→ http://cc.ascribe.io<br />
<br />
→ http://creativecommons.fr/creative-commons-france-experimente-avec-ascribe-pour-soutenir-le-copyleft-avec-le-blockchain/<br />
<br />
==[[Proof of Existence]]== <br />
<br />
To certify documents<br />
<br />
→ http://proofofexistence.com<br />
→ http://github.com/maraoz/proofofexistence<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Group Currency]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://groupcurrency.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[uCoin]]== <br />
<br />
- UBI currency :<br />
<br />
→ http://ucoin.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitnation]]== <br />
- world : Virtual nation - Blockchain<br />
→ http://www.bitnation.world<br />
<br />
→ http://bitnation.co<br />
<br />
→ http://cryptonewsday.com/bitnation-releases-proof-of-concept-for-decentralized-government-platform/<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Basic Income Co]]==<br />
<br />
BasicIncome.co : Economy - A peer-to-peer secure network<br />
→ http://indiegogo.com/projects/basicincome-co-a-peer-to-peer-safety-net-network–2<br />
→ http://mybitnation.tumblr.com/post/105873406725/bitnation-announces-basic-income-application<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[OkTurtles]]==<br />
<br />
Foundation supporting beneficial decentralization technologies<br />
→ http://okturtles.com<br />
<br />
==[[Open Bazaar]]== <br />
<br />
Trade online directly to other users, using Bitcoin<br />
→ http://openbazaar.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Alexandria Decentralized Library]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://blocktech.com<br />
<br />
→ https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/alexandria-uses-block-chain-preserve-worlds-knowledge/<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Virtual Notary]]== <br />
<br />
Attestation service<br />
→ http://virtual-notary.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blocknet]]== <br />
<br />
A blockchain agnostic decentralized platform as a service<br />
<br />
→ http://blocknet.co<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockcypher]]== <br />
<br />
Blockchain services<br />
<br />
→ http://blockcypher.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[First Blockchain Incorporated]]==<br />
<br />
(NOT) The World’s First Stateless Company Incorporated In And By The Bitcoin Blockchain<br />
→ http://firstblockchain.com<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Me]]== <br />
<br />
A tool for creating verifiable IDs on the blockchain <br />
<br />
→ http://blockchainme.com<br />
<br />
→ Code source: https://github.com/kiaraRobles/blockchainMe<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Finyear]]==<br />
<br />
Laboratory of ideas and innovations at Finyear (http://www.finyear.com/labs)<br />
→ http://bl0ckcha1n.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Factom]]==<br />
<br />
A scalable data layer for the blockchain<br />
→ http://factom.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Summit]]==<br />
<br />
Summit blockchain<br />
→ http://blockchainsummit.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Eris Industries]]== <br />
<br />
The Distributed Application Platform<br />
→ http://erisindustries.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitmarkets]]==<br />
<br />
Voluntary : Bitmarkets<br />
→ https://github.com/voluntarynet/Bitmarkets<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockstream]]==<br />
<br />
Extending Bitcoin’s blockchain with Sidechains :<br />
→ http://blockstream.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Elements Project]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://elementsproject.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain University]]== <br />
<br />
- Courses :<br />
→ http://blockchainu.co<br />
<br />
<br />
==Blockchain London==<br />
<br />
Event - Conferences at London :<br />
→ http://blockchainlondon.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Institute for Blockchain Studies]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://blockchainstudies.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Info]]==<br />
<br />
Blockchain-Info : Explorator of Bitcoin blocks<br />
→ http://blockchain.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitcoin City]]==<br />
<br />
" Each city is a bitcoin transaction, on the road to the blockchain "<br />
<br />
→http://www.bitcoincity.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Crypto Graffiti]]==<br />
<br />
Store texts on the blockchain<br />
<br />
→ http://cryptograffiti.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Democracy OS]]== <br />
<br />
- "It’s time to design a system where we can delegate power to peers: people we can trust and hold accountable."<br />
<br />
- "We’re beginning to see trust built on distributed networks. Will the blockchain change the way we build power ?"<br />
<br />
- “We can secure power transactions (votes) making them valid in a network of peers where nobody is in charge.”<br />
<br />
- "When you want to do online voting, the key element is identity validation."<br />
<br />
- "We can build a democratic system where you don’t have to wait 3 years to change the people you delegated power to."<br />
<br />
"Power on the blockchain - DemocracyOS" :<br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOQS5wd6hU<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Streamium IO]]== <br />
<br />
- Manuel Aráoz : “Going live at DecentralizeAll currently”<br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tFSJTlKec<br />
<br />
=Blockchain Developer Assistance=<br />
<br />
<br />
"We help get developers on the blockchains" :<br />
<br />
BlockStrap :<br />
<br />
→ http://blockstrap.com<br />
<br />
NeuroWare :<br />
<br />
→http://neuroware.io<br />
<br />
BlockchainSpace<br />
<br />
→http://www.blockchain.space<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* '''Read this first''': <br />
<br />
#[http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-blockchain-project/ Avoiding the pointless blockchain project]<br />
#[https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet]<br />
<br />
All about crypto-currencies → http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency/coins<br />
<br />
Documentary : Ulterior States [ IamSatoshi Documentary ]→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQGQXy0RIIo<br />
<br />
DecentralizeFM : → https://decentralize.fm<br />
<br />
Book - Eyrolles - "Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy" → http://amazon.fr/Blockchain-Blueprint-Economy-Melanie-Swan-ebook/dp/B00SNS9JLW<br />
<br />
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21650295-or-it-next-big-thing<br />
<br />
The draw and blockchain ( in french ) → http://dem0crat1e.fr/posts/tirage-au-sort-bitcoin<br />
<br />
Related entries:<br />
<br />
#[[Blockchain Companies]]<br />
#[[Internet of Chains]]<br />
#[[Open Source Sidechains]]: [[Sidechain Elements]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Money]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Infrastructure]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cryptoledger Applications]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Blockchain&diff=107695Blockchain2017-06-13T13:57:46Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: /* The blockchain as a potential opportunity for a true sharing economy */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= "a distributed cryptographic ledger shared amongst all nodes participating in the network, over which every successfully performed transaction is recorded".''' [http://www.wired.com/2014/03/decentralized-applications-built-bitcoin-great-except-whos-responsible-outcomes/]<br />
<br />
'''See, from [http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Rachel_O%E2%80%99Dwyer Rachel O'Dwyer]: [[How the Blockchain Might Support a Commons]]'''<br />
<br />
<br />
=Contextual Citation=<br />
<br />
"Why trust Bitcoin, or more specifically, why trust the technology that makes Bitcoin possible? In short, because it assumes everybody’s a crook, yet it still gets them to follow the rules."<br />
<br />
- Morgen E. Peck [http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin]<br />
<br />
<br />
'''An important warning on the blockchain as a centralized infrastructure:'''<br />
<br />
"The need to replicate the whole chain of blocks on our computer is an insurmountable barrier to entry if you’re searching for an alternative to IBM, Amazon or Google. The Twister chain is still small, but think about how, to date, the initial synchronization for Bitcoin requires storage space of more than 65GB for the complete download of the blockchain. For any of us, having to reserve 65GB on our personal computers has a large cost. But for IBM, or Google, or any of the Chinese Bitcoin miners, it’s nothing. And let’s not even talk about the astronomical differences between the processing capabilities of the great monsters of scale compared to ours. Because blockchain is consensual, after a certain point of centralization, the rules of the system depend on very few users. For example, the bitcoin “update” would be unviable if the two more Chinese mining organizations had refused to implement it. A network of nodes designed this way has a power structure with clear centralizers—the owners of infrastructure—that in the end presents a threat to the distributed future of the Internet. In summary, when we use Blockchain technologies, the barrier to entry has a relatively small knowledge component—compiling and installing software—but an insurmountable infrastructure barrier beyond certain scales."<br />
<br />
- Manuel Ortega [https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet]<br />
<br />
=Definition=<br />
<br />
'''1. Via Aeze Soo:'''<br />
<br />
"A block chain is a distributed data store that maintains a continuously growing list of data records that are hardened against tampering and revision, even by operators of the data store's nodes. The most widely known application of a block chain is the public ledger of transactions for cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin. This record is enforced cryptographically and hosted on machines running the software."<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Via the Wikipedia:'''<br />
<br />
"A block chain, or blockchain, is a distributed database that maintains a continuously-growing list of data records hardened against tampering and revision. It consists of data structure blocks—which hold exclusively data in initial blockchain implementations, and both data and programs in some (for example, Ethereum) of the more recent implementations—with each block holding batches of individual transactions and the results of any blockchain executables. Each block contains a timestamp and information linking it to a previous block.<br />
<br />
The block chain is seen as the main technical innovation of bitcoin, where it serves as the public ledger of all bitcoin transactions. Bitcoin is peer-to-peer, every user is allowed to connect to the network, send new transactions to it, verify transactions, and create new blocks, which is why it is called permissionless. This original design has been the inspiration for other cryptocurrencies and distributed databases."<br />
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chain_(database))<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1. by Jacob Aron:'''<br />
<br />
"The true innovation of Bitcoin's mysterious designer, Satoshi Nakamoto, is its underlying technology, the "block chain". That fundamental concept is being used to transform Bitcoin – and could even replace it altogether.<br />
<br />
So what is the block chain? It is a ledger of transactions that keeps Bitcoin secure and allows all users to agree on exactly who owns how many bitcoins. Each new block requires a record of recent transactions along with a string of letters and numbers, known as a hash, which is based on the previous block and produced using a cryptographic algorithm.<br />
<br />
Miners, people who run the peer-to-peer Bitcoin software, randomly generate hashes, competing to produce one with a value below a certain target difficulty and thus complete a new block and receive a reward, currently 25 bitcoins. This difficulty means faking a transaction is impossible unless you have more computing power than everyone else on the Bitcoin network combined. Confused? Don't worry, ordinary Bitcoin users needn't know the details of how the block chain works, just as people with a credit card don't bother learning banking network jargon. But those who do understand the power of the block chain are realising how Nakamoto's technology for mass agreement can be adapted. "You can replace that agreement with all sorts of different things and now you have a really powerful building block for any kind of distributed system," says Jeremy Clark of Concordia University in Montreal, Canada."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Primavera De Filippi''' <br />
<br />
"For many, bitcoin — the distributed, worldwide, decentralized crypto-currency — is all about money … or, as recent events have shown, about who invented it. Yet the actual innovation brought about by bitcoin is not the currency itself but the platform, which is commonly referred to as the “blockchain” — a distributed cryptographic ledger shared amongst all nodes participating in the network, over which every successfully performed transaction is recorded.<br />
<br />
And the blockchain is not limited to monetary applications. Borrowing from the same ideas (though not using the actual peer-to-peer network bitcoin runs on), a variety of new applications have adapted the bitcoin protocol to fulfill different purposes: Namecoin for distributed domain name management; Bitmessage and Twister for asynchronous communication; and, more recently, Ethereum (released only a month ago). Like many other peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, these platforms all rely on decentralized architectures to build and maintain network applications that are operated by the community for the community. (I’ve written before here in WIRED Opinion about one example, mesh networks, which can provide an internet-native model for building community and governance).<br />
<br />
Thus, while they enable a whole new set of possibilities, blockchain-based applications also present legal, technical, and social challenges similar to those raised by other P2P applications that came before them, such as BitTorrent, Tor, or Freenet."<br />
<br />
<br />
==The Blockchain as a universal ledger==<br />
<br />
Dominic Frisby:<br />
<br />
"Today there is a new system of digital record-keeping. Its impact could be equally large. It is called the blockchain.<br />
<br />
Imagine an enormous digital record. Anyone with internet access can look at the information within: it is open for all to see. Nobody is in charge of this record. It is not maintained by a person, a company or a government department, but by 8,000-9,000 computers at different locations around the world in a distributed network. Participation is quite voluntary. The computers’ owners choose to add their machines to the network because, in exchange for their computer’s services, they sometimes receive payment. You can add your computer to the network, if you so wish.<br />
<br />
All the information in the record is permanent – it cannot be changed – and each of the computers keeps a copy of the record to ensure this. If you wanted to hack the system, you would have to hack every computer on the network – and this has so far proved impossible, despite many trying, including the US National Security Agency’s finest. The collective power of all these computers is greater than the world’s top 500 supercomputers combined.<br />
<br />
New information is added to the record every few minutes, but it can be added only when all the computers signal their approval, which they do as soon as they have satisfactory proof that the information to be added is correct. Everybody knows how the system works, but nobody can change how it works. It is fully automated. Human decision-making or behaviour doesn’t enter into it.<br />
<br />
If a company or a government department were in charge of the record, it would be vulnerable – if the company went bust or the government department shut down, for example. But with a distributed record there is no single point of vulnerability. It is decentralised. At times, some computers might go awry, but that doesn’t matter. The copies on all the other computers and their unanimous approval for new information to be added will mean the record itself is safe.<br />
<br />
This is possibly the most significant and detailed record in all history, an open-source structure of permanent memory, which grows organically. It is known as the blockchain. It is the breakthrough tech behind the digital cash system, Bitcoin, but its impact will soon be far wider than just alternative money."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/how-blockchain-will-revolutionise-far-more-than-money)<br />
<br />
=How it works=<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"the blockchain is nothing more than a long string of transactions, each of which refers to an earlier record in the chain. But Bitcoin users do not directly make the updates to the blockchain. In order to transfer coins to someone else, you have to create a request and broadcast it over the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network. After that, it’s in the hands of the miners. They scoop up the requests and do a few checks to make sure that the signature is correct and that there are enough bitcoins to make the transaction; then they bundle the new records into a block and add it to the end of the blockchain.<br />
<br />
All miners work independently on their own version of the blockchain. When they finish a new block, they broadcast it to the rest of their peers, who check it, accept it, add it to the end of the chain, and pick up their work from this new starting point.<br />
<br />
The arrangement will work only if the miners agree on what the most recent version of the blockchain should look like. In other words, they all have to agree on a consensus version of it. But given the fact that they’re all strangers, they really have no reason to trust one another’s work. What’s to stop a miner from fiddling with earlier entries on the blockchain and undoing payments?<br />
<br />
The strategy that Satoshi Nakamoto (Bitcoin’s pseudonymous architect) devised for establishing consensus in his system is widely considered to be a breakthrough in distributed computing.<br />
<br />
“There have been consensus algorithms running since the eighties, where you come to consensus, providing a log of events on multiple machines, with all the machines participating in that network,” says Paul Snow, the founder of Factom, a service that condenses data and transfers it onto the Bitcoin blockchain. However, he says, these systems were successful only when the participants shared a common allegiance.<br />
<br />
Bitcoin replaces that allegiance with mathematical confidence. Given the cryptographic proof required to commit a transaction, we can already be confident that only people who own bitcoins can spend them. But a bitcoin miner can also be confident that the other miners are not changing entries on the blockchain, because in Bitcoin there is no going backward.<br />
<br />
That’s because the process of adding a new block to the blockchain is very difficult. Anyone who participates is required to devote large quantities of computing power—and therefore, electricity—toward running the new data through a set of calculations called hash functions. Only once this work is completed can the block be appended to the chain in a way that satisfies other miners on the network.<br />
<br />
“You’re building a giant wall,” explains Peter Kirby, the president of Factom. “And every time you want to agree to something, you put a thousand bricks on top of it. And you agree to something else and put another thousand bricks on top of it. And that makes it very, very, very difficult for someone to change a brick way down at the bottom of the wall.”<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
A Nakamoto blockchain, then, becomes more secure as more people participate in the network. But why would they? In the case of Bitcoin, it’s because they are paid to do it. Every time a block gets solved, a virgin transaction is created with a handful of newly minted bitcoins signed over to the first miner who completed the work.<br />
<br />
In old security models, you tried to lock out all of the greedy, dishonest people. Bitcoin, on the other hand, welcomes everyone, fully expecting them to act in their own self-interest, and then it uses their greed to secure the network.<br />
<br />
“This is, I think, the main contribution,” says Ittay Eyal, a computer scientist at Cornell who studies Bitcoin along with other decentralized networks. “Bitcoin causes an attacker to be better off by playing along than by attacking it. The incentive system leads a lot of people to contribute resources toward the welfare of the system.”"<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Typology=<br />
<br />
<br />
==The four segments==<br />
<br />
Graphic at https://d3ansictanv2wj.cloudfront.net/blockchain_app-1c3df0ef526f707f181e2038a5f8fbab.jpg<br />
<br />
<br />
William Mougayar:<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Currency Segment===<br />
<br />
"The currency-related segment targets money transfers, payments, tips, or funding applications. The end-user typically goes to an exchange or uses their own wallet to conduct such transactions, benefiting from transaction cost reductions, speeds in settlements, and freedom from central intermediaries. Today’s exchanges are centralized, but it’s likely we’ll see another generation of decentralized trusted exchanges. And although the current bitcoin wallets today are “dumb” wallets, they could become smarter, via an ability to launch smart contracts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Pegged Services Segment===<br />
<br />
Pegged services to the blockchain represent an interesting segment because these apps utilize the blockchain’s atomic unit, which is a “value store” capability, but they also build on top of that with their unique off-chain services. For example, decentralized identity or decentralized ownership is a horizontal blockchain service, but it can be applied to any other vertical segments, such as for videos, music, or photography, just to name a few.<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Smart Contract segment===<br />
<br />
Smart contracts are small programs or scripts that run on a blockchain and govern legal or contractual terms on their own. They represent a simple form of decentralization. They will become available in a variety of application areas, such as for wagers, family trusts, escrow, time stamping, proofs of work delivery, etc. In essence, they are about moving certain assets or value from one owner to another, based on some condition or event, between people or things. Smart contracts represent an “intermediate state” between parties, and we will trust these smart programs to verify and take action based on the logic behind these state changes.<br />
<br />
<br />
===The DAO segment===<br />
<br />
Legal issues aside, a Distributed Autonomous Organization is “kind of” incorporated on the blockchain because its governance is very dependent on the end-users who are part-owners, part-users, and part-nodes on that decentralized network. Key aspects of a DAO are that each user is also a “worker,” and by virtue of their “work,” they contribute to the value appreciation of the DAO via their collective participation or activity levels. Arguably, bitcoin itself is the “uber DAO.”<br />
(https://www.oreilly.com/ideas/understanding-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Technology=<br />
<br />
==The [[Blockchain Application Stack]]==<br />
<br />
Joel Monegro:<br />
<br />
"This is what I think the architecture of Internet applications is going to look like in 10 years. This is just a simple illustration and it leaves a lot of important insights and issues out. I’ll try my best to explain the thinking behind it below. To keep things short, we’ll run through every part of the stack from the bottom up, and do a deep dive on each in future posts.<br />
<br />
The basic idea is that everything inside the gray rectangles is decentralized and open source. For now I’m calling these the shared data and protocol layers. Nobody controls these parts of the system, and they’re accessible by any person or company. If we use bitcoin as an example, the blockchain is the shared data layer and the bitcoin protocol is a decentralized protocol that’s part of the shared protocol Layer.<br />
<br />
You’ll notice that each layer gets thinner the higher up you go. You’ll also notice that the shared data and protocol layers cover about 80% of the entire stack. Internet applications today are built on top of open, decentralized technologies like TCP/IP and HTTP, but if you were to graph the current Internet application stack like above, those open, decentralized protocols would probably only make up about 15% with everything on top being private and centralized.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''1. Miners and the blockchain'''<br />
<br />
If you know a little about how bitcoin works, you know what miners are. In a nutshell, miners are the nodes in a network of computers who, together, verify all bitcoin transactions. In exchange, the algorithm rewards them with bitcoin. Because bitcoin has real-world value, the operators of these machines are incentivized to keep them running. If you’d like to learn more about mining, this is a great explanation of how they work.<br />
<br />
The blockchain is the public ledger that holds a permanent record of all bitcoin transactions, and is maintained by the miners. It’s not controlled by a single entity and it’s accessible by everyone. You can read more about the blockchain here.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2. Overlay networks'''<br />
<br />
This is where things start to get interesting. Developers are starting to build networks that work in parallel to the bitcoin blockchain to perform tasks that the bitcoin network can’t, but that make use of the bitcoin blockchain to, for instance, timestamp or validate their work.<br />
<br />
One example is Counterparty. Another might be sidechains. Whatever form these overlay networks take, the one thing they have in common is their connection to the bitcoin blockchain, and how they benefit from its network effects to achieve liquidity without having to bootstrap their own alternative cryptocurrency and/or blockchain like alternative solutions such as Ethereum require.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''3. Decentralized protocols'''<br />
<br />
Thanks to the blockchain, for the first time we can develop open source, decentralized protocols with built-in data (thanks to overlay networks and the blockchain), validation, and transactions that are not controlled by a single entity. This is where the traditional architecture of software businesses begins to break down. The best example of a decentralized protocol on top of a shared data layer is bitcoin, and we’re already well aware of how it’s affecting money and finance.<br />
<br />
Companies like eBay, Facebook and Uber are very valuable because they benefit tremendously from the network effects that come from keeping all user information centralized in private silos and taking a cut of all the transactions.<br />
<br />
Decentralized protocols on top of the blockchain have the potential to undo every single part of the stacks that make these services valuable to consumers and investors. They can do this by, for example, creating common, decentralized data sets to which any one can plug into, and enabling peer-to-peer transactions powered by bitcoin.<br />
<br />
In fact, a number of promising teams have already begun working on the protocols that will disrupt the business models of the companies above. One example is Lazooz, a protocol for real-time ride sharing and another is OpenBazaar, a protocol for free, decentralized peer-to-peer marketplaces.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''4. Open source and commercial APIs'''<br />
<br />
Protocols are hard for the average developer to build on top of, so there’s an opportunity in making it easy to connect to them. Whether it’s a good business in the long term is up for debate, but I think it’s a very important part of the stack.<br />
<br />
Making it quick and easy for developers of any skill set to quickly build an application and experiment on top of these decentralized protocols is paramount to their success.<br />
<br />
These will be either commercial services or open source projects. Good examples of this trend are Chain's APIs and Coinbase’s Toshi for bitcoin. They both serve the same purpose, but Chain is a hosted, commercial service, and Toshi is open source.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''5. Applications'''<br />
<br />
This is the consumer-facing part of the stack. Applications built atop this architecture will, in most cases, work very similarly to the ones we have today – just like Coinbase works similarly to PayPal.<br />
<br />
The big difference to consumers, however, is that because they are built on decentralized protocols, they will be able to talk to each other, just like different email applications and bitcoin wallets can interoperate.<br />
<br />
One thing I like about this stack is that it’s growing from the bottom up. First we had miners, the blockchain, and bitcoin, and now we’re building everything else on top. As far as I know, the most significant revolutions in technology have been built this way."<br />
(http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-application-stack/)<br />
<br />
=Business Models=<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"There are currently a number of incentive structures surrounding blockchain technology and open source software:<br />
<br />
(1) Contribute open source code and make money via services (i.e. Peter Todd’s consulting)<br />
<br />
(2) Create a new close source software project based on the Bitcoin blockchain with a privately held speculative unit (i.e. legal equity in Coinbase)<br />
<br />
(3) Create an new technology set plugged into the Bitcoin blockchain with a privately held speculative unit (i.e. legal equity in Blockstream/Sidechains)<br />
<br />
(4) Create an entirely new unit with inherent utility on a new blockchain (BTC in Bitcoin, XRP in Ripple, ETH in Ethereum)<br />
<br />
(5) Create an entirely new unit with inherent utility on the Bitcoin blockchain (MSC in Mastercoin, XCP in Counterparty)"<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Comparing the Incentive Models==<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"For a long time, the primary model of open source software development has been in category one. The software itself is free. Hosting and other services around it are not. People can also build high value applications on top of the open source code, but these are usually closed source. This is the model that Ruby on Rails and other web frameworks have used fairly successfully as Joel Dietz has previously written.<br />
<br />
The second model is the typical business model. In this, the structure of legal equity binds both investors and developers to a future value that may not be realized for several years. This typically creates a group of a few people who are highly committed to a particular outcome, but may naturally come into odds. Historically there is also no way to incentivize any of the parties beyond employees and investors that may also have a vested interest in the platform (i.e. power users).<br />
<br />
The third model, by which I primarily refer to Sidechains, is still inchoate. In the Sidechains whitepaper it proposes demurrage as a method for incentivizing sidechain development. This seems to promote exactly the opposite set of incentives than what you would want. Effectively this means that assets on the main chain hold their value, while assets on a sidechain gradually decrease in value, while the difference is basically given away to miners. Also, the Sidechains project has no publicly stated business model, which is also a fairly significant concern. Any potential revenue on a service-based business will never be enough for the venture capitalists to get their necessary return, which basically forces them to either create a closed source product or otherwise leverage their position to “gate keep” and charge some sort of toll on network usage.<br />
<br />
The fourth model, though strongly disliked by many, is ironically closest to Bitcoin itself. It states fundamentally that there can be a speculative unit with attached technological innovation that is acquired, and by which the speculators will benefit as both utility and network grows. The somewhat unique feature of Ethereum and a few other related projects (e.g. DarkCoin) is that unlike earlier “altcoins,” these new projects do have significant additional utility that is not found on the Bitcoin Blockchain.<br />
<br />
Since all such projects extend the core Bitcoin technology with this additional utility, this effectively makes them competitors to the Bitcoin blockchain. Although early adopters and venture capitalist backers of Bitcoin had the hope that the network effects of Bitcoin would make it something like the TCP/IP protocal of internet money, it is entirely possible that some other competitor will surpass it. I suspect that whether or not this is the case will depend highly on whether or not anyone can make comparable utility and innovation compatible with Bitcoin.<br />
<br />
This leads to a fifth model that was perhaps under-appreciated until Ethereum came along. This is the possibility that a metacoin, so called because it works via inserting metadata into Bitcoin transactions, could provide much of the increased utility provided via a smart contracting layer without creating its own blockchain.<br />
<br />
Both four and five have very similar economic incentive structures. First of all, they are open to all participants and immediately liquid. Because of this it means that they naturally engage much more quickly a wider audience who are also incentivized to spread the word about that network. But, because of the immediate liquidity, there is no necessary long-term engagement. This affects both the development side and investing, and also means that there a fairly strong incentive to drive up the short time value for a project and exit at the peak. This likely results in a greater amount of capital, greater number of participants, with less depth. While potentially appropriate to the Facebook age, it is typically the case that startups require a few number of very intensely committed people due to the often intensely competitive nature of development, the occasional crisises that test resolve of key participants, and the general need for deferred compensation.<br />
<br />
An additional problem is that none of these projects have evolved business models independent of the appreciation of their new asset class. All effectively depend on driving up the price by increasing the underlying utility of the unit and size of their related network, something that, while feasible, remains a questionable choice for anything that expects to be around in 5–10 years. Also, it is quite possible that price appreciation in such an asset is limited relative to the benefits traditionally associated with equity (i.e. 1000x returns on a successful software exit from an early investment). Since venture capital is generally structured as taking high rewards for high risk, projects with capped rewards impossible for them to undertake from an investment perspective.<br />
<br />
Another very significant drawback is that even where economic incentives maybe aligned, there are basically no accountability structures due to the basically non-existant legal framework for entities receiving this sort of funding. In this case, Counterparty decided not to take funds whatsoever, whereas Ethereum structured their legal documentation to explicitly state that they were promising nothing in return whatsoever.<br />
<br />
As Vitalik recently noted, Ethereum also has a problem of having a dual purpose “product” offering and an “investment” offering, something Swarm founder Joel Dietz called misaligned incentives in an early piece on economics of Ethereum. It is problems like these that have probably caused two out of three Counterparty founders to begin working for a private corporation (Overstock), presumably with some additional equity-based incentivization in addition to the base counterparty unit. In this case, the Counterparty ecosystem now has participants both in categories (4) and (2), with potential conflicts of interest between the participants in area (2), but also the possibility for larger ecosystem growth presuming that those conflicts can adequately be mediated.<br />
<br />
So far we have only discussed the advantages and disadvantages of existing economic incentive structures. What about the future? What other possibilities can we expect to emerge?<br />
<br />
The first “composite” offering has been proposed by Reddit. This is to take an existing equity offering and distribute the benefits downwards to community users via cryptocurrency. This is an incredible opportunity, because it illustrates one of the key benefits of this ‘open’ incentivization model, it actually directly compensates the community members who contribute to network growth.<br />
<br />
The other model is Swarm itself, which, due to legal complexities, was deliberately vague about specific utility at the outset of its fundraising period, and instead described more generally the various categories of benefits that could be applied via these technologies (perk distribution, membership, privileged product access, financial rewards).<br />
<br />
This was sometimes described as sort of crypto social-contract with the intention of providing as much value as possible to its users as the legal infrastructure was developed in order to do so. Much of this increased value depended on ability to structure agreements via smart contracts, which was a technology that did not even exist in any usable form until one week ago."<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Potential Applications=<br />
<br />
by Dominic Frisby:<br />
<br />
"Coders are now developing ways to use blockchain tech for purposes beyond an alternative money system. From 2017, you will start to see some of the early applications creeping into your electronic lives.<br />
<br />
One application is in decentralised messaging. Just as you can send cash to somebody else with no intermediary using Bitcoin, so can you send messages – without Gmail, iMessage, WhatsApp, or whoever the provider is, having access to what’s being said. The same goes for social media. What you say will be between you and your friends or followers. Twitter or Facebook will have no access to it. The implications for privacy are enormous, raising a range of issues in the ongoing government surveillance discussion.<br />
<br />
We’ll see decentralised storage and cloud computing as well, considerably reducing the risk of storing data with a single provider. A company called Trustonic is working on a new blockchain-based mobile phone operating system to compete with Android and Mac OS.<br />
<br />
Just as the blockchain records where a bitcoin is at any given moment, and thus who owns it, so can blockchain be used to record the ownership of any asset and then to trade ownership of that asset. This has huge implications for the way stocks, bonds and futures, indeed all financial assets, are registered and traded. Registrars, stock markets, investment banks – disruption lies ahead for all of them. Their monopolies are all under threat from blockchain technology.<br />
<br />
Land and property ownership can also be recorded and traded on a blockchain. Honduras, where ownership disputes over beachfront property are commonplace, is already developing ways to record its land registries on a blockchain. In the UK, as much as 50 per cent of land is still unregistered, according to the investigative reporter Kevin Cahill’s book Who Owns Britain? (2001). The ownership of vehicles, tickets, diamonds, gold – just about anything – can be recorded and traded using blockchain technology – even the contents of your music and film libraries (though copyright law may inhibit that). Blockchain tokens will be as good as any deed of ownership – and will be significantly cheaper to provide.<br />
<br />
The Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto Polar has won many prizes for his work on ownership. His central thesis is that lack of clear property title is what has held back so many in the Third World for so long. Who owns what needs to be clear, recognised and protected – otherwise there will be no investment and development will be limited. But if ownership is clear, people can trade, exchange and prosper. The blockchain will, its keenest advocates hope, go some way to addressing that.<br />
<br />
Smart contracts could disrupt the legal profession and make it affordable to all, just as the internet has done with music and publishing<br />
<br />
Once ownership is clear, then contract rights and property rights follow. This brings us to the next wave of development in blockchain tech: automated contracts, or to use the jargon, ‘smart contracts’, a term coined by the US programmer Nick Szabo. We are moving beyond ownership into contracts that simultaneously represent ownership of a property and the conditions that come with that ownership. It is all very well knowing that a bond, say, is owned by a certain person, but that bond may come with certain conditions – it might generate interest, it might need to be repaid by a certain time, it might incur penalties, if certain criteria are not met. These conditions could be encoded in a blockchain and all the corresponding actions automated.<br />
<br />
Whether it is the initial agreement, the arbitration of a dispute or its execution, every stage of a contract has, historically, been evaluated and acted on by people. A smart contract automates the rules, checks the conditions and then acts on them, minimising human involvement – and thus cost. Even complicated business arrangements can be coded and packaged as a smart contract for a fraction of the cost of drafting, disputing or executing a traditional contract.<br />
<br />
One of the criticisms of the current legal system is that only the very rich or those on legal aid can afford it: everyone else is excluded. Smart contracts have the potential to disrupt the legal profession and make it affordable to all, just as the internet has done with both music and publishing.<br />
<br />
This all has enormous implications for the way we do business. It is possible that blockchain tech will do the work of bankers, lawyers, administrators and registrars to a much higher standard for a fraction of the price.<br />
<br />
As well as ownership, blockchain tech can prove authenticity. From notarisation – the authentication of documents – to certification, the applications are multifold. It is of particular use to manufacturers, particularly of designer goods and top-end electrical goods, where the value is the brand. We will know that this is a genuine Louis Vuitton bag, because it was recorded on the blockchain at the time of its manufacture.<br />
<br />
Blockchain tech will also have a role to play in the authentication of you. At the moment, we use a system of usernames and passwords to prove identity online. It is clunky and vulnerable to fraud. We won’t be using that for much longer. One company is even looking at a blockchain tech system to replace current car- and home-locking systems. Once inside your home, blockchain tech will find use in the internet of things, linking your home network to the cloud and the electrical devices around your home.<br />
<br />
From identity, it is a small step to reputation. Think of the importance of a TripAdvisor or eBay rating, or a positive Amazon review. Online reputation has become essential to a seller’s business model and has brought about a wholesale improvement in standards. Thanks to TripAdvisor, what was an ordinary hotel will now treat you like a king or queen in order to ensure you give it five stars. The service you get from an Uber driver is likely to be much better than that of an ordinary cabbie, because he or she wants a good rating.<br />
<br />
There will be no suspect recounts in Florida! The blockchain will also usher in the possibility of more direct democracy<br />
<br />
The feedback system has been fundamental to the success of the online black market, too. Bad sellers get bad ratings. Good sellers get good ones. Buyers go to the sellers with good ratings. The black market is no longer the rip-off shop without recourse it once was. The feedback system has made the role of trading standards authorities, consumer protection groups and other business regulators redundant. They look clunky, slow and out of date.<br />
<br />
Once your online reputation can be stored on the blockchain (ie not held by one company such as TripAdvisor, but decentralised) everyone will want a good one. The need to preserve and protect reputation will mean, simply, that people behave better. Sony is looking at ways to harness this whereby your education reputation is put on the blockchain – the grades you got at school, your university degree, your work experience, your qualifications, your resumé, the endorsements you receive from people you’ve done business with. LinkedIn is probably doing something similar. There is an obvious use for this in medical records too, but also in criminal records – not just for individuals, but for companies. If, say, a mining company has a bad reputation for polluting the environment, it might be less likely to win a commission for a project, or to get permission to build it.<br />
<br />
We are also seeing the development of new voting apps. The implications of this are enormous. Elections and referenda are expensive undertakings – the campaigning, the staff, the counting of the ballot papers. But you will soon be able to vote from your mobile phone in a way that is 10 times more secure than the current US or UK systems, at a fraction of the cost and fraud-free. What’s more, you will be able to audit your vote to make sure it is counted, while preserving your anonymity. Not even a corrupt government will be able to manipulate such a system, once it is in place. There will be no suspect recounts in Florida! The blockchain will also usher in the possibility of more direct democracy: once the cost and possibility of fraud are eliminated, there are fewer excuses for not going back to the electorate on key issues."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/how-blockchain-will-revolutionise-far-more-than-money)<br />
<br />
==Identity==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"So what can you do with a Nakamoto blockchain? The most simple applications, the ones we are likely to see in the near future, will make use of them as basic storage systems that take advantage of the unique properties of the network.<br />
<br />
People who are interested in transparency and access are looking at the blockchain as a possible place to organize government records and to include the public in the legislative process, by giving people a forum for publishing, debating, and voting on new proposals.<br />
<br />
Because the blockchain gives each entry a rough time stamp, it can also be used as a decentralized notary. Imagine, for example, taking a picture of a dent in your rental car and loading it into a Bitcoin transaction. By looking at what block the transaction went into, you could later prove that the dent existed before you left the parking lot.<br />
<br />
Because Bitcoin transactions are secured by strong cryptography, the blockchain can also replace our standard user name–and–password strategy for identity verification. In such a system, a Bitcoin address could be tagged with a user name, while the private key would stand in as a password. Anyone could then ask you to prove your identity by using your private key to solve the same cryptographic puzzle that you would normally solve when making a Bitcoin transaction."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Censorship==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Nakamoto blockchains also solve the problem of censorship. Once inserted into the chain, metadata cannot be removed. Developers have used this crucial feature to build a new censorship-resistant version of Twitter (called Twister), and a decentralized domain-name registry (Namecoin).<br />
<br />
“Everything that we own, everything that we do, is governed by these big piles of records,” says Factom’s Kirby. “A bank is just a big stack of records. An insurance company is just a big stack of records. An economy is basically just a big stack of records. And if you can take this concept of…a giant global accounting ledger and say, ‘Now we can organize all the records in the world this way,’ well, it turns out that’s really exciting.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Finance as a Commons]], using the Blockchain==<br />
<br />
Raymond Aitken:<br />
<br />
"What seems important is that it represents a distributed but powerful computing power, and incorruptible database, which can be used as a ledger-transactional system, as well as a notary system for publicly recording rights, including monetary/economic rights. In the event of a bail-in, the majority of the world's population and their enterprises, will have every incentive to transfer their accounts to such a system (which has a very different paradigm than Bitcoin).<br />
<br />
My questions are:<br />
<br />
(1) can the block-chain technology be architechtured into a decentralised operating system and commons block-chain platform, to provide banking as a public service, both at the local and international scale?<br />
<br />
(2) Can it be architectured as the framework of a new international monetary system, in accordance with the proposals of the French-Swiss economist, Michel Laloux (whose book I am translating into English), so that<br />
<br />
(3) money needed for regeneration of the economic commons (the 4 factors of production mentioned in my last email), as well as for solidarity (welfare) purposes - without dependency on the centralised State?"<br />
(email, August 2015)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Trust==<br />
<br />
Gideon Greenspan:<br />
<br />
"If multiple entities are writing to the database, there also needs to be some degree of mistrust between those entities. In other words, blockchains are a technology for databases with multiple non-trusting writers.<br />
<br />
You might think that mistrust only arises between separate organizations, such as the banks trading in a marketplace or the companies involved in a supply chain. But it can also exist within a single large organization, for example between departments or the operations in different countries.<br />
<br />
What do I specifically mean by mistrust? I mean that one user is not willing to let another modify database entries which it “owns”. Similarly, when it comes to reading the database’s contents, one user will not accept as gospel the “truth” as reported by another user, because each has different economic or political incentives.<br />
<br />
So the problem, as defined so far, is enabling a database with multiple non-trusting writers. And there’s already a well-known solution to this problem: the trusted intermediary. That is, someone who all the writers trust, even if they don’t fully trust each other. Indeed, the world is filled with databases of this nature, such as the ledger of accounts in a bank. Your bank controls the database and ensures that every transaction is valid and authorized by the customer whose funds it moves. No matter how politely you ask, your bank will never let you modify their database directly.<br />
<br />
Blockchains remove the need for trusted intermediaries by enabling databases with multiple non-trusting writers to be modified directly. No central gatekeeper is required to verify transactions and authenticate their source. Instead, the definition of a transaction is extended to include a proof of authorization and a proof of validity. Transactions can therefore be independently verified and processed by every node which maintains a copy of the database.<br />
<br />
But the question you need to ask is: Do you want or need this disintermediation? Given your use case, is there anything wrong with having a central party who maintains an authoritative database and acts as the transaction gatekeeper? Good reasons to prefer a blockchain-based database over a trusted intermediary might include lower costs, faster transactions, automatic reconciliation, new regulation or a simple inability to find a suitable intermediary.<br />
<br />
<br />
So blockchains make sense for databases that are shared by multiple writers who don’t entirely trust each other, and who modify that database directly. But that’s still not enough. Blockchains truly shine where there is some interaction between the transactions created by these writers.<br />
<br />
What do I mean by interaction? In the fullest sense, this means that transactions created by different writers often depend on one other. For example, let’s say Alice sends some funds to Bob and then Bob sends some on to Charlie. In this case, Bob’s transaction is dependent on Alice’s one, and there’s no way to verify Bob’s transaction without checking Alice’s first. Because of this dependency, the transactions naturally belong together in a single shared database.<br />
<br />
Taking this further, one nice feature of blockchains is that transactions can be created collaboratively by multiple writers, without either party exposing themselves to risk. This is what allows delivery versus payment settlement to be performed safely over a blockchain, without requiring a trusted intermediary.<br />
<br />
A weaker case can also be made for situations where transactions from different writers are cross-correlated with each other, even if they remain independent. One example might be a shared identity database in which multiple entities validate different aspects of consumers’ identities. Although each such certification stands alone, the blockchain provides a useful way to bring everything together in a unified way.<br />
<br />
If we have a database modified directly by multiple writers, and those writers don’t fully trust each other, then the database must contain embedded rules restricting the transactions performed.<br />
<br />
These rules are fundamentally different from the constraints that appear in traditional databases, because they relate to the legitimacy of transformations rather than the state of the database at a particular point in time. Every transaction is checked against these rules by every node in the network, and those that fail are rejected and not relayed on.<br />
<br />
Asset ledgers contain a simple example of this type of rule, to prevent transactions creating assets out of thin air. The rule states that the total quantity of each asset in the ledger must be the same before and after every transaction."<br />
(http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-blockchain-project/)<br />
<br />
=Examples=<br />
<br />
BY PRIMAVERA DE FILIPPI:<br />
<br />
"the blockchain is not limited to monetary applications. Borrowing from the same ideas (though not using the actual peer-to-peer network bitcoin runs on), a variety of new applications have adapted the bitcoin protocol to fulfill different purposes: Namecoin for distributed domain name management; Bitmessage and Twister for asynchronous communication; and, more recently, Ethereum (released only a month ago). Like many other peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, these platforms all rely on decentralized architectures to build and maintain network applications that are operated by the community for the community."<br />
(http://www.wired.com/2014/03/decentralized-applications-built-bitcoin-great-except-whos-responsible-outcomes/)<br />
<br />
==Ethereum==<br />
<br />
"One of those tapping into its power is Vitalik Buterin, a 19-year-old developer from Toronto, Canada. Last week he launched Ethereum, a new platform that will not just allow for multiple cryptocurrencies, as they are known, but also promises to host a range of decentralised applications on a single block chain. Making systems decentralised is appealing because the authorities will find them hard to shut down.<br />
<br />
Initially, Ethereum users will be able to exchange bitcoins for a new currency – ether. Then, ether will be mined just like Bitcoin. But acquiring another form of digital money is not the point. Ethereum is meant to work like an operating system for cryptocurrencies. Developers can create apps, such as social networks or file storage, that sit on Ethereum's network as part of an app store.<br />
<br />
Ethereum allows for the creation of complex, yet decentralised, economic tools like financial derivatives, in which two parties can bet on the rise and fall of an asset, or crop insurance that pays out to a farmer according to a weather data feed. Creating decentralised versions of Dropbox or eBay should be possible too, claims Buterin.<br />
<br />
Other developers are attempting to achieve the same results by overlaying new code on the existing Bitcoin block chain. One example is the concept of "coloured" coins: with bitcoins labelled to represent other assets such as gold, cars or even houses, you transfer ownership when you trade the labelled coin.<br />
<br />
Buterin says Ethereum is much more flexible. "Bitcoin is great as a form of digital money, but its scripting language is too weak for any kind of serious advanced applications to be built on top."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Decentralized Autonomous Corporations==<br />
<br />
"One of the more advanced concepts being touted for a next-generation Bitcoin is the idea of decentralised autonomous corporations (DAC) – companies with no directors. These would follow a pre-programmed business model and are managed entirely by the block chain. In this case the block chain acts as a way for the DAC to store financial accounts and record shareholder votes.<br />
<br />
In a way, Bitcoin is actually the first DAC, says Daniel Larimer, a developer in Blacksburg, Virginia. People who own bitcoins are shareholders in the company, which offers financial services, earns revenue through transaction fees and pays a salary to its employees, the miners. But no one is in charge.<br />
<br />
Larimer has started his own DAC, called BitSharesX, which he says can perform the actions of a bank, lending other currencies to customers, who can provide BitShares as collateral. Other potential business models for a DAC include election services and lotteries, all run automatically. "The key to a DAC is that it should not depend on any one person."<br />
(http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129553.700-bitcoin-how-its-core-technology-will-change-the-world.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Official Records==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Last year, Manuel Araoz, an Argentinean programmer who now works for BitPay, one of the original Bitcoin payment providers, created a service that enables users to condense any document and embed it into a transaction on the blockchain. A lot of people are now getting excited about the possibility of using this kind of application to store official records. The two examples that come up most often at conferences are property titles and documents proving “prior art” in intellectual property cases. In the case of titles, you’re basically layering a new form of property onto a Bitcoin transaction. Once a deed to a house is associated with a particular value on the Bitcoin blockchain, it can be transferred from party to party without the need for a paper trail.<br />
<br />
In the case of prior art, a document embedded in the blockchain would carry with it a rough time stamp (depending on the rate at which new blocks are being added to the chain), which inventors could later use in patent disputes to prove that they had the first claim to an idea. The same solution would extend to any situation where a human notary was necessary.<br />
<br />
According to Gavin Andresen, one of the developers who works on the core Bitcoin protocol, these applications could be especially useful for underdeveloped nations where governments lack a good way of tracking and transmitting official documents."<br />
<br />
“I think the places where it makes the most sense are the places where they don’t already have a functioning system, they don’t have some legacy way of accomplishing something that the blockchain can help them accomplish,” says Andresen. “The example of property records, deeds to houses. Here in the United States, in Europe, and in other developed world nations, we have this whole system that’s all about keeping track of who owns property and then taxing them. There are parts of the world where that just doesn’t exist yet.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Voting==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"There are several groups (Agora, BitCongress, Swarm) that are looking for ways to use the Bitcoin blockchain to enable online voting. Most of the schemes would involve sending a tiny fraction of a specially tagged bitcoin (or a similar token) to every voter. The voter could then sign it over to anyone on a list of candidates. The candidate with the most bitcoins at the end of the vote would win. One of the benefits of a system like this is that voters could divide their votes among candidates. The results are also completely transparent and visible to anyone who has downloaded a copy of the blockchain. On one hand, this is good because you can conduct a public audit of the vote. On the other hand, it opens the door for vote selling.<br />
<br />
The BitCongress application, which is still under development, goes further and seeks to carve out a space for all the steps in governance. The group wants to provide a forum for debate, a process for voting, and a place for representatives to publish legislative proposals, all on the Bitcoin blockchain."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Identity Verification==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"Today, when we need to log on to websites or applications, we usually prove our identities by supplying passwords. As a result, we are accustomed to managing many different passwords on many different websites. We are also trusting these Web services to keep our passwords, and therefore our identities, safe.<br />
<br />
Onename uses the blockchain to link your name to a Bitcoin address, which you can then prove you control by signing a digital message with your private key (similar to what you do when you spend bitcoins). The developers describe the service as a universal passport for the Internet. They imagine that in the future, instead of signing in to applications with a Facebook account, we will refer to a Onename identity stored on the blockchain.<br />
<br />
For example, “If you want to release your medical records to an application, it is important that you are in unique control of your medical records. You’re not going to trust Facebook,” says Ryan Shea, the cofounder of Onename. “This can even be extended to things like authorizing access to your home, opening your garage door, really any action that is tied to identity. So you could see this being used anywhere on the Web where identity is required.”<br />
<br />
In this scenario, you never have to reveal your private key to anyone, and you retain complete control over (and responsibility for) the integrity of your online identity."<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Distributed Domain-Name Server==<br />
<br />
Morgan Peck:<br />
<br />
"[[Namecoin]] is an altcoin that was established in 2011. The code is nearly identical to that of Bitcoin, but it uses its own Nakamoto blockchain. Rather than tracking financial transactions, it records domain names and their corresponding IP addresses to provide a more secure, censorship-resistant alternative to the way we usually access websites on the Internet.<br />
<br />
When you type a conventional URL (like Spectrum.ieee.org) into a browser, you rely on a centralized third party, called a domain-name server, to look up the URL in a directory and find the numerical IP address of the server you want to connect to. When the U.S. government wants to disable a website, one easy way is for it to demand that the domain-name server, or DNS, refuse to resolve the offending URL. In this case, even though the IP address you want is sitting there in a database on its server, the DNS sends you to a Digital Millennium Copyright Act website takedown notice instead of routing you to your destination. Because the databases are centralized, they are also good targets for hackers. If an attacker can manage to either change an IP address in the directory or send you a false one, he can divert your traffic toward a nefarious website.<br />
<br />
Namecoin was created to solve both of these problems. With a Namecoin client, you can look up any .bit URL and be sure that the corresponding IP address is the same as the one that originally registered it.<br />
<br />
“With Nakamoto blockchains, it’s very, very difficult to remove data from the blockchain once it’s already in there. And it’s not really feasible to insert fraudulent data that claims to be from an address that it really isn’t,” says Jeremy Rand, one of the Namecoin developers. “What this means is, if I register a name in the Namecoin blockchain, no one else can reverse that transaction and remove it from the blockchain, and no one else can hijack it.”<br />
(http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/the-future-of-the-web-looks-a-lot-like-bitcoin/four-cool-things-you-can-do-with-the-blockchain)<br />
<br />
=History=<br />
<br />
Joel Dietz:<br />
<br />
"<br />
The Second Wave of Blockchain Innovation<br />
<br />
The last months have included intense discussion on the feasibility and desirability of various economic forms of Blockchain innovation, including the ominous title of an article in Techcrunch, “A Bitcoin Battle is Brewing.” Although they contain many of the same principles that made Bitcoin successful, other digital assets have often been criticized and dismissed as “speculative.” However, recent usages of cryptoledger systems (c.f. “appcoins,” cryptoequity, smart contracts) often include substantial technological innovation and can be used to solve long standing problems both in investment and corporate governance.<br />
<br />
History<br />
<br />
In the mid-90s Nick Szabo, the inventor of smart contracts, noted the many fascinating things that could be done with programmable money. Another one of his best ideas, “Bit gold,” was later implemented as Bitcoin, a distributed network with unique incentivization mechanism for growth. It included a rudimentary scripting language that allowed you to send a unit, a “coin,” to another participant in the network. This was enough for it to rise in value from mere pennies to a high of over $1,000.<br />
<br />
In 2013 J.R. Willet drafted “Second Bitcoin Whitepaper” and proposed that the Bitcoin blockchain be extended with more advanced smart contract capability, encoded via metadata. His proposed way to finance the development of this new functionality was to create a new type of token that gave access to these advanced features. This was called the “Master” coin.<br />
<br />
J.R. sold $600,000 worth of Mastercoins for Bitcoins in the first ever “crowdsale” in the summer of 2013. By the end of that calendar year, they had appreciated 74x in value. Investors rejoiced. But not all was well in the world of Mastercoin. Instead of full-time developers crunching away in hope of some future event, founders weren’t working full time and most people were employed via “bounties.” All of the best developers interested in the idea were quietly drifting away from the project. These notably included Vitalik Buterin and Adam Krellenstein, both of whom would attempt to solve the same problem in their own way.<br />
<br />
In early 2014, Adam Krellenstein, a self taught programmer, created a re-implementation of the Mastercoin idea from scratch. Like Mastercoin, it contained an implementation of certain smart contract ideas, primarily implementations of existing financial tools. This included asset issuance, asset trading, dividends, and betting. It was released as Counterparty and approximately $1.5mm worth of Bitcoin were transferred into this new system.<br />
<br />
Around the same time, Vitalik Buterin developed the first proof of concept of Ethereum, an abstraction of the same idea. Instead of programming the specific desired features of smart contracts, Vitalik proposed creating a toolkit that allows anyone to program their own smart contract. While theoretically possible to implement in a similar context on the Bitcoin blockchain, Vitalik believed that there were many other aspects of Blockchain architecture that could be improved, including file storage, clearing times, and proofing against special hardware. Vitalik initiated his own crowdsale to finance this blockchain, which gathered approximately $15mm worth of Bitcoins.<br />
<br />
As numerous other projects followed a similar model for funding in 2014, including Counterparty, Maidsafe, Storj, Supernet, Gems, and SWARM, there was a precipitous decline in the value of the progenitor. Mastercoins returned from a peak of almost 100 times return on investment to a price close to the original sale."<br />
(https://medium.com/@Swarm/the-second-wave-of-blockchain-innovation-270e6daff3f5)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Discussion=<br />
<br />
First, '''read this: [https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet]!'''<br />
<br />
For more, see also: [[Blockchain - Discussion]] <br />
<br />
Zacqary Adam Green:<br />
<br />
"Bitcoin’s real contribution to the world is its source code. The blockchain, the network protocol, the cryptographic verification — anyone can take this and build a currency with any economic properties their community needs. I’m not convinced that bitcoin’s Austrian School properties can sustain a global (or even local) economy, but you know what? That’s okay. If I ever feel the bitcoin economy has become too unequal, unbalanced, or stagnant, it’s now trivial for me to start my own damn currency.<br />
<br />
A single bitcoin belongs is a measurement like a centimeter, but the bitcoin community is a social network. People use bitcoin because other people they trade with use bitcoin. If my town is running low on bitcoin but has a lot of resources to share internally, we can create our own local currency to free up bitcoin for importing and exporting. Or I could join an online network of artists who work on one another’s projects, and we’d create our own internal currency that plays by whatever rules we need it to.<br />
<br />
There is no perfect monetary system for every situation. Bitcoin is not going to be the one world currency, and it doesn’t need to be. A lot of people compare Bitcoin to the Internet, but it’s more like CompuServe. It’s the first of many digital, non-state currencies to come, that will all interoperate with each other in ways we can’t even dream of yet."<br />
(http://falkvinge.net/2013/11/06/bitcoins-real-revolution-isnt-hard-money-its-economic-panarchy/ )<br />
<br />
==The blockchain as a potential opportunity for a true sharing economy==<br />
<br />
Primavera De Filippi:<br />
<br />
"Blockchain technology thus facilitates the emergence of new forms of organizations, which are not only dematerialized but also decentralized. These organizations — which have no director or CEO, or any sort of hierarchical structure — are administered, collectively, by all individuals interacting on a blockchain. As such, it is important not to confuse them with the traditional model of “crowd-sourcing,” where people contribute to a platform but do not benefit from the success of that platform. Blockchain technologies can support a much more cooperative form of crowd-sourcing — sometimes referred to as “platform cooperativism”— where users qualify both as contributors and shareholders of the platforms to which they contribute. And since there is no intermediary operator, the value produced within these platforms can be more equally redistributed among those who have contributed to the value creation.<br />
With this new opportunity for increased “cooperativism,” we’re moving toward a true sharing or collaborative economy — one that is not controlled by a few large intermediary operators, but that is governed by and for the people.<br />
<br />
There’s nothing new about that, you might say — haven’t we heard these promises before? Wasn’t the mainstream deployment of the internet supposed to level the playing field for individuals and small businesses competing against corporate giants? And yet, as time went by, most of the promises and dreams of the early internet days faded away, as big giants formed and took control over our digital landscape.<br />
<br />
Today we have a new opportunity to fulfill these promises. Blockchain technology makes it possible to replace the model of top-down hierarchical organizations with a system of distributed, bottom-up cooperation. This shift could change the way wealth is distributed in the first place, enabling people to cooperate toward the creation of a common good, while ensuring that everyone will be duly compensated for their efforts and contributions.<br />
<br />
And yet nothing should be taken for granted. Just as the internet has evolved from a highly decentralized infrastructure into an increasingly centralized system controlled by only a few large online operators, there is always the risk that big giants will eventually form in the blockchain space. We’ve lost our first window of opportunity with the internet. If we, as a society, really value the concept of a true sharing economy, where the individuals doing the work are fairly rewarded for their efforts, it behooves us all to engage and experiment with this emergent technology, to explore the new opportunities it provides and deploy large, successful, community-driven applications that enable us to resist the formation of blockchain giants."<br />
(https://hbr.org/2017/03/what-blockchain-means-for-the-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
Alex Pazaitis, Primavera De Filippi & Vasilis Kostakis: <br />
"Technology can facilitate distributed systems to scale and become viable; however it is the genuine dynamics of sharing and the underlying human sociality that should guide the design and deployment of technological solutions. To this direction, there is a high duty for an interdisciplinary and inclusive approach, involving ICT along with social sciences, as well as philosophy and ethics, so as to avoid getting locked in narrow theoretical and empirical perspectives. […] <br />
<br />
We introduced a mechanism for decentralised consensus through the case of Backfeed, which relies on participatory evaluations and reputation-based influence. Finally, a token-based economic model was presented, which tentatively integrates this new system of value, providing the final layer of value actualisation. The tokens issued through collaborative processes represent a fair share of the created value and a reward for the contributors, and simultaneously they reflect the perceived value of the products and services they produce. Certain opportunities and limitations have been identified in relation to Backfeed and blockchain technology. On one hand, the Backfeed protocol can help productive communities, which engage in social sharing to create commons, to enact their own systems of value, through an inclusive, consensus-based approach. Simultaneously, it allows them to interface with one another and the market, and eventually scale and become sustainable. It thus can help us envision an ecosystem composed by a variety of value systems that fuel the circulation of commons in a sharing economy. In such an ecosystem value would become perceptible in a way that it shifts away from the logic of utility maximisation, towards the general benefit for the society.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the application of Backfeed, and in fact any similar system of evaluation, poses certain challenges to the internal relations in productive communities, related to trust, reciprocity and intrinsic motives. Moreover, the technology is still at a very early stage and more empirical data are necessary to support its real life application. More generally, there are well-justified doubts on the extent that the blockchain alone can help communities solve issues concerning power and influence. At the same time, with the technology yet to reach a dominant design, it is too early to predict how it would operate on large scale. In any case, regardless of the development of blockchain technology or the eventual success of Backfeed as a project, its conceptual model allegedly presents an interesting scenario for the sharing economy and the role the latter can play in societies." <br />
(Article: Blockchain and value systems in the sharing economy: The illustrative case of Backfeed. See: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Backfeed,_the_Blockchain,_and_Value_Systems_in_the_Sharing_Economy)<br />
<br />
==The key questions about the blockchain==<br />
<br />
Alanna Krause:<br />
<br />
1. Ethereum and similar blockchain enabled systems may distribute the verification of the ledger, but they are still centralised systems that easily become controlled by a few big players with more infrastructure resources. The contracts and transaction ledger may be decentralised, but the infrastructure isn't.<br />
<br />
2. Decentralisation in and of itself will not lead to P2P principles, or more social justice. In face, it has just as much power to great exacerbate social inequality. The most likely outcome of widespread adoption of block-chain enabled decentralised technologies is simply increased efficiency and wealth for big banks and governments. The discourse around the blockchain does not seem to acknowledge this. This WILL be co-opted (already is).<br />
<br />
3. I sense a deep lack of understanding of the social dynamics behind truly P2P ways of working and living in the blockchain community. People seem to want to "program" away what I consider the real challenges of confronting power dynamics, synthesising diversity, meeting different human needs, balancing collaboration and autonomy, building high-trust networks, collective ownership and commons management, etc. You cannot fix these things with technology - technology will just magnify the underlying dynamics. This is related to my observations of the lack of diversity in these communities.<br />
<br />
4. People get all excited about the blockchain, but most of the things they seem to want to do with it could be achieved just as easily with a normal database. It seems like the cases where you actually need an objectively verifiable distributed ledger in a zero-trust system are quite rare in practice. If people want to run self-organising corporations, why haven't they make a start with a normal database already? Surely they can implement a blockchain once it scales or they run into a real need. Seems to me people are just excited about some new and shiny tech concept, and not actually into solving the deeper challenges of self-organisation. I have seen a LOT of money changing hands and ideas thrown around, but no living case studies of blockchain enabled networks of people doing real productive work and creating livelihoods and societies."<br />
(via email, May 2016) <br />
<br />
<br />
==The perils of [[Trustless Systems]]==<br />
<br />
'''Blockchains don’t offer us a trustless system, but rather a reassignment of trust!'''<br />
<br />
E J Spode:<br />
<br />
"Such are the perils of supposedly trust-free technology. It might make for good marketing copy, but the fact of the matter is that blockchain technology is larded through with trust. First, you need to trust the protocol of the cryptocurrency and/or DAO. This isn’t as simple as saying ‘I trust the maths’, for some actual human (or humans) wrote the code and hopefully debugged it, and we are at least trusting them to get it right, no? Well, in the case of The DAO, no, maybe they didn’t get it right.<br />
<br />
Second, you have to trust the ‘stakeholders’ (including miners) not to pull the rug out from under you with a hard fork. One of the objections to the hard fork was that it would create a precedent that the code would be changeable. But this objection exposes an unmentioned universal truth: the immutability of the blockchain is entirely a matter of trusting other humans not to fork it. Ethereum Classic Classic would be no more immutable than Etherum Classic, which was no more immutable than Ethereum. At best, the stakeholders – humans all – were showing that they were more trustworthy qua humans about not forking around with the blockchain. But at the same time, they obviously could change their minds about forking at any time. In other words, if Ethereum Classic is more trustworthy, it’s only because the humans behind it are. <br />
<br />
Third, if you are buying into Ethereum or The DAO or any other DAO, you are being asked to trust the people who review the algorithm and tell you what it does and whether it’s secure. But those people – computer scientists, say – are hardly incorruptible. Just as you can bribe an accountant to say that the books are clean, so too can you bribe a computer scientist. Moreover, you’re putting your trust in whatever filters you applied to select that computer scientist. (University or professional qualifications? A network of friends? The testimonials of satisfied customers – which is to say, the same method by which people selected Bernie Madoff as their financial advisor.)<br />
<br />
<br />
Finally, even if you had it on divine authority that the code of a DAO was bug-free and immutable, there are necessary gateways of trust at the boundaries of the system. For example, suppose you wrote a smart contract to place bets on sporting events. You still have to trust the news feed that tells you who won the match to determine the winner of the bet. Or suppose you wrote a smart contract under which you were to be delivered a truck full of orange juice concentrate. The smart contract can’t control whether or not the product is polluted by lemons or some other substance. You have to trust the humans in the logistics chain, and the humans at the manufacturing end, to ensure your juice arrives unadulterated.<br />
<br />
Can’t these gateways to the system be trustless as well? Can’t smart contracts some day have code to call for robotic orange-pickers and robotic juice concentrate-makers who would summon their robotically driven trucks to deliver the orange juice concentrate straight to our door? Yes – in theory. But imagine the task of reviewing the code to ensure that every step in the process hadn’t been corrupted by a bug that uses security failures to highjack trucks, or that gives false approvals to adulterated orange juice. Perhaps we could write second-order programs to automate the testing of the first-order programs – but why do we trust those? Do we ultimately need automated automated-program-tester testers? Where does it end?<br />
<br />
By now, the answer should be obvious: it ends with other humans. Blockchains don’t offer us a trustless system, but rather a reassignment of trust. Instead of trusting our laws and institutions, we are being asked to trust stakeholders and miners, and programmers, and those who know enough coding to be able to verify the code. We aren’t actually trusting the blockchain technology; we are trusting the people that support the blockchain. The blockchain community is certainly new and different, and it talks a good game of algorithms and hashing power, which at least sounds better than tired slogans such as Prudential is rock solid and You are in good hands with Allstate. But miners aren’t necessarily any more reliable than the corporations they replace.<br />
<br />
The sorry case of The DAO raises another question: Why are people so eager to put their faith in blockchain technology and its human supporters, instead of in other social and economic organisations? The upheavals of 2016, from Brexit to Trump, suggest that there is widespread fatigue with traditional institutions. Governments can be bought. Banks are designed to service the wealthy, and to hell with the little guy. ‘The system is rigged’ is a common refrain.<br />
<br />
But instead of targeting the moral failures of the system and trying to reform it, the very concept of ‘trust’ has become suspect. Blockchain enthusiasts tend to cast trust as little more than a bug in our network of human interactions. To be sure, one of the weird features of trusting relationships is that, in order to trust someone, there has to be some chance that they will fail you. Trust involves risk – but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.<br />
<br />
Which brings us back to Buterin and the hard fork of The DAO. What made this event significant was not just what it demonstrated about the foibles of technology or the hubris of 20-something computer scientists. What it really exposed was the extent to which trust defines what it is to be human. Trust is about more than making sure I get my orange juice on time. Trust is what makes all relationships meaningful. Yes, we get burned by people we rely on, and this makes us disinclined to trust others. But when our faith is rewarded, it helps us forge closer relationships with others, be they our business partners or BFFs. Risk is a critical component to this bonding process. In a risk-free world, we wouldn’t find anything resembling intimacy, friendship, solidarity or alliance, because nothing would be at stake.<br />
<br />
Perhaps we ought to reconsider the desire to expunge trust, and instead focus on what should be done to strengthen it. One way to support trust is to hold institutions accountable when they betray it. When the US Department of Justice, for example, elected not to prosecute any of the bankers responsible for the 2008 financial collapse, the net effect was to undermine confidence in the system. They debased the principle of trust by showing that violating the public’s faith could be cost-free.<br />
<br />
Much of our system of trust is invisible to us – but it would be helpful if we could be more aware and appreciative all the same<br />
<br />
Second, trusting relationships should be celebrated, not scorned. When we believe in someone and they betray us, our friends might call us a sucker, an easy mark, a loser. But shouldn’t we celebrate these efforts to trust others – just as entrepreneurs talk up the value of failure on the road to innovation? Isn’t the correct response along the lines of: ‘I see why you trusted them, but isn’t it is terrible that they let you down?’<br />
<br />
Third, we should appreciate the trusting relations we engage in, and are rewarded by, every day. We’re constantly relying on others to help us with something or look after our financial affairs, and much of the time we simply take it for granted. In part, that’s because much of our system of trust is invisible to us – but it would be helpful if we could be more aware and appreciative all the same.<br />
<br />
Finally, we shouldn’t deceive ourselves with the idea that a technological fix can replace the human dimension of trust. Automation of trust is illusory. Rather than disparaging and cloaking human trust, we should face the brutal truth: we can’t escape the need to rely on other people, as fallible and imperfect as they might be. We need to nurture and nourish trust – not throw it away, like so much debased and worthless currency."<br />
(https://aeon.co/essays/trust-the-inside-story-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-ethereum)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Opportunities and Pitfalls for a progressive use of the blockhain==<br />
<br />
Source: In Trebor Scholz & Nathan Schneider (eds.). PlatformCoop The Book (2016) OR Books. '''This text is embargoed''' for diffusion until the publication of this book. Please do not distribute yet.<br />
<br />
Rachel O'Dwyer:<br />
<br />
"So let me show my hand. I'm interested in the blockchain (or blockchain-based technologies) as one tool that, in a very pragmatic way, could assist with cooperative activities, helping us to share resources, to arbitrate, adjudicate, disambiguate and make collective decisions. Some fledgling examples are LaZooz, an alternative ride-sharing app, Swarm, a fundraising app, and proposals for the use of distributed ledgers to manage land ownership or critical infrastructures like water and energy. Many of these activities are difficult outside of local communities or in the absence of some trusted intermediary. However, I also think that much of the current rhetoric around the blockchain hints at problems with the techno-utopian ideologies that surround digital activism, and points to the pitfalls these projects fall into time and again. ItÕs worth addressing these here.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Pitfall #1: We can replace messy and time-consuming social processes with elegant technical solutions===<br />
<br />
Fostering and scaling cooperation is really difficult. This is why we have institutions, norms, laws, and markets. We might not like them, but these mechanisms allow us to cooperate with others even when we donÕt know and trust them. They help us to make decisions and to divvy up tasks and to reach consensus. When we take these things awayÑwhen we break them downÑit can be very difficult to cooperate. Indeed, this is one of the big problems with alternative forms of organization outside of the state and the marketÑthose that are not structured by typical modes of governance such as rules, norms or pricing. These kinds of structureless collaboration generally only work at very local kin-communal scales where everybody already knows and trusts everyone else. In Ireland, for example, there were several<br />
long-term bank strikes in the 1970s. The economy didnÕt grind to a halt. Instead, local publicans stepped in and extended credit to their customers; the debtors were well known to the publicans who were in a good position to make an assessment on their credit worthiness. Community trust replaced a trustless monetary system. This kind of local arrangement wouldnÕt work in a larger or more atomised community. It probably wouldnÕt work in todayÕs Ireland because community ties are weaker.<br />
<br />
Bitcoin caused excitement when it proposed a technical solution to a problem that previously required a trusted intermediary money, or, more specifically, the problem of guaranteeing and controlling money supply and monitoring the repartition of funds on a global scale. It did this by developing a distributed database that is cryptographically verified by an entire network of peers and by linking the production of new money with the individual incentive to maintain this public repository. More recently this cryptographic database has also been used to manage laws, contracts, and property. While some of the more evolved applications involve verifying precious stones and supporting interbank loans, the proposal is that this database could also be used to support alternative worker platforms, allowing systems where people can organize, share or sell their labor without the need of a central entity controlling activities and trimming a generous margin off the top.<br />
<br />
Here the blockchain replaces a trusted third party such as the state or a platform with cryptographic proof. This is why hardcore libertarians and anarcho-communists both favor it. But let's be clear here, it doesn't replace<br />
all of the functions of an institution, just the function that allows us to trust in our interactions with others because we trust in certain judicial and bureaucratic processes. It doesn't stand in for all the slow and messy bureaucracy and debate and human processes that go into building cooperation, and it never will. The blockchain is what we call a ÒtrustlessÓ architecture. It<br />
stands in for trust in the absence of more traditional mechanisms like social networks and co-location. It allows cooperation without trust, in other words, something that is quite different from fostering or building trust. As the founding Bitcoin document details, proof-of- work is not a new form of trust, but the abdication of trust altogether as social confidence and judgment in favor of an algorithmic regulation. With a blockchain, it maybe doesn't matter so much whether I believe in or trust my fellow peers just so long as I trust in the technical efficiency of the protocol. The claim being made is not that we can engineer greater levels of cooperation or trust in friends, institutions or governments, but that we might dispense with social institutions altogether in favor of an elegant technical solution. This assumption is naive, its true, but it also betrays a worrying politics, or rather a drive to replace politics (as debate and dispute and things that produce connection and difference) with economics. This is not just a problem with blockchain evangelism, it's a core problem with the ideology of digital activism generally. The blockchain has more in common with the neoliberal governmentality that produces platform capitalists like Amazon and Uber and state-market coalitions than any radical alternative. Seen in this light, the call for blockchains forms part of a line of informational and administrative technologies such as punch cards, electronic ledgers and automated record keeping systems that work to administrate populations and to make politics disappear.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Pitfall #2: The technical can instantiate new social or political processes===<br />
<br />
Like a lot of peer-to-peer networks, blockchain applications conflate a technical architecture with a social or political mode of organization. We can see this kind of ideology at work when the CEO of Bitcoin Indonesia argues, "in its purest form, Blockchain is democracy". From this perspective, what makes Uber Uber and LaZooz. LaZooz comes down to technical differences at the level of topology and protocol. If only we can design the right technical system, in other words, the right kind of society is not too far behind. The last decade has shown us that there is no linear-causal relationship between decentralization in technical systems and egalitarian or equitable practices socially, politically or economically. This is not only because it is technologically determinist to assume so, or because networks involve layers of strata that exhibit contradictory affordances, but also because there's zero evidence that features such as decentralization or structureless continue to pose any kind of threat to capitalism. In fact, horizontality and decentralization -the very characteristics that peer production prizes so highly - have emerged as an ideal solution to many of the impasses of liberal economics. Today, Silicon Valley appropriates so many of the ideas of the left, anarchism, mobility, and cooperation, even limited forms of welfare. This can create the sense that technical fixes like the blockchain are part of some broader shift to a post-capitalist society, when this shift has not taken place. Indeed, the blockchain applications that are really gaining traction are those developed by large banks in collaboration with tech start-ups, applications to build private blockchains for greater asset management or automatic credit clearing between banks, or to allow cultural industries to combat piracy in a distributed network and manage the sale and ownership of digital goods more efficiently.<br />
<br />
<br />
While technical tools such as the blockchain might form part of a broader artillery for platform cooperativism, then, we also need to have a little perspective. We need to find ways to embrace not only technical solutions, but also people who have experience in community organizing and methods that foster trust, negotiate hierarchies and embrace difference. Because there is no magic app for platform cooperativism. And there never will be."<br />
(https://www.academia.edu/23524276/Blockchains_and_Their_Pitfalls)<br />
<br />
==The Blockchain's Major Design Flaw==<br />
<br />
'''Arthur Brock:'''<br />
<br />
"Stop the Nonsensus! (Nonsense Consensus): Systems will never scale if you require global consensus for local actions by independent agents. For example, I should not have to know where every dollar in the economy is when I want to buy something from you. That adds an overhead of ridiculous complexity for something which needs to follow the principle of pushing intelligence and agency to the edges rather than center. Likewise, an atom should be able to bond with another atom (see cartoon) without accounting for status every electron in the universe. However, Bitcoin and blockchains are built around authorized tokens embedded in every transaction/record, which embeds unnecessary complexity and limitations for scalability into every interaction. Tokens are not what makes a decentralized system work, cryptographic signatures and self-validating data structures are.<br />
<br />
Intrinsic Data Integrity: For a long time, data integrity has been conflated with the hosting, control, and access to the device on which the data is stored. So banks have big firewalls to keep you from hacking in and changing your account balance. But today we have self-validating data structures like hash-chains and Merkle-trees which leave evidence of tampering by breaking structural integrity, cryptographic hash, or counterparty signatures when the data is altered. This makes it possible to distribute the storage and management of data and ensure that the people holding it can't tamper with it. In other words, you could be an authority to show your own account balance, yet not be able to tamper with your account history. When implemented properly, this is the key to enabling massive scales of storage and throughput by enabling auditable data to be stored anywhere/everywhere instead of requiring agreement on single shared ledger.<br />
<br />
Distributed Process not Consensus: Let's learn a bit from tracking how scalable systems in nature and real world get things done. Speakers of a language each carry the means to generate sentences as needed, we don't store every sentence spoken in some global ledger. Cells each carry a copy of their instruction set (DNA), rather than a record of the state and type of every cell. What you need to distribute in a system of collective intelligence is the ability to distribute reliable processing according to shared agreements. Consensus then becomes something used for to ensure the integrity of the processing, rather than the medium upon which processing is executed. This approach, lets you confirm that your copy of the process is valid, so you can rely on it to work according to the agreed upon rules and proceed authoritatively without having to wait for the rest of the network to validate, verify and update itself with your state.<br />
<br />
Agents not Coins: Instead of starting with cryptographic coins or tokens as the fundamental thing that exists, start by having the agents/people/organizations (or their signatures and account IDs) be the primary things that exist. When each person has a copy of the process needed to participate, and their records are stored with intrinsic data integrity, that enable two people to perform a transaction without requiring approval or consensus of anyone else. My process audits your transaction chain to make sure you're in a valid state, yours audits my chain, and either rejects the transaction if it puts someone in an invalid state according to the coded agreements. I know, you have a lot of questions about to make sure this can happen reliably, but I'll drill into that later.<br />
<br />
Fractal not Global: You would think that the existence of the web would have taught us already that we can have shared access to pretty reliable, referenceable, information without us all having identical copies of it. Starting by creating a global ledger where each copy has to be in the same state is a totally different problem than having a fractal process for creating and organizing data which can be referenced by anyone wherever that data lives. It can still provide globally accessible agreement about data, but that agreement is constructed from fractally assembled reliable parts instead of requiring each part to reach global (or 51%) agreement to commit each element of data. One of the beautiful outcomes from this is such a massive reduction in the processing and storage requirements that it becomes feasible to run a full node on a mobile phone instead of requiring specialized mining hardware."<br />
(http://artbrock.com/blog/perspectives-blockchains-and-cryptocurrencies)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Three non-technological ways in which blockchains may still “fail”.==<br />
<br />
Tere Vaden:<br />
<br />
“Fail”, because failing is obviously relative. By now, there is no real doubt that blockchains deliver on their technological promise: tamper-proof distributed permissionless ledgers. But they may very well fail to deliver on their promise as a new shiny class of peer-to-peer technology disintermediating all those pesky central authorities into oblivion.<br />
<br />
===1. Poor usability for non-experts===<br />
<br />
Several generations of peer-to-peer technologies have promised a lot, delivered quite much, but still left a lingering taste of underachievement. While GNU/Linux — an operating system crucially dependent on a p2p development model — is clearly one of the resounding successes of open source, it still did not fulfill its promise in one crucial area (which in its early days was seen as one of the most important): desktop computers. Linux powers anything from toasters to supercomputers, but it hasn’t liberated the masses from Windows or Mac OS. In most of smartphones, Linux is in the shackles of Android.<br />
<br />
There are many reasons for why GNU/Linux hasn’t taken over, vendor lock-in being one of the major ones. But there is another issue that may be relevant to blockchains. When hackers write software for themselves — scratching their own itch — it is ready when it delivers what is needed. And this point of being ready for use is very different for a hacker and for a regular user. For too long, the installation and use of a Linux distribution was too hard for ordinary users. Even if Ubuntu and similar systems have largely solved that bottleneck now, the lesson stands: superior technology, if polished only to the point where it is good enough for hackers and early adopters, will not escape that ghetto. Let’s be honest: just the visual look of a Bitcoin address “13ktXxaJTPvBPfSyS7XALTP1i7nAeR2oZ9” is going to keep a big chunk of potential users away. At the moment, the user experience of even the most advanced blockchain apps is abysmal.<br />
<br />
<br />
===2. Domestication===<br />
<br />
The second danger is domestication, or, maybe better yet “commoditization”. As Robert Herian writes in Critical Legal Thinking:<br />
<br />
“Disruption, so-called and preached by many of the major global banks, to the extent that IBM are now claiming that more than half of those banks will be using the technology in the next three years, is anything but disruption because it leaves unchanged the conditions (norms and expectations) in which it occurs, namely those in which global financial capital has exclusive dominion over the social.”<br />
<br />
It is clear that the way the banks use blockchains in effectivising their databases and other back-office oprations, does very little for a peer-to-peer future. <br />
<br />
<br />
Furthermore, as Herian continues to argue, there is the<br />
<br />
- "Beyond the public and transparent blockchain, and thus any hope of preserving a common space if not exactly or politically-speaking a “commons”, we see a potent indication of the victories of normative liberal and, to a greater extent, global financial capitalism over the blockchain narrative. An ideological victory which is in no small part manifesting itself through the proliferation of permissioned enclosed ledgers which are altering the dynamic of blockchain development […] "<br />
<br />
<br />
Most of the resources in terms of money are certainly going to permissioned and private blockchain development and that will, for sure, lend its flavor to what blockchains are all about in the public mind. Moreover, as Herian indicates, this trend is in a worrying way reminiscent of the way in which other technological developments have encroached digital commons. However, is it so bad that banks and other institutions want to use permissioned blockchains? We are still allowed to use permissionless blockchains and build on them, right?<br />
<br />
<br />
===3. Marginalisation===<br />
<br />
Domestiction becomes a real problem when combined with another non-technological threat: marginalisation. Again, let’s look at recent history. Torrent technology is a superior way for distributing digital content. However, since its first and most prominent uses were related to illegal file-sharing, legislation and public PR campaigns have pushed the technology to the fringe (can you believe that PirateBay is still the most popular torrent tracking site?). Torrents are, of course, used for legal purposes, too, in many forms of content distribution, but again the full promise of the technology has been curtailed by pushing it into a socio-cultural margin.<br />
<br />
All of the three threats – marginalisation, domestication and ghettoised user experience — loom large over blockchains. Moreover, the three collude in forming an evil circle, reinforcing each other. There is no silver bullet agaist any of them. A lot of education, both for regulators and the general public, is needed in order to counteract marginalisation. Against ghettoisation, the most urgent need are real-world uses cases that are not limited to currency speculation or to transactions with high counterparty risk. The more diverse the community involved, the greater the possibility of avoiding marginalisation and pushing for overall usability. The free software and open source movements, for instance, have a history of initiatives and procedures for increasing the diversity of the communities and lowering barriers of entry. They can be reused, while at the same time looking for new ways, such as ethical design, of broadening the horizons of p2p technology development."<br />
(https://medium.com/economic-spacing/three-non-technological-ways-in-which-blockchains-may-still-fail-a8d3a7c238be#.8s6m8sgr5)<br />
<br />
==More Discussion==<br />
<br />
<br />
See: [[Blockchain - Discussion]] for more articles on the following topics:<br />
<br />
1 From the Invisible Hand to the Visible Hand<br />
<br />
2 Disintermediating Banking and User Accounts<br />
<br />
3 Why the Bitcoin ledger is potentially so important<br />
<br />
4 The Revolution will not be based on a global receipt depository!<br />
<br />
5 The Political Vision behind the ledger<br />
<br />
6 The Bitcoin Protocol Is More ‘Cloud’ Than ‘P2P’<br />
<br />
7 What Are the Challenges?<br />
<br />
8 Towards an internet of (block)chains<br />
<br />
9 How the blockchain works for trust<br />
<br />
10 The dispute on the size of blocks<br />
<br />
=The [[Blockchain Applications Directory]]=<br />
<br />
Compiled by Aeze Soo:<br />
<br />
==[[La Zooz]]==<br />
<br />
<br />
- Social Ride sharing : <br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BttJsLLOHo<br />
<br />
→ LaZooz.org<br />
<br />
" La’Zooz: The Decentralized, Crypto-Alternative to Uber [http://www.shareable.net/blog/lazooz-the-decentralized-crypto-alternative-to-uber]<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Backfeed]]==<br />
<br />
Backfeed develops foundational tools for Decentralized Collaborative Organizations, syncing the spontaneous actions of millions of people to promote an era of collaboration and decentralized value production.<br />
<br />
→ http://backfeed.cc<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[IPFS]]==<br />
<br />
A Permanent Web - A peer-to-peer hypermedia protocol<br />
→ http://ipfs.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Decentraland]]==<br />
<br />
- Virtual world - Blockchain<br />
→ http://decentraland.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Ascribe]]==<br />
<br />
- Creative commons on blockchain<br />
→ http://cc.ascribe.io<br />
<br />
→ http://creativecommons.fr/creative-commons-france-experimente-avec-ascribe-pour-soutenir-le-copyleft-avec-le-blockchain/<br />
<br />
==[[Proof of Existence]]== <br />
<br />
To certify documents<br />
<br />
→ http://proofofexistence.com<br />
→ http://github.com/maraoz/proofofexistence<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Group Currency]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://groupcurrency.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[uCoin]]== <br />
<br />
- UBI currency :<br />
<br />
→ http://ucoin.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitnation]]== <br />
- world : Virtual nation - Blockchain<br />
→ http://www.bitnation.world<br />
<br />
→ http://bitnation.co<br />
<br />
→ http://cryptonewsday.com/bitnation-releases-proof-of-concept-for-decentralized-government-platform/<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Basic Income Co]]==<br />
<br />
BasicIncome.co : Economy - A peer-to-peer secure network<br />
→ http://indiegogo.com/projects/basicincome-co-a-peer-to-peer-safety-net-network–2<br />
→ http://mybitnation.tumblr.com/post/105873406725/bitnation-announces-basic-income-application<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[OkTurtles]]==<br />
<br />
Foundation supporting beneficial decentralization technologies<br />
→ http://okturtles.com<br />
<br />
==[[Open Bazaar]]== <br />
<br />
Trade online directly to other users, using Bitcoin<br />
→ http://openbazaar.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Alexandria Decentralized Library]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://blocktech.com<br />
<br />
→ https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/alexandria-uses-block-chain-preserve-worlds-knowledge/<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Virtual Notary]]== <br />
<br />
Attestation service<br />
→ http://virtual-notary.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blocknet]]== <br />
<br />
A blockchain agnostic decentralized platform as a service<br />
<br />
→ http://blocknet.co<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockcypher]]== <br />
<br />
Blockchain services<br />
<br />
→ http://blockcypher.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[First Blockchain Incorporated]]==<br />
<br />
(NOT) The World’s First Stateless Company Incorporated In And By The Bitcoin Blockchain<br />
→ http://firstblockchain.com<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Me]]== <br />
<br />
A tool for creating verifiable IDs on the blockchain <br />
<br />
→ http://blockchainme.com<br />
<br />
→ Code source: https://github.com/kiaraRobles/blockchainMe<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Finyear]]==<br />
<br />
Laboratory of ideas and innovations at Finyear (http://www.finyear.com/labs)<br />
→ http://bl0ckcha1n.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Factom]]==<br />
<br />
A scalable data layer for the blockchain<br />
→ http://factom.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Summit]]==<br />
<br />
Summit blockchain<br />
→ http://blockchainsummit.io<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Eris Industries]]== <br />
<br />
The Distributed Application Platform<br />
→ http://erisindustries.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitmarkets]]==<br />
<br />
Voluntary : Bitmarkets<br />
→ https://github.com/voluntarynet/Bitmarkets<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockstream]]==<br />
<br />
Extending Bitcoin’s blockchain with Sidechains :<br />
→ http://blockstream.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Elements Project]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://elementsproject.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain University]]== <br />
<br />
- Courses :<br />
→ http://blockchainu.co<br />
<br />
<br />
==Blockchain London==<br />
<br />
Event - Conferences at London :<br />
→ http://blockchainlondon.com<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Institute for Blockchain Studies]]==<br />
<br />
→ http://blockchainstudies.org<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Blockchain Info]]==<br />
<br />
Blockchain-Info : Explorator of Bitcoin blocks<br />
→ http://blockchain.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Bitcoin City]]==<br />
<br />
" Each city is a bitcoin transaction, on the road to the blockchain "<br />
<br />
→http://www.bitcoincity.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Crypto Graffiti]]==<br />
<br />
Store texts on the blockchain<br />
<br />
→ http://cryptograffiti.info<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Democracy OS]]== <br />
<br />
- "It’s time to design a system where we can delegate power to peers: people we can trust and hold accountable."<br />
<br />
- "We’re beginning to see trust built on distributed networks. Will the blockchain change the way we build power ?"<br />
<br />
- “We can secure power transactions (votes) making them valid in a network of peers where nobody is in charge.”<br />
<br />
- "When you want to do online voting, the key element is identity validation."<br />
<br />
- "We can build a democratic system where you don’t have to wait 3 years to change the people you delegated power to."<br />
<br />
"Power on the blockchain - DemocracyOS" :<br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqOQS5wd6hU<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Streamium IO]]== <br />
<br />
- Manuel Aráoz : “Going live at DecentralizeAll currently”<br />
<br />
→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tFSJTlKec<br />
<br />
=Blockchain Developer Assistance=<br />
<br />
<br />
"We help get developers on the blockchains" :<br />
<br />
BlockStrap :<br />
<br />
→ http://blockstrap.com<br />
<br />
NeuroWare :<br />
<br />
→http://neuroware.io<br />
<br />
BlockchainSpace<br />
<br />
→http://www.blockchain.space<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
* '''Read this first''': <br />
<br />
#[http://www.multichain.com/blog/2015/11/avoiding-pointless-blockchain-project/ Avoiding the pointless blockchain project]<br />
#[https://english.lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet]<br />
<br />
All about crypto-currencies → http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency/coins<br />
<br />
Documentary : Ulterior States [ IamSatoshi Documentary ]→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQGQXy0RIIo<br />
<br />
DecentralizeFM : → https://decentralize.fm<br />
<br />
Book - Eyrolles - "Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy" → http://amazon.fr/Blockchain-Blueprint-Economy-Melanie-Swan-ebook/dp/B00SNS9JLW<br />
<br />
http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21650295-or-it-next-big-thing<br />
<br />
The draw and blockchain ( in french ) → http://dem0crat1e.fr/posts/tirage-au-sort-bitcoin<br />
<br />
Related entries:<br />
<br />
#[[Blockchain Companies]]<br />
#[[Internet of Chains]]<br />
#[[Open Source Sidechains]]: [[Sidechain Elements]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Technology]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Money]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Infrastructure]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cryptoledger Applications]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Backfeed,_the_Blockchain,_and_Value_Systems_in_the_Sharing_Economy&diff=107693Backfeed, the Blockchain, and Value Systems in the Sharing Economy2017-06-13T13:25:38Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''* Article: Blockchain and Value Systems in the Sharing Economy: The Illustrative Case of Backfeed.''' <br />
<br />
By Alex Pazaitis, Primavera De Filippi, Vasilis Kostakis, published in: ''Technological Forecasting & Social Change''. Available at: <br />
<br />
* Science Direct: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517307084 (or DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.025) <br />
* P2P Lab publications: http://www.p2plab.gr/el/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Pazaitis_et_al_2017_TFSC.pdf <br />
* [working paper] Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics no. 73, JANUARY 2017: http://technologygovernance.eu/files/main//2017012509590909.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
=Abstract=<br />
<br />
"This article explores the potential of blockchain technology in enabling a new system of value that will better support the dynamics of social sharing. Our study begins with a discussion of the evolution of value perceptions in the history of economic thought. Starting with a view on value as a coordination mechanism that defines meaningful action within a certain context, we associate the price system with the establishment of capitalism and the industrial economy. We then discuss its relevance to the information economy, exhibited as the techno-economic context of the sharing economy, and identify new modalities of value creation that better reflect the social relations of sharing. <br />
<br />
Through the illustrative case of Backfeed, a new system of value is envisioned, comprising three layers: <br />
<br />
(a) production of value; <br />
(b) record of value; and <br />
(c) actualisation of value. <br />
<br />
In this framework, we discuss the solutions featured by Backfeed and describe a conceptual economic model of blockchain-based decentralised cooperation. We conclude with a tentative scenario for blockchain technology that can enable the creation of commons-oriented ecosystems in a sharing economy."<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cryptoledger Applications]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Research]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Infrastructure]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Commons Economics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Accounting]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Backfeed,_the_Blockchain,_and_Value_Systems_in_the_Sharing_Economy&diff=107692Backfeed, the Blockchain, and Value Systems in the Sharing Economy2017-06-13T13:24:55Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''* Article: Blockchain and Value Systems in the Sharing Economy: The Illustrative Case of Backfeed.''' <br />
By Alex Pazaitis, Primavera De Filippi, Vasilis Kostakis, published in: ''Technological Forecasting & Social Change''. Available at: <br />
<br />
* Science Direct: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517307084 (or DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.025) <br />
* P2P Lab publications: http://www.p2plab.gr/el/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Pazaitis_et_al_2017_TFSC.pdf <br />
* Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics no. 73, JANUARY 2017: http://technologygovernance.eu/files/main//2017012509590909.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
=Abstract=<br />
<br />
"This article explores the potential of blockchain technology in enabling a new system of value that will better support the dynamics of social sharing. Our study begins with a discussion of the evolution of value perceptions in the history of economic thought. Starting with a view on value as a coordination mechanism that defines meaningful action within a certain context, we associate the price system with the establishment of capitalism and the industrial economy. We then discuss its relevance to the information economy, exhibited as the techno-economic context of the sharing economy, and identify new modalities of value creation that better reflect the social relations of sharing. <br />
<br />
Through the illustrative case of Backfeed, a new system of value is envisioned, comprising three layers: <br />
<br />
(a) production of value; <br />
(b) record of value; and <br />
(c) actualisation of value. <br />
<br />
In this framework, we discuss the solutions featured by Backfeed and describe a conceptual economic model of blockchain-based decentralised cooperation. We conclude with a tentative scenario for blockchain technology that can enable the creation of commons-oriented ecosystems in a sharing economy."<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cryptoledger Applications]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Research]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Infrastructure]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Commons Economics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Accounting]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Backfeed,_the_Blockchain,_and_Value_Systems_in_the_Sharing_Economy&diff=107691Backfeed, the Blockchain, and Value Systems in the Sharing Economy2017-06-13T13:16:27Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''* Article: Blockchain and Value Systems in the Sharing Economy: The Illustrative Case of Backfeed. By Alex Pazaitis, Primavera De Filippi, Vasilis Kostakis. ''Technological Forecasting & Social Change''. Available at: <br />
<br />
* Science Direct: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517307084 (or DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.025) <br />
* Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics no. 73, JANUARY 2017: http://technologygovernance.eu/files/main//2017012509590909.pdf'''<br />
<br />
<br />
=Abstract=<br />
<br />
"This article explores the potential of blockchain technology in enabling a new system of value that will better support the dynamics of social sharing. Our study begins with a discussion of the evolution of value perceptions in the history of economic thought. Starting with a view on value as a coordination mechanism that defines meaningful action within a certain context, we associate the price system with the establishment of capitalism and the industrial economy. We then discuss its relevance to the information economy, exhibited as the techno-economic context of the sharing economy, and identify new modalities of value creation that better reflect the social relations of sharing. <br />
<br />
Through the illustrative case of Backfeed, a new system of value is envisioned, comprising three layers: <br />
<br />
(a) production of value; <br />
(b) record of value; and <br />
(c) actualisation of value. <br />
<br />
In this framework, we discuss the solutions featured by Backfeed and describe a conceptual economic model of blockchain-based decentralised cooperation. We conclude with a tentative scenario for blockchain technology that can enable the creation of commons-oriented ecosystems in a sharing economy."<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cryptoledger Applications]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Research]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Articles]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Infrastructure]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Commons Economics]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:P2P Accounting]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Backfeed&diff=107690Backfeed2017-06-13T13:13:06Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= Backfeed develops foundational tools for Decentralized Collaborative Organizations, syncing the spontaneous actions of millions of people to promote an era of collaboration and decentralized value production.'''<br />
<br />
URL = http://backfeed.cc<br />
<br />
''"A Social Operating System for Decentralized Organizations": Backfeed builds tools that enable large-scale, free and systematic cooperation between thousands of people without the coordination of any central authority.''<br />
<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
'''1.'''<br />
<br />
"Facebook owned by its users, decentralized transportation networks independent of Uber,<br />
markets dominated by open-source communities where contributors are also shareholders, and where the value created is redistributed both fairly and transparently. Imagine the innovative potential of such organisations decoupled from the rigidities of hierarchical structures.<br />
<br />
Backfeed’s infrastructure comprises decentralized management tools, equity-sharing schemes, crowdsourcing mechanisms, and instruments for the collaborative evaluation and curation of content.<br />
<br />
The Backfeed protocol can fuel a variety of ventures, including decentralized journalism, insurance, ride-sharing applications and any other enterprise that would benefit from the decentralized, indirect coordination of large groups of individuals.<br />
<br />
Our goal is to enable the bootstrapping of decentralized organizations on top of the blockchain as easily as one would deploy a website today."<br />
<br />
<br />
'''2.'''<br />
<br />
"Backfeed is a platform to create platform cooperatives, all powered by the blockchain. Backfeed bills itself as, "a social operating system for decentralized organizations." It enables massive, open-source collaboration without central coordination. Using a blockchain-based operating system, the Israeli company’s infrastructure comprises decentralized management tools, equity-sharing schemes, crowdsourcing mechanisms, and instruments for the collaborative evaluation and curation of content.<br />
<br />
With a goal to enable the bootstrapping of decentralized organizations on top of the blockchain as easily as deploying a website, Backfeed can fuel a variety of ventures, including “decentralized journalism, insurance, ride-sharing applications and any other enterprise that would benefit from the decentralized, indirect coordination of large groups of individuals.”<br />
(http://www.sustainablecitiescollective.com/shareable/1194348/11-platform-cooperatives-creating-real-sharing-economy)<br />
<br />
=Characteristics=<br />
<br />
"If you’d compare the Blockchain to the TCP/IP, the Backfeed protocol would be analogous to the HTTP: it provides the necessary toolkit for people to design and bootstrap decentralized organisations on top of the blockchain, without having to worry about the underlying complexities that such an operation entails."<br />
(http://backfeed.cc/explore-in-depth)<br />
<br />
==Dynamic Power Distribution==<br />
<br />
"The Backfeed protocol implements a meritocratic governance system, dynamically adjusting the influence of peers in a decentralized network.<br />
<br />
"The Reputation Score is a non-transferable unit of measure that reflects the degree of alignment of a participant within a network of peers. The reputation score determines the influence each user has in the evaluation process of the contributions of other participants. It can be accumulated in two ways: by making a contribution to the network that is perceived as valuable, and by making a useful evaluation of someone else's contribution." [http://backfeed.cc/explore-in-depth]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Proof of Value (PoV)==<br />
<br />
Just as Bitcoin’s Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm rewards miners according to the amount of computational resources provided to the Bitcoin network, Backfeed’s PoV mechanism enables a decentralized network of peers to reach consensus about the perceived value of any contribution within the network, and reward it accordingly.<br />
<br />
"Value is distributed via tokens which are issued automatically whenever a contribution is recognized as valuable by the majority of reputation in a network, and collected as a fee whenever an action is performed that requires the attention or evaluation of other users.<br />
<br />
Essentially, tokens can represent the equity of a company or a DAO and can be used as the fuel of a Đapp that carries tangible market value like ether-coin and their like." [http://backfeed.cc/explore-in-depth]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Accommodating Diversity==<br />
<br />
The Backfeed protocol drives communities into consensus by empowering aligned individuals, and translates disagreement into a diversity of networks."<br />
<br />
"The Backfeed protocol makes it possible for a community’s value system to emerge organically, through the aggregation of individual actions. It also encourages individuals that deviate from it to cluster with other, more like-minded individuals in order to create their own community.<br />
<br />
The Backfeed protocol provides that those who are in line with a community’s value system will see their influence within that community increase, at the expense of those who disagree. By doing so, the Backfeed protocol promotes the alignment of individual members towards a specific set of values, while encouraging other, less aligned individuals to fork into different communities with an alternative set of values.<br />
<br />
The efficiency of the protocol increases with the number of individuals involved: the more the number of users who participate and the greater the diversity of opinions involved in the process, the better the results the algorithm provides." [http://backfeed.cc/explore-in-depth]<br />
<br />
<br />
=More Information=<br />
<br />
More at The [[Blockchain Applications Directory]] <br />
<br />
Article: Pazaitis, A., De Filippi, P. & Kostakis, V. (2017) Blockchain and value systems in the sharing economy: The illustrative case of Backfeed. ''Technological Forecasting & Social Change'' (in press), available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517307084. <br />
<br />
[[Category:Cryptoledger Applications]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Category:P2P_Accounting&diff=107502Category:P2P Accounting2017-05-28T21:17:32Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>This section monitors new metrics, evaluation and accounting methods that are appropriate for a collaborative, peer to peer economy.<br />
<br />
The necessary [[Value Revolution]] strives to re-integrate both social and environmental externalities, currently neglected in the dominant system, into our production systems.<br />
<br />
Key theme: how do we evolve towars '''"relations of open reciprocity, communal sharing, gift-giving and voluntary collaboration allowed value to circulate in its unalienated forms, including labor power, political expression and interspecies ecological exchanges".''' [http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/TEKN/article/view/52847/49997]<br />
<br />
Key Concepts: [[Unalienated Value]] ; [[Generative Justice]]<br />
<br />
Key document: [[Value in the Commons Economy]], our report on the transition in value regime, by Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Niaros.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Contextual Citation=<br />
<br />
'''The moment we stop optimizing the digital economy for the growth of capital, and optimize it for the circulation of value between people, everything will start to get better really fast.'''<br />
<br />
- Douglas Rushkoff [http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/features-issue-sections/15982/douglas-rushkoff-throwing-rocks-at-the-google-bus-interview/]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Introductory Resources=<br />
<br />
* see the work of the [[Assembly of the Commons]] in Lille, to define the: [[Six Characteristics to Define Commons-Oriented Entities]]. as well as their work on [[Contributive Commons as Tools for Reciprocity]]<br />
<br />
<br />
* the most important ecosystem accounting system in the world: the [[Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism]] used by Senplades in Ecuador.<br />
<br />
<br />
* '''For the most advanced p2p [[Value Accounting System]], see [[Sensorica]]''''s [[Open Value Network]]. Watch these videos for an introduction: [[Tiberius Brastaviceanu on the Scalable Peer Economics of the Sensorica Open Value Accounting Network]]; or read: '''[[Tiberius Brastaviceanu on Why We Need a Open Value Accounting System]]'''. [[Network_Resource_Planning|More about the software]]<br />
<br />
<br />
* Video, for the historical, present and future context of the transition in value regime, listen to the podcast: [[Michel Bauwens on Shifting From an Extractive Value Regime To a Regenerative Value Regime]]<br />
<br />
<br />
* Video: [[Christian Felber on the Common Welfare Economy]]; a metrics system to measure the common welfare contribution of every market entity.<br />
<br />
<br />
* [[Sustainable Community Indicators]]: "Of the expanding “family” of alternative wealth measures, sustainable community indicators are probably the most comprehensive expression of qualitative wealth and community development generally. At their best, they synthesize a range of quantitative and qualitative data, including people’s subjective preferences." [http://greeneconomics.net/ValueRevolution.htm]<br />
<br />
=Citations=<br />
<br />
Chelsea Rustrum:<br />
<br />
"There is a way to more equally distribute wealth and transfer value. We can easily build technology to account for, assign, and distribute value as it’s created. Value distribution is coming — it’s just a matter of time."<br />
(https://medium.com/@shareablelife/the-sharing-economy-a-social-movement-dying-to-become-an-economic-one-5bbebddad96b#.xdmdl62lt)<br />
<br />
<br />
==On the [[Value Revolution]] that is taking place==<br />
<br />
<br />
"Under the radar of mass media and mainstream academia, a value revolution is taking place that is promising to transform humanity’s very notions of wealth and economic development. Expressed in an explosion of both traditional academic indicators and innovative new quality-of-life and sustainability measures, this value revolution is not simply revealing previously invisible “full costs” of production, but also “redefining progress” more positively—from quantity to quality. Economically, our ways of growing and distributing food, providing & using energy, building buildings, making and exchanging clothing, etc. are being reexamined not only to reduce their negative impacts, but also to more fully express their social and ecological potentials. They are geared not simply to the sustainability of communities and ecosystems, but to their regeneration—to make economic development, as eco-architect Bill McDonough would say, “not just less bad, but good.”<br />
<br />
- Brian Milani [http://greeneconomics.net/ValueRevolution.htm]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==On Measurement and Power==<br />
<br />
"The '''history of measurement has been a history in which the privileged and empowered have been the creators and institutionalizers, while the oppressed and powerless have had no choice but to use their master’s tools and definitions of reality (Kula, 1986; Scott, 1998). This is a pattern that continues to this day''', perhaps best exemplified by current trends in educational “reform,” where in the United States, billionaires who never set foot in a public school growing up, and who send their own children to private schools, swayed federal legislation toward the creation of a vast technologically intensive testing infrastructures that now dominates the entire public school system (Ravitch, 2014). New tests and measures are being forced upon teachers; if they do not use them they can be fired. Educators are being disempowered, deskilled, and rendered without voice when it comes to some of the most essential aspect of their professional practice, i.e., assessment drives curriculum and pedagogy. Meanwhile for-profit industries are poised to make billions off the privatization of one of the oldest and most inspiring public institutions in American history."<br />
<br />
- Zachary Stein [http://www.zakstein.org/the-invisible-infrastructures-that-shape-our-lives-and-why-social-justice-demands-they-be-made-visible-itc-2015-paper-update/]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Tiberius Brastaviceanu on Open [[Value Accounting System]]s==<br />
<br />
"We need to make the distinction between co-creation of value and value exchange. These are two important processes but very distinct ones. Sensoricans are working hard to solve the value accounting problem, which is meant to support large scale co-creation of value. The value accounting is a way to capture individual contributions that blend into a unique product, to evaluate these contributions, and to compute equity in the end product, a % for every member.<br />
<br />
NOTE the value accounting system is NOT a system that objectifies value and it is not a bean counting system! It is a contract, a method to which all contributors adhere to reassure every contributor about how the future revenue will be redistributed. That's it! It preserves the subjective nature of value, it can take, in theory, into consideration all types of value, tangible and intangible.<br />
<br />
Once the product is made it is exchanged, and this is where you need currencies, or systems of value exchange.<br />
<br />
Again, value accounting for co-creation of value and value exchange are two different things in my mind. These two systems must interact with each other, but we need to see them as separate. One is designed to manage the amalgamation of value from different agents into one product, the other one is designed to facilitate value exchange between different agents, with no value added in the process."<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Tom Walker]] on the need for a new [[Social Accounting]] system for the [[Labor Commons]]==<br />
<br />
"What I proposed in "Time on the Ledger" is a social accounting framework for evaluating the net social productivity of different hours of work arrangements. The basic idea is that first, there are fixed social cost to labor that are not reflected in capitalist accounting and the way that employers can shed their labor costs by laying off workers and second, there is a technologically-determined optimal length of working time per worker exceeding which subtracts from net social product over the longer period. The information from this process can guide collective bargaining and public policy advocacy while at the same time inculcating a commons mentality in practitioners. It is not enough to translate back and forth between capitalist accounting perspective and a commons ideal. One must become fluent in a new social accounting language."<br />
(http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.ca/2013/02/the-new-charter-of-industrial-freedom.html)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Key Resources=<br />
<br />
==Key Articles==<br />
<br />
* Michael Gurstein: [[On the Failure to Measure the Contributions of the Internet Economy]]<br />
<br />
* A New Way of [[Measuring Openness]]: The [[Open Governance Index]]. Liz Laffan. TIM Review, January 2012 [http://timreview.ca/article/512]. A way to measure the degree of real [[Peer Governance]] of any project (particularly for [[Open Source Software]] companies).<br />
<br />
* Introduction to the [[Eight Forms of Capital]]<br />
<br />
* [[Open Source Ratings Are Needed To Break the Ratings Agency Oligopoly]]<br />
<br />
* [[Accounting and Control of the Labour Process]]<br />
<br />
* [http://szabo.best.vwh.net/formalize.html Formalizing and Securing Relationships on Public Networks].By Nick Szabo<br />
<br />
* 1) [http://www.zakstein.org/post-modern-measurement-and-the-hyper-measured-self/ Post-modern Measurement and The Hyper-Measured Self]. 2) [http://www.zakstein.org/sacred-measures-and-measures-of-pure-abstraction-a-socio-polictial-history-of-quantitative-objectivity/ Sacred Measures and Measures of Pure Abstraction: A Socio-Political History of Quantitative Objectivity]. By ZACHARY STEIN<br />
<br />
===Values and Currencies in Peer Production===<br />
<br />
* [[Measuring Value in the Commons-Based Ecosystem]]: Bridging the Gap Between the Commons and the Market. By Primavera De Filippi and Samer Hassan. MoneyLab Reader, 2014 [http://p2pfoundation.net/Measuring_Value_in_the_Commons-Based_Ecosystem]<br />
<br />
* Pearce, J.M. (2015) [[ Quantifying the Value of Open Source Hardware Development]]. ''Modern Economy'', '''6''', 1-11. doi: [http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/me.2015.61001 10.4236/me.2015.61001]. [https://www.academia.edu/10143203/Quantifying_the_Value_of_Open_Source_Hard-ware_Development open access]<br />
<br />
* De Filippi, P. (2014). [[Translating Commons-based Peer Production Values into Metrics]]: towards Commons--based Crypto-Currencies, in Lee Kuo Chen D. (ed.), The Handbook of Cryptocurrency. Elsevier<br />
<br />
===Social Ledgers for Labor as a Common-Pool Resource===<br />
<br />
Tom Walker:<br />
<br />
* Social Accounting for the Good Society, http://www.scribd.com/doc/44657733/Time-on-the-Ledger-Social-Accounting-for-the-Good-Society<br />
<br />
* the implications and the background of the analysis of labor-power as a common-pool resource, http://commonsandeconomics.org/groups/stream-2-labor-and-care/forum/topic/labour-power-as-a-common-pool-resource/<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===[[Shared Value]], [[Blended Value]] Conceptions===<br />
<br />
* Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer. Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 2011 [http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value]: “creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===The potential of universal open ledgers ([[Blockchain]] / [[Holochain]])===<br />
<br />
* [[Commons-Oriented Decentralised Programmed Organisations]], i.e. cDPOs "are frameworks to bootstrap, develop & sustain commons projects"., aka, the commons-oriented version of DAO's. More info in the article: [[Programmed Decentralised Commons Production]]. [https://medium.com/@ecsa_team/programmed-decentralised-commons-production-2b1fac7cf9a8]<br />
<br />
* [[Trust by Computation in the Bitcoin and Blockchain Model]] <br />
<br />
===The Resources, Events, Agents (REA) model and Open Value Networks===<br />
<br />
* Key articles: https://msu.edu/user/mccarth4 <br />
* Django-REA project documentation by Bob Haugen: https://github.com/django-rea/rea-app/wiki#background-info <br />
<br />
<br />
==Key Books==<br />
<br />
* The [[Ethical Economy]]. Rebuilding Value After the Crisis. By Adam Arvidsson and Nicolai Peitersen. Columbia University Press, 2013<br />
<br />
===Historical Context===<br />
<br />
* The Institutional Revolution: [[Measurement and the Economic Emergence of the Modern World]]. By DOUGLAS W. ALLEN. University of Chicago Press, 2011 [http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo11040582.html]<br />
<br />
* James Aho's The Religious, Moral and Rhetorical Roots of Modern Accounting [http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_1/ACCOUNTING%20Confession%20and%20bookkeeping%20%20the%20religious,%20moral,%20and%20rhetorical%20roots%20of%20modern%20accou.pdf]<br />
<br />
* Rob Bryer's Accounting and Control of the Labour Process [http://ecologicalheadstand.blogspot.ca/2010/11/accounting-and-control-of-labour.html]<br />
<br />
<br />
=Key Reports=<br />
<br />
* [[Value in the Commons Economy]]: Developments in Open and Contributory Value Accounting. By Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Niaros. Heinrich Boll Foundation, 2016. [https://www.boell.de/en/2017/02/01/value-commons-economy-developments-open-and-contributory-value-accounting]<br />
<br />
* * Report: Re-imagining Value: Insights from the Care Economy, Commons, Cyberspace and Nature. By David Bollier. Commons Strategies Group in cooperation with the Heinrich Böll Foundation and David Graeber. March 2017.<br />
[https://www.boell.de/en/2017/03/07/re-imagining-value-insights-care-economy-commons-cyberspace-and-nature]<br />
<br />
<br />
=Key Statistics=<br />
<br />
* 90% of for-profit companies use unreliable accounting (from 72% in 2008); read more in: [[Dangerous Dynamics of Capitalism's Futuristic Accounting]] ((from static to IFRS’ futuristic accounting). [https://basepub.dauphine.fr/handle/123456789/15215]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Key Tools=<br />
<br />
* [[Co-Budget]], a open source tool from Enspiral, to allow network members to re-invest in each other's projects<br />
<br />
* [[Balance]], an open-source tool to keep track of shared finances for groups</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=%CE%9F%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%B7_%CE%A0%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%B3%CF%89%CE%B3%CE%AE&diff=98439Ομότιμη Παραγωγή2016-02-13T22:02:02Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Ομότιμη Παραγωγή= <br />
''Του Αλέξανδρου Παζαΐτη, [http://www.p2plab.org P2P Lab]''<br />
<br />
==Ορισμός==<br />
Το ενδιαφέρον γύρω από το φαινόμενο της ομότιμης παραγωγής (peer production) έχει ενταθεί τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια, ιδιαίτερα μετά την ανάδειξη σημαντικών συνεργατικών εγχειρημάτων στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, όπως το ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα GNU/Linux, ο Apache web server και η ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια Wikipedia. Παρόλα αυτά, το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο δεν είναι κάτι εντελώς καινούριο στην ιστορία των ανθρώπινων κοινωνιών. Πολιτιστικά αγαθά, όπως το ελληνικό δημοτικό τραγούδι, ανέκδοτες ιστορίες και παραμύθια, αποτελούν χαρακτηριστικά δείγματα, ενός άτυπου, μέχρι πρόσφατα, τρόπου συν-δημιουργίας. Η ελευθερία που χαρακτηρίζει πολιτιστικές δημιουργίες, όπως τα δημοτικά τραγούδια, εντοπίζεται στην ανεμπόδιστη αναπαραγωγή και τροποποίηση τους, καθώς και στην από-στόμα-σε-στόμα διάδοσή τους πέρα από χωρικά και πολιτισμικά όρια. Η ελευθερία αυτή επιτρέπει την ενσωμάτωση στους στίχους και τη μουσική τοπικών χαρακτηριστικών, ενώ τα δένει με τοπικούς χορούς και εθιμοτυπικές παραδόσεις. Τα χαρακτηριστικά αυτά είναι που προσδίδουν την ιδιαίτερη αξία των τραγουδιών αυτών για την τοπική παράδοση, ως μία μορφή δια-πολιτισμικής επικοινωνίας, ενσωματώνοντας παράλληλα την ιδιαίτερη ιστορία και της παράδοση ενός τόπου, τις αξίες και τους ανθρώπους του. Τα ελληνικά δημοτικά τραγούδια δεν «υπογράφονται» από κάποιον συγκεκριμένο δημιουργό και κυκλοφορούν πολλές φορές σε εκατοντάδες παρόμοιες ή διαφορετικές εκδοχές, προσαρμοσμένα στα γλωσσικά ιδιώματα, τη μουσική παράδοση και τα ιστορικά και πολιτιστικά γνωρίσματα του κάθε τόπου στον οποίο τραγουδήθηκαν. Αποτελούν ελεύθερα πολιτιστικά αγαθά, τα οποία διαμορφώθηκαν από μικρές και μεγάλες συνεισφορές αμέτρητων δημιουργών, οι οποίοι μοιράστηκαν την κοινή τους γνώση στο πέρασμα πολλών γενεών. <br />
<br />
Με παρόμοιο τρόπο, στα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα του ελεύθερου λογισμικού, προγραμματιστές, σχεδιαστές ιστοσελίδων, γραφίστες και άλλοι λιγότερο ή περισσότερο εξειδικευμένοι δημιουργοί, συσπειρώνονται γύρω από ένα κοινό αγαθό, το οποίο σε αυτήν την περίπτωση είναι η πληροφορία και συγκεκριμένα ο κώδικας. Χωρίς να υπάρχει κεντρικός συντονισμός, οι ομότιμοι δημιουργοί (peers) μοιράζονται άυλους πόρους, όπως την πληροφορία και τη γνώση, ανάλογα με τις ανάγκες τους και προσφέρουν στην κοινή δημιουργία ανάλογα με τις ικανότητές τους. Η ομότιμη παραγωγή είναι κατ’ εξοχήν μία διεργασία συλλογής και ανταλλαγής πόρων μεταξύ ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ατόμων χωρίς προκαθορισμένη ιεραρχία και δομή. Έτσι, ως ομότιμη παραγωγή ορίζεται η συνεργασία αυτό-οργανωμένων ομάδων ατόμων, τα οποία συμμετέχουν σε ισότιμη βάση (equal footing), με σκοπό την επίτευξη ενός κοινού σκοπού . Στον ορισμό εντοπίζονται ήδη τα κεντρικά σημεία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, τα οποία αποτελούν και τις βασικές δυναμικές της: η ανοικτή και αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενη συμμετοχή και η ισότιμη βάση. Είναι τα στοιχεία εκείνα που προσδίδουν στα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα τα ιδιαίτερα χαρακτηριστικά τους σε ότι αφορά το δυναμικό περιεχόμενό τους και την κινητοποίηση μεγάλου εύρους της ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας. <br />
<br />
==Τυπολογία==<br />
Ο όρος ομότιμη παραγωγή (peer production), όπως και η γενικότερη θεωρητική και εμπειρική τεκμηρίωση των συγκεκριμένων πρακτικών, έχουν αναπτυχθεί σχετικά πρόσφατα. Ο όρος εισήχθη για πρώτη φορά από τον Yochai Benkler, καθηγητή της νομικής σχολής του πανεπιστημίου του Harvard, μόλις το 2002 . Ο Benkler παρουσιάζει την ομότιμη παραγωγή ως ένα νέο παραγωγικό φαινόμενο, όπως προέκυψε από τη μελέτη των πρώτων πρακτικών που παρατηρήθηκαν στο χώρο του ελεύθερου λογισμικού και λογισμικού ανοικτού κώδικα (ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ) και στο χώρο του διαδικτύου. Ο ορισμός της ομότιμης παραγωγής αφορά περισσότερο τη διεργασία της μετατροπής μίας εισροής (input) σε ένα αποτέλεσμα (output), εστιάζοντας στην αποκεντρωμένη δομή και συμμετοχική μέθοδο εργασίας. Αντίστοιχα σε μεταγενέστερο έργο του με τίτλο «The Wealth of Networks» το 2006 ο Benkler εισάγει την έννοια της «βασισμένης στα κοινά ομότιμης παραγωγής» (commons-based peer production – CBPP).Η διαφορά σε αυτήν την προσέγγιση είναι η εστίαση στους πόρους και τα αποτελέσματα της διεργασίας και κυρίως η σχέση των συμμετεχόντων με αυτά. <br />
<br />
Το επαναστατικό στοιχείο της βασισμένης στα κοινά ομότιμης παραγωγής είναι ότι τα μέσα και τα αποτελέσματα της δεν αποτελούν αντικείμενα αποκλειστικής ιδιοκτησίας. Αντίθετα, διαμοιράζονται μεταξύ των συμμετεχόντων στο πλαίσιο μίας θεσμικής δομής η οποία διαθέτει τους πόρους ισότιμα σε όλους ανάλογα με την κρίση τους. Ανήκουν δηλαδή στη σφαίρα αυτών που ονομάζονται «κοινά» (commons), ή αλλιώς δημόσια, ελεύθερα αγαθά. Παραδοσιακά, ο χώρος των κοινών θεωρούταν ότι βρίσκεται εκτός της παραγωγικής οικονομίας. Οι κοινοί πόροι αντιμετωπίζονταν ως εν δυνάμει παραγωγικοί πόροι, που θα μπορούσαν να παράγουν αξία εφόσον υπεισέλθουν υπό κάποιο καθεστώς διαχείρισης ή ιδιοκτησίας, από το κράτος ή τον ιδιωτικό τομέα. Ωστόσο, ένας νέος τύπος σχέσεων συνεργασίας και παραγωγής αναδεικνύει την προοπτική των κοινών πόρων στην παραγωγή αξίας, παραμένοντας στη σφαίρα των κοινών, μέσα από μία διεργασία η οποία τα προστατεύει και τα ανατροφοδοτεί. Για το λόγο αυτό η βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή αναφέρεται συχνά και ως ένας τύπος «κοινωνικής παραγωγής». <br />
<br />
Σημαντικό είναι ωστόσο να διευκρινίσουμε ότι όλοι οι τύποι παραγωγής με βάση τα κοινά δεν αποτελούν ομότιμη παραγωγή. Η παραγωγή με βάση τα κοινά εστιάζει στην ελεύθερη χρήση των μέσων και των αποτελεσμάτων, ενώ η ομότιμη παραγωγή στην αποκεντρωμένη οργάνωση και την αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενη, συμμετοχική μέθοδο εργασίας. Ο συνδυασμός των δύο παραπάνω στοιχείων συνθέτει την βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή. <br />
Αντίστοιχα είναι δυνατόν να έχουμε ομότιμη παραγωγή η οποία στηρίζεται σε ιδιόκτητους πόρους. Σύγχρονοι μέθοδοι παραγωγής, ιδιαίτερα στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, εξωτερικεύουν μεγάλο μέρος της παραγωγής δεδομένων σε έναν μεγάλο αριθμό χρηστών, οι οποίοι συνεργάζονται αυτόνομα και χωρίς ιεραρχία, ανάλογα με την κρίση τους. Παρόλα αυτά, τόσο τα μέσα όσο και τα αποτελέσματα αυτής της διεργασίας αποτελούν ιδιοκτησία κάποιας εταιρίας ή ενός οργανισμού. Ιδιαίτερα επιτυχημένα παραδείγματα τέτοιων μεθόδων αποτελούν οι περιπτώσεις της Google και του Facebook, όπου η παραγωγή των δεδομένων προέρχονται από την αναζήτηση και την περιήγηση χρηστών και τη χρήση συμμετοχικών πλατφορμών, όπως το Facebook και το Google Developers. Ωστόσο, τόσο ο κώδικας, οι πλατφόρμες και τα λοιπά μέσα που χρησιμοποιούνται, όσο και τα δεδομένα που παράγονται τελούν υπό την ιδιοκτησία και τη διαχείριση των εταιριών αντίστοιχα. <br />
<br />
Είναι σκόπιμο να διευκρινιστεί ότι η προσέγγιση του παρόντος κειμένου αφορά την ομότιμη παραγωγή ως διεργασία. Ωστόσο τα παραδείγματα και οι ιστορικές αναφορές αφορούν κυρίως τη βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή, ως ένα αναδυόμενο παραγωγικό μοντέλο στο πλαίσιο των γενικότερων φαινομένων εναλλακτικών τρόπων παραγωγής και κοινωνικο-οικονομικής οργάνωσης. <br />
<br />
==Βασικά χαρακτηριστικά==<br />
Παρά την πληθώρα των εγχειρημάτων που παρατηρούνται σε ένα μεγάλο εύρος τομέων και δραστηριοτήτων, ο Benkler διακρίνει τρεις βασικές αρχές που αποτελούν κοινά χαρακτηριστικά σε αυτά τα εγχειρήματα, καθώς και κρίσιμους παράγοντες για την επιτυχή υλοποίηση και ολοκλήρωση τους: <br />
# Αρθρωτή δομή (modularity): Τα ομότιμα έργα αποτελούνται από πολλά μικρότερα, διακριτά συστατικά μέρη (modules), το καθένα από τα οποία μπορεί να παραχθεί αυτόνομα. O διαχωρισμός αυτός επιτρέπει πολλούς ανεξάρτητους συμμετέχοντες να εργάζονται με ασύγχρονο τρόπο, χωρίς να εξαρτάται η εργασία του ενός από την εργασία του άλλου. <br />
# Διαφορετικός βαθμός ανάλυσης (granularity) των συστατικών μερών: Διαφορετικά επίπεδα ανάλυσης των συστατικών μερών, και συνεπώς μεγαλύτερα και μικρότερα συστατικά μέρη, κινητοποιούν άτομα με μεγαλύτερα ή μικρότερα κίνητρα, αντίστοιχα, στο να συνεισφέρουν, ανάλογα με το ενδιαφέρον τους, αλλά και τις ικανότητές τους. Έτσι σε ένα ομότιμο έργο διακρίνονται μεγαλύτερα μέρη με ιδιαίτερες απαιτήσεις σε χρόνο και ικανότητες των συμμετεχόντων, έως πολύ μικρά μέρη, η υλοποίηση των οποίων δεν απαιτεί περισσότερο από 5 λεπτά ενασχόλησης κάποιου, ακόμη και στο πλαίσιο ενός καθημερινού ψυχαγωγικού «ξεφυλλίσματος» στο ίντερνετ (browsing). <br />
# Χαμηλού κόστους ολοκλήρωση: Ως ολοκλήρωση (integration) εννοείται η ενσωμάτωση όλων των συστατικών μερών στο τελικό αποτέλεσμα. Στη διαδικασία της ολοκλήρωσης, εμπεριέχεται τόσο ο μηχανισμός της ενσωμάτωσης όλων των συνεισφορών σε ένα ολοκληρωμένο προϊόν, όσο και ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος του κάθε συστατικού μέρους ξεχωριστά, αποφεύγοντας σφάλματα που προκύπτουν από τη λανθασμένη αντίληψη του κάθε συμμετέχοντα, σχετικά με τις ικανότητές του, τους στόχους του έργου κ.α. <br />
<br />
Ένα καλό παράδειγμα για το πώς λειτουργούν τα τρία αυτά χαρακτηριστικά αποτελεί το project «Distributed Proofreaders ». Πρόκειται για ένα υποστηρικτικό έργο ενός άλλου έργου, του «Project Gutenberg », το οποίο αποτελεί μία προσπάθεια εθελοντών για τη ψηφιοποίηση λογοτεχνικών και άλλων δημιουργικών κειμένων. Η διεργασία της ψηφιοποίησης περιλαμβάνει το σκανάρισμα των αυθεντικών κειμένων και τη μετατροπή τους σε ψηφιακό, επεξεργάσιμο κείμενο μέσω της χρήσης λογισμικού αναγνώρισης χαρακτήρων (Optical Character Recognition – OCR). Το λογισμικό αυτό, αν και αρκετά αποτελεσματικό, δεν είναι ιδιαίτερα ακριβές στην αναγνώριση των χαρακτήρων, με αποτέλεσμα έναν μεγάλο αριθμό τυπογραφικών λαθών. Σε αυτή την προσπάθεια συνεισφέρει αποφασιστικά το έργο Distributed Proofreaders, το οποίο είναι στη βάση του μία διαδικτυακή πλατφόρμα που επιτρέπει πλήθος εθελοντών να αναγνωρίσει και να διορθώσει τυπογραφικά λάθη. Η πλατφόρμα, η οποία στηρίζεται στο ελεύθερο λογισμικό GNU/Linux, παραθέτει στον χρήστη για κάθε σκαναρισμένο κείμενο την πρωτότυπη εικόνα του κειμένου πλάι στο επεξεργάσιμο κείμενο, όπως έχει προκύψει μετά τη διεργασία του OCR. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, η επίπονη και χρονοβόρα διαδικασία της διόρθωσης των κειμένων διαμοιράζεται σε πολλούς χρήστες, οι οποίοι ελέγχουν σε εθελοντική βάση όσες σελίδες επιθυμούν. <br />
<br />
Εδώ γίνεται αντιληπτός ο τρόπος με τον οποίο λειτουργούν τα δύο πρώτα βασικά χαρακτηριστικά των ομότιμων έργων: η αρθρωτή δομή και ο διαφορετικός βαθμός ανάλυσης των μερών. Στο συγκεκριμένο έργο, παρατηρείται ότι η αρθρωτή δομή ικανοποιείται ήδη από τη φύση των εργασιών που περιλαμβάνονται, χωρίς να χρειαστεί περαιτέρω παρέμβαση. Η κάθε σελίδα και το κάθε κεφάλαιο, ακόμα και κάθε βιβλίο, μπορεί να αποτελέσει ένα ξεχωριστό συστατικό μέρος (module). Αντίστοιχα, ο κάθε χρήστης συμμετέχει στο βαθμό που επιθυμεί, από μία σελίδα έως ένα ολόκληρο ή και περισσότερα από τα βιβλία που υπάρχουν διαθέσιμα προς διόρθωση. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, ουσιαστικά καθορίζει ο ίδιος και το βαθμό ανάλυσης του συστατικού μέρους που θα αναλάβει, ανάλογα με τη διάθεσή του και τις ικανότητές του. <br />
<br />
Ιδιαίτερα ενδιαφέρον παρουσιάζει ο τρόπος που γίνεται η ολοκλήρωση (integration) των μικρότερων και μεγαλύτερων συνεισφορών σε ένα ενιαίο αποτέλεσμα. Τα βασικά αποτελέσματα του έργου είναι φυσικά τα βιβλία. Η κάθε σελίδα ελέγχεται από περισσότερους από έναν εθελοντές, ενώ αφού ολοκληρωθεί η διόρθωση μία φορά, στη συνέχεια εθελοντές ελέγχουν, επικυρώνουν και διορθώνουν αντίστοιχα, εφόσον χρειαστεί, τη διορθωμένη σελίδα με βάση το πρωτότυπο. Αφότου ολοκληρωθούν όλες οι σελίδες του βιβλίου, γίνεται η τελική επεξεργασία και η προσαρμογή τους σε μορφή ηλεκτρονικού βιβλίου. Έτσι, επιτυγχάνεται τόσο η χαμηλού κόστους ολοκλήρωση όσο και ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος, μέσω της διόρθωσης σε δύο επίπεδα. <br />
<br />
Η συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση αποτελεί ένα εύκολα κατανοητό παράδειγμα των διεργασιών της ομότιμης παραγωγής, λόγω της απλότητας των εργασιών που περιλαμβάνει η διαδικασία της σύγκρισης ενός κειμένου με ένα άλλο. Αντίστοιχα στο έργο των Distributed Proofreaders συνεισφέρουν και περισσότερο εξειδικευμένοι συμμετέχοντες σε πιο απαιτητικές εργασίες, όπως είναι η ανάπτυξη εξειδικευμένου λογισμικού, η διαχείριση της πλατφόρμας, αλλά και εργασίες συντονισμού και project management. <br />
<br />
Τα ανωτέρω χαρακτηριστικά, όπως παρατηρήθηκαν σε μεγαλύτερο ή μικρότερο βαθμό στα πρώτα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα, αποτελούν τα στοιχεία εκείνα που κατέστησαν εξ’ αρχής δυνατή τη διαδικασία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, ενώ ταυτόχρονα αποτέλεσαν και τη βάση του επιτυχούς αποτελέσματός τους. Από το προηγούμενο παράδειγμα γίνεται επίσης ευκολά αντιληπτό ένα από τα βασικότερα πλεονεκτήματα της ομότιμης παραγωγής, ιδιαίτερα στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, το οποίο είναι η αποτελεσματικότητα στον εντοπισμό, την κινητοποίηση και την κατανομή της ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας. Η ευρεία διάδοση των Τεχνολογιών Πληροφόρησης και Επικοινωνίας (ΤΠΕ) ιδιαίτερα την τελευταία εικοσαετία, έχει αλλάξει σε μεγάλο βαθμό τον τρόπο που αντιλαμβανόμαστε την παραγωγή. Στον κόσμο των ΤΠΕ τα βασικά μέσα παραγωγής, δηλαδή οι ηλεκτρονικοί υπολογιστές, γίνονται συνεχώς φτηνότερα και εύκολα προσβάσιμα από ένα μεγάλο μέρος του πληθυσμού. Η βασική «πρώτη ύλη», η πληροφορία, είναι σε αφθονία και τα μέσα διανομής και επικοινωνίας πιο γρήγορα και αποτελεσματικά από ποτέ. Έτσι, ο παράγοντας που κάνει τη διαφορά στην επιτυχία ενός έργου είναι η ανθρώπινη δημιουργικότητα. Ο παράγοντας αυτός, ως κατ’ εξοχήν «ανθρώπινος», δεν ενεργοποιείται με το πάτημα ενός κουμπιού. Στην σύγχρονη αγορά, η ανθρώπινη δημιουργικότητα τοποθετείται πολύ ψηλά στην κλίμακα αυτών που ένας εργοδότης ή ένας μάνατζερ προσπαθεί να ενεργοποιήσει με χρηματικά ή άλλου είδους οφέλη. Στις περισσότερες δε περιπτώσεις η κινητοποίηση των ατόμων στο μεγαλύτερο επιθυμητό βαθμό παραμένει εκτός των ορίων των υλικών απολαβών. Σε έναν τέτοιο κόσμο λοιπόν, όπου τα βασικά μέσα παραγωγής είναι αποκεντρωμένα, η ιδιαίτερη δυναμική της ομότιμης παραγωγής έγκειται στην ικανότητα κινητοποίησης ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ατόμων, ο οποίοι αυτό-προσδιορίζουν τη συνεισφορά τους ανάλογα με τα αντίστοιχα κίνητρά τους. <br />
<br />
Στη βάση της, η ομότιμη παραγωγή είναι μία μορφή ανθρώπινης συνεργασίας, κατανομής κοινών πόρων και προσπάθειας σε ισότιμο πλαίσιο, προς την επίτευξη ενός κοινού αποτελέσματος. Αναφέρθηκε επίσης ότι δεν είναι η πρώτη φορά ιστορικά που παρατηρείται μία μορφή αποκεντρωμένης συνεργασίας και παραγωγής. Ωστόσο, την τελευταία εικοσαετία και λόγω της επανάστασης που έχουν φέρει οι ΤΠΕ σε όλους τους τομείς της ανθρώπινης δραστηριότητας, παρατηρείται ότι αυτή η μορφή οργάνωσης και παραγωγής μπορεί να έχει σημαντικό οικονομικό αποτέλεσμα. Στη βάση των πλεονεκτημάτων της ομότιμης παραγωγής, νέες μορφές κοινωνικής παραγωγής, αλλά και νέα επιχειρηματικά μοντέλα, καινοτόμα προϊόντα και υπηρεσίες έχουν αναδυθεί. Στην επόμενη ενότητα θα παρουσιαστεί μία σύντομη ιστορική αναδρομή των ομότιμων πρακτικών που αποτελούν τους θεμέλιους λίθους του συγκεκριμένου φαινομένου. <br />
<br />
==Ιστορική εξέλιξη==<br />
Ιστορικά οι ρίζες τις ομότιμης παραγωγής, όπως τη μελετούμε σήμερα, θα μπορούσαν να εντοπιστούν στο 1983, όταν ο Richard Stallman, τότε ερευνητής στο MIT, ανακοίνωσε την υλοποίηση του GNU Project, το πρώτο έργο ελεύθερου λογισμικού και μαζικής συνεργασίας. Βασικός στόχος του συγκεκριμένου έργου ήταν να δημιουργήσει τα μέσα που θα παρέχουν στους χρήστες ελευθερία σχετικά με τον έλεγχο των ηλεκτρονικών υπολογιστών και υπολογιστικών συσκευών. Για το σκοπό αυτό, έπρεπε να αναπτυχθεί και να διατεθεί το κατάλληλο λογισμικό, τα οποίο θα σέβεται τις βασικές ελευθερίες των χρηστών του και συγκεκριμένα: <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη χρήση του, για όλους τους σκοπούς. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη μελέτη, τροποποίηση και προσαρμογή του στις ανάγκες του χρήστη. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη διάδοση (αντιγραφή και διαμοιρασμό) του. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη βελτίωση του και τη δημοσίευση των βελτιώσεών αυτών. <br />
<br />
Οι αναφορές αυτές στην ελευθερία του χρήστη ενός τέτοιου λογισμικού, προσδίδουν σε αυτό τον τίτλο του «Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού» (Free Software). Επιπλέον, για να είναι δυνατή η εξασφάλιση των ελευθεριών των χρηστών σε όλο το εύρος της χρήσης των υπολογιστών, βασική επιδίωξη του GNU Project ήταν η ανάπτυξη ενός λειτουργικού συστήματος (Operating System – OS), το οποίο θα ήταν επίσης ελεύθερο λογισμικό. Έτσι τον Ιανουάριο του 1984 ξεκίνησε η ανάπτυξη του λειτουργικού συστήματος το οποίο ονομάστηκε GNU . <br />
Το 1985 ο Stallman ιδρύει το Ίδρυμα Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού (Free Software Foundation) με σκοπό να διαδώσει την ελευθερία στη χρήση των ηλεκτρονικών υπολογιστών και να υποστηρίξει νομικά και πρακτικά τα δικαιώματα των χρηστών. Έτσι, το 1989 ολοκληρώθηκε η πρώτη έκδοση της Γενικής Άδειας Δημόσιας Χρήσης (GNU General Public License – GPL), η οποία κατοχυρώνει τις ελευθερίες αυτές των χρηστών, ενώ η λεγόμενη ρήτρα «copyleft» (σε αντίθεση με τη λέξη copyright που κατοχυρώνει το δικαίωμα της πνευματικής ιδιοκτησίας) υποχρεώνει στη διατήρηση αυτών των ελευθεριών σε όλα τα αντίτυπα. Ουσιαστικά κάθε αντίτυπο, το οποίο περιλαμβάνει ένα συστατικό στοιχείο (κώδικα) που έχει παραχωρηθεί με GPL, πρέπει επίσης να κυκλοφορήσει υπό την GPL. Κατ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο εξασφαλίζεται ότι το ελεύθερο λογισμικό παραμένει ελεύθερο. Το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και η GPL αποτελούν σημαντικά σημεία στην ιστορία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, καθώς για πρώτη φορά κατοχυρώνεται νομικά η ανοικτή, ευρεία συνεργασία πολλών ατόμων. Ομοίως, το αποτέλεσμα της συνεργασίας αυτής κατοχυρώνεται ως συλλογικό και ελεύθερο, με βάση τις ελευθερίες που κατοχυρώνει η GPL. <br />
<br />
Το 1990 μεγάλο μέρος των προγραμμάτων που είναι απαραίτητα για ένα λειτουργικό σύστημα είχαν ολοκληρωθεί από το GNU Project, έλειπαν ωστόσο ακόμη κάποια σημαντικά κομμάτια, με βασικότερο τον πυρήνα (kernel). Την ίδια εποχή, ο Linus Torvalds, σε ένα project εκτός του GNU, αποφάσισε να αναπτύξει τον δικό του πυρήνα, ο οποίος ονομάστηκε Linux. Ο πυρήνας αυτός ενσωματώθηκε με τα υπόλοιπα συστατικά μέρη του GNU, με αποτέλεσμα ένα ολοκληρωμένο, πλήρως λειτουργικό και ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα, το GNU/Linux . Το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και το ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα GNU/Linux αποτέλεσαν την έμπνευση, αλλά πολύ περισσότερο παρείχαν τα τεχνικά και οργανωτικά μέσα για την έκρηξη των ομότιμων έργων που ακολούθησαν. <br />
<br />
Η ταχεία διάδοση του GNU/Linux αποτελεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό αποτέλεσμα συνέργειας και παράλληλης ανάπτυξης με μία άλλη μεγάλη επανάσταση που λαμβάνει χώρα την ίδια περίοδο. Το 1991 το διαδίκτυο γίνεται δημόσιο και μαζικό μέσο, με την παροχή της υπηρεσίας παγκόσμιου ιστού (World Wide Web), μία εφεύρεση του Tim Berners-Lee, ερευνητή του CERN. Παράλληλα, η κουλτούρα των χάκερς (hacking culture), η οποία έχει τις ρίζες της πίσω στο 1960, με τη διάδοση του ελεύθερου λογισμικού και τη μαζικοποίηση του διαδικτύου αρχίζει και προσελκύει συνεχώς μεγαλύτερο αριθμό ατόμων. Κεντρικό σημείο τους αποτελεί το ενδιαφέρον για τη δημιουργία, την εξερεύνηση, τον πειραματισμό και το ξεπέρασμα των ορίων αυτών που μπορούν να πραγματοποιηθούν. Μικρο-ομάδες από χάκερς που ήταν ενεργές για χρόνια σε διαφορετικά μέρη, μοιραζόμενες παρόμοιες αρχές και κυρίως το ίδιο πάθος, άρχισαν να ανακαλύπτουν η μία την άλλη και να συνεργάζονται. Παρατηρείται έτσι η συνειδητή διαμόρφωση και διάδοση μίας κοινής, συλλογικής και συστηματικής ηθικής από μία κρίσιμη μάζα ατόμων. Η ηθική αυτή αφορά το διαμοιρασμό γνώσης και πληροφορίας και την ελευθερία της χρήσης των τεχνολογικών μέσων για την ανάπτυξή τους, μέσα από τη συνεργασία και τη συμμετοχική δημιουργία. <br />
<br />
Με αυτόν τον τρόπο οι ομότιμες πρακτικές αρχίζουν και επεκτείνονται εκτός των ορίων της πληροφορικής και του λογισμικού. Ένας μεγάλος αριθμός ατόμων και ομάδων συσπειρώνονται πλέον γύρω από ένα κοινό σύστημα αξιών σχετικά με τη γνώση και την πληροφορία και κυρίως την ελεύθερη και ανεμπόδιστη κυκλοφορία αυτών. Δημιουργούν έτσι έναν παγκόσμιο χώρο γνωσιακών κοινών (knowledge commons), στη βάση του οποίου αναπτύσσονται παγκόσμια, συμμετοχικά ομότιμα εγχειρήματα, όπως η ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια Wikipedia. Επιπλέον, την τελευταία δεκαετία, η διάδοση των τεχνολογιών επιτραπέζιας κατασκευής (desktop manufacturing), όπως η τρισδιάστατη εκτύπωση και οι CNC μηχανές οδήγησαν στον περαιτέρω πειραματισμό των ομότιμων πρακτικών στον υλικό κόσμο. Ομότιμα έργα όπως ο RepRap εκτυπωτής και το Open Source Ecology αποτελούν σημαντικά εγχειρήματα αξιοποίησης των γνωσιακών κοινών στην παραγωγή άμεσων, πρακτικών, ανοικτών λύσεων. Έτσι, σε αντιστοιχία με το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και το λογισμικό ανοικτού κώδικα (ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ), εμφανίζεται ο όρος του ανοικτού υλισμικού (open hardware), προσδίδοντας νέες διαστάσεις στην ελευθερία στη χρήση βασικών μέσων παραγωγής. <br />
<br />
Σχετικά πρόσφατα το φαινόμενο άρχισε να αποκτά ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον ακαδημαϊκά και ερευνητικά. Χιλιάδες επιστημονικά έργα έχουν ασχοληθεί με το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο από το 2002 και έπειτα, ενώ οργανισμοί, όπως το [[P2P Foundation]], ιδρύονται με σκοπό τη μελέτη, τεκμηρίωση και διάδοση του φαινομένου της ομότιμης παραγωγής και των ομότιμων πρακτικών σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο. Αξίζει να αναφερθεί ότι στην Ελλάδα λειτουργεί από το 2007 ο ελληνικός κόμβος του P2P Foundation, ενώ το 2011 ιδρύθηκε στα Ιωάννινα το [[P2P Lab]], ένα διεπιστημονικό ερευνητικό εργαστήριο με σκοπό την θεωρητική τεκμηρίωση, τη διάδοση και πρακτική εφαρμογή των ομότιμων πρακτικών. <br />
<br />
==Αντί επιλόγου== <br />
Σημαντικό είναι να αναφερθεί ότι η μελέτη και η τεκμηρίωση του φαινομένου της ομότιμης παραγωγής βρίσκεται ακόμη σε πολύ αρχικό στάδιο, ενώ νέα εμπειρικά στοιχεία προκύπτουν συνεχώς από τις μυριάδες ομότιμες πρακτικές που βρίσκονται σε εξέλιξη. Για το λόγο αυτό το παρόν κείμενο δεν επιχειρεί να υποστηρίξει την γενικότερη υπεροχή του συγκεκριμένου μοντέλου έναντι των παραδοσιακών μορφών οργάνωσης και παραγωγής σε όλους τους τομείς, ούτε την ολοκληρωτική ανατροπή τους από την ομότιμη παραγωγή. Η μελέτη και ανάλυση των δυναμικών της ομότιμης παραγωγής αποσκοπεί στην αναγνώρισή της ως ένα αναδυόμενο παραγωγικό μοντέλο, διαφορετικό από άλλα υφιστάμενα, το οποίο διαθέτει συγκεκριμένα πλεονεκτήματα στην ενεργοποίηση και την αξιοποίηση συγκεκριμένων κοινωνικών και οικονομικών δυνάμεων. Η διάδοση των ομότιμων πρακτικών αντίστοιχα φιλοδοξεί στην ενδυνάμωση των αναδυόμενων παραγωγικών δυναμικών του συγκεκριμένου παραγωγικού μοντέλου, προς την επίτευξη ενός θετικού και βιώσιμου κοινωνικού και οικονομικού αποτελέσματος.<br />
<br />
==Σχετική βιβλιογραφία==<br />
Bauwens, M. (2005), ‘The Political Economy of Peer Production’, CTheory Journal, http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
Benkler, Y. (2001), ‘Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm’, Yale Law Journal, 112: 369.<br />
<br />
Benkler, Y. (2006), ‘The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom”, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press. <br />
<br />
Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., Dafermos, G. & Bauwens, M. (2015), ‘Design global, manufacture local: Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model’, Futures, 73: 126-135<br />
<br />
GNU Operating System, Free Software Foundation, ‘What is free software?’, < https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
P2P Foundation, ‘Peer production’ <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
P2P Foundation, “Peer production characteristics’, <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_-_Characteristics>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
Κωστάκης, Β. (2012), ‘Το ομότιμο μανιφέστο: Δημιουργώντας τον κόσμο που θέλουμε μέσα στον κόσμο που θέλουμε να ξεπεράσουμε’, Βορειοδυτικές εκδόσεις, Ιωάννινα. <br />
<br />
==Σχετικοί σύνδεσμοι - Περαιτέρω ανάγνωση==<br />
P2P Lab: http://www.p2plab.gr <br />
<br />
The GNU Project: https://www.gnu.org</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=%CE%9F%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%B7_%CE%A0%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%B3%CF%89%CE%B3%CE%AE&diff=98438Ομότιμη Παραγωγή2016-02-13T20:33:20Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: /* Επίλογος */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Ομότιμη Παραγωγή= <br />
''Του Αλέξανδρου Παζαΐτη''<br />
<br />
==Ορισμός==<br />
Το ενδιαφέρον γύρω από το φαινόμενο της ομότιμης παραγωγής (peer production) έχει ενταθεί τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια, ιδιαίτερα μετά την ανάδειξη σημαντικών συνεργατικών εγχειρημάτων στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, όπως το ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα GNU/Linux, ο Apache web server και η ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια Wikipedia. Παρόλα αυτά, το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο δεν είναι κάτι εντελώς καινούριο στην ιστορία των ανθρώπινων κοινωνιών. Πολιτιστικά αγαθά, όπως το ελληνικό δημοτικό τραγούδι, ανέκδοτες ιστορίες και παραμύθια, αποτελούν χαρακτηριστικά δείγματα, ενός άτυπου, μέχρι πρόσφατα, τρόπου συν-δημιουργίας. Η ελευθερία που χαρακτηρίζει πολιτιστικές δημιουργίες, όπως τα δημοτικά τραγούδια, εντοπίζεται στην ανεμπόδιστη αναπαραγωγή και τροποποίηση τους, καθώς και στην από-στόμα-σε-στόμα διάδοσή τους πέρα από χωρικά και πολιτισμικά όρια. Η ελευθερία αυτή επιτρέπει την ενσωμάτωση στους στίχους και τη μουσική τοπικών χαρακτηριστικών, ενώ τα δένει με τοπικούς χορούς και εθιμοτυπικές παραδόσεις. Τα χαρακτηριστικά αυτά είναι που προσδίδουν την ιδιαίτερη αξία των τραγουδιών αυτών για την τοπική παράδοση, ως μία μορφή δια-πολιτισμικής επικοινωνίας, ενσωματώνοντας παράλληλα την ιδιαίτερη ιστορία και της παράδοση ενός τόπου, τις αξίες και τους ανθρώπους του. Τα ελληνικά δημοτικά τραγούδια δεν «υπογράφονται» από κάποιον συγκεκριμένο δημιουργό και κυκλοφορούν πολλές φορές σε εκατοντάδες παρόμοιες ή διαφορετικές εκδοχές, προσαρμοσμένα στα γλωσσικά ιδιώματα, τη μουσική παράδοση και τα ιστορικά και πολιτιστικά γνωρίσματα του κάθε τόπου στον οποίο τραγουδήθηκαν. Αποτελούν ελεύθερα πολιτιστικά αγαθά, τα οποία διαμορφώθηκαν από μικρές και μεγάλες συνεισφορές αμέτρητων δημιουργών, οι οποίοι μοιράστηκαν την κοινή τους γνώση στο πέρασμα πολλών γενεών. <br />
<br />
Με παρόμοιο τρόπο, στα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα του ελεύθερου λογισμικού, προγραμματιστές, σχεδιαστές ιστοσελίδων, γραφίστες και άλλοι λιγότερο ή περισσότερο εξειδικευμένοι δημιουργοί, συσπειρώνονται γύρω από ένα κοινό αγαθό, το οποίο σε αυτήν την περίπτωση είναι η πληροφορία και συγκεκριμένα ο κώδικας. Χωρίς να υπάρχει κεντρικός συντονισμός, οι ομότιμοι δημιουργοί (peers) μοιράζονται άυλους πόρους, όπως την πληροφορία και τη γνώση, ανάλογα με τις ανάγκες τους και προσφέρουν στην κοινή δημιουργία ανάλογα με τις ικανότητές τους. Η ομότιμη παραγωγή είναι κατ’ εξοχήν μία διεργασία συλλογής και ανταλλαγής πόρων μεταξύ ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ατόμων χωρίς προκαθορισμένη ιεραρχία και δομή. Έτσι, ως ομότιμη παραγωγή ορίζεται η συνεργασία αυτό-οργανωμένων ομάδων ατόμων, τα οποία συμμετέχουν σε ισότιμη βάση (equal footing), με σκοπό την επίτευξη ενός κοινού σκοπού . Στον ορισμό εντοπίζονται ήδη τα κεντρικά σημεία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, τα οποία αποτελούν και τις βασικές δυναμικές της: η ανοικτή και αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενη συμμετοχή και η ισότιμη βάση. Είναι τα στοιχεία εκείνα που προσδίδουν στα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα τα ιδιαίτερα χαρακτηριστικά τους σε ότι αφορά το δυναμικό περιεχόμενό τους και την κινητοποίηση μεγάλου εύρους της ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας. <br />
<br />
==Τυπολογία==<br />
Ο όρος ομότιμη παραγωγή (peer production), όπως και η γενικότερη θεωρητική και εμπειρική τεκμηρίωση των συγκεκριμένων πρακτικών, έχουν αναπτυχθεί σχετικά πρόσφατα. Ο όρος εισήχθη για πρώτη φορά από τον Yochai Benkler, καθηγητή της νομικής σχολής του πανεπιστημίου του Harvard, μόλις το 2002 . Ο Benkler παρουσιάζει την ομότιμη παραγωγή ως ένα νέο παραγωγικό φαινόμενο, όπως προέκυψε από τη μελέτη των πρώτων πρακτικών που παρατηρήθηκαν στο χώρο του ελεύθερου λογισμικού και λογισμικού ανοικτού κώδικα (ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ) και στο χώρο του διαδικτύου. Ο ορισμός της ομότιμης παραγωγής αφορά περισσότερο τη διεργασία της μετατροπής μίας εισροής (input) σε ένα αποτέλεσμα (output), εστιάζοντας στην αποκεντρωμένη δομή και συμμετοχική μέθοδο εργασίας. Αντίστοιχα σε μεταγενέστερο έργο του με τίτλο «The Wealth of Networks» το 2006 ο Benkler εισάγει την έννοια της «βασισμένης στα κοινά ομότιμης παραγωγής» (commons-based peer production – CBPP).Η διαφορά σε αυτήν την προσέγγιση είναι η εστίαση στους πόρους και τα αποτελέσματα της διεργασίας και κυρίως η σχέση των συμμετεχόντων με αυτά. <br />
<br />
Το επαναστατικό στοιχείο της βασισμένης στα κοινά ομότιμης παραγωγής είναι ότι τα μέσα και τα αποτελέσματα της δεν αποτελούν αντικείμενα αποκλειστικής ιδιοκτησίας. Αντίθετα, διαμοιράζονται μεταξύ των συμμετεχόντων στο πλαίσιο μίας θεσμικής δομής η οποία διαθέτει τους πόρους ισότιμα σε όλους ανάλογα με την κρίση τους. Ανήκουν δηλαδή στη σφαίρα αυτών που ονομάζονται «κοινά» (commons), ή αλλιώς δημόσια, ελεύθερα αγαθά. Παραδοσιακά, ο χώρος των κοινών θεωρούταν ότι βρίσκεται εκτός της παραγωγικής οικονομίας. Οι κοινοί πόροι αντιμετωπίζονταν ως εν δυνάμει παραγωγικοί πόροι, που θα μπορούσαν να παράγουν αξία εφόσον υπεισέλθουν υπό κάποιο καθεστώς διαχείρισης ή ιδιοκτησίας, από το κράτος ή τον ιδιωτικό τομέα. Ωστόσο, ένας νέος τύπος σχέσεων συνεργασίας και παραγωγής αναδεικνύει την προοπτική των κοινών πόρων στην παραγωγή αξίας, παραμένοντας στη σφαίρα των κοινών, μέσα από μία διεργασία η οποία τα προστατεύει και τα ανατροφοδοτεί. Για το λόγο αυτό η βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή αναφέρεται συχνά και ως ένας τύπος «κοινωνικής παραγωγής». <br />
<br />
Σημαντικό είναι ωστόσο να διευκρινίσουμε ότι όλοι οι τύποι παραγωγής με βάση τα κοινά δεν αποτελούν ομότιμη παραγωγή. Η παραγωγή με βάση τα κοινά εστιάζει στην ελεύθερη χρήση των μέσων και των αποτελεσμάτων, ενώ η ομότιμη παραγωγή στην αποκεντρωμένη οργάνωση και την αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενη, συμμετοχική μέθοδο εργασίας. Ο συνδυασμός των δύο παραπάνω στοιχείων συνθέτει την βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή. <br />
Αντίστοιχα είναι δυνατόν να έχουμε ομότιμη παραγωγή η οποία στηρίζεται σε ιδιόκτητους πόρους. Σύγχρονοι μέθοδοι παραγωγής, ιδιαίτερα στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, εξωτερικεύουν μεγάλο μέρος της παραγωγής δεδομένων σε έναν μεγάλο αριθμό χρηστών, οι οποίοι συνεργάζονται αυτόνομα και χωρίς ιεραρχία, ανάλογα με την κρίση τους. Παρόλα αυτά, τόσο τα μέσα όσο και τα αποτελέσματα αυτής της διεργασίας αποτελούν ιδιοκτησία κάποιας εταιρίας ή ενός οργανισμού. Ιδιαίτερα επιτυχημένα παραδείγματα τέτοιων μεθόδων αποτελούν οι περιπτώσεις της Google και του Facebook, όπου η παραγωγή των δεδομένων προέρχονται από την αναζήτηση και την περιήγηση χρηστών και τη χρήση συμμετοχικών πλατφορμών, όπως το Facebook και το Google Developers. Ωστόσο, τόσο ο κώδικας, οι πλατφόρμες και τα λοιπά μέσα που χρησιμοποιούνται, όσο και τα δεδομένα που παράγονται τελούν υπό την ιδιοκτησία και τη διαχείριση των εταιριών αντίστοιχα. <br />
<br />
Είναι σκόπιμο να διευκρινιστεί ότι η προσέγγιση του παρόντος κειμένου αφορά την ομότιμη παραγωγή ως διεργασία. Ωστόσο τα παραδείγματα και οι ιστορικές αναφορές αφορούν κυρίως τη βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή, ως ένα αναδυόμενο παραγωγικό μοντέλο στο πλαίσιο των γενικότερων φαινομένων εναλλακτικών τρόπων παραγωγής και κοινωνικο-οικονομικής οργάνωσης. <br />
<br />
==Βασικά χαρακτηριστικά==<br />
Παρά την πληθώρα των εγχειρημάτων που παρατηρούνται σε ένα μεγάλο εύρος τομέων και δραστηριοτήτων, ο Benkler διακρίνει τρεις βασικές αρχές που αποτελούν κοινά χαρακτηριστικά σε αυτά τα εγχειρήματα, καθώς και κρίσιμους παράγοντες για την επιτυχή υλοποίηση και ολοκλήρωση τους: <br />
# Αρθρωτή δομή (modularity): Τα ομότιμα έργα αποτελούνται από πολλά μικρότερα, διακριτά συστατικά μέρη (modules), το καθένα από τα οποία μπορεί να παραχθεί αυτόνομα. O διαχωρισμός αυτός επιτρέπει πολλούς ανεξάρτητους συμμετέχοντες να εργάζονται με ασύγχρονο τρόπο, χωρίς να εξαρτάται η εργασία του ενός από την εργασία του άλλου. <br />
# Διαφορετικός βαθμός ανάλυσης (granularity) των συστατικών μερών: Διαφορετικά επίπεδα ανάλυσης των συστατικών μερών, και συνεπώς μεγαλύτερα και μικρότερα συστατικά μέρη, κινητοποιούν άτομα με μεγαλύτερα ή μικρότερα κίνητρα, αντίστοιχα, στο να συνεισφέρουν, ανάλογα με το ενδιαφέρον τους, αλλά και τις ικανότητές τους. Έτσι σε ένα ομότιμο έργο διακρίνονται μεγαλύτερα μέρη με ιδιαίτερες απαιτήσεις σε χρόνο και ικανότητες των συμμετεχόντων, έως πολύ μικρά μέρη, η υλοποίηση των οποίων δεν απαιτεί περισσότερο από 5 λεπτά ενασχόλησης κάποιου, ακόμη και στο πλαίσιο ενός καθημερινού ψυχαγωγικού «ξεφυλλίσματος» στο ίντερνετ (browsing). <br />
# Χαμηλού κόστους ολοκλήρωση: Ως ολοκλήρωση (integration) εννοείται η ενσωμάτωση όλων των συστατικών μερών στο τελικό αποτέλεσμα. Στη διαδικασία της ολοκλήρωσης, εμπεριέχεται τόσο ο μηχανισμός της ενσωμάτωσης όλων των συνεισφορών σε ένα ολοκληρωμένο προϊόν, όσο και ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος του κάθε συστατικού μέρους ξεχωριστά, αποφεύγοντας σφάλματα που προκύπτουν από τη λανθασμένη αντίληψη του κάθε συμμετέχοντα, σχετικά με τις ικανότητές του, τους στόχους του έργου κ.α. <br />
<br />
Ένα καλό παράδειγμα για το πώς λειτουργούν τα τρία αυτά χαρακτηριστικά αποτελεί το project «Distributed Proofreaders ». Πρόκειται για ένα υποστηρικτικό έργο ενός άλλου έργου, του «Project Gutenberg », το οποίο αποτελεί μία προσπάθεια εθελοντών για τη ψηφιοποίηση λογοτεχνικών και άλλων δημιουργικών κειμένων. Η διεργασία της ψηφιοποίησης περιλαμβάνει το σκανάρισμα των αυθεντικών κειμένων και τη μετατροπή τους σε ψηφιακό, επεξεργάσιμο κείμενο μέσω της χρήσης λογισμικού αναγνώρισης χαρακτήρων (Optical Character Recognition – OCR). Το λογισμικό αυτό, αν και αρκετά αποτελεσματικό, δεν είναι ιδιαίτερα ακριβές στην αναγνώριση των χαρακτήρων, με αποτέλεσμα έναν μεγάλο αριθμό τυπογραφικών λαθών. Σε αυτή την προσπάθεια συνεισφέρει αποφασιστικά το έργο Distributed Proofreaders, το οποίο είναι στη βάση του μία διαδικτυακή πλατφόρμα που επιτρέπει πλήθος εθελοντών να αναγνωρίσει και να διορθώσει τυπογραφικά λάθη. Η πλατφόρμα, η οποία στηρίζεται στο ελεύθερο λογισμικό GNU/Linux, παραθέτει στον χρήστη για κάθε σκαναρισμένο κείμενο την πρωτότυπη εικόνα του κειμένου πλάι στο επεξεργάσιμο κείμενο, όπως έχει προκύψει μετά τη διεργασία του OCR. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, η επίπονη και χρονοβόρα διαδικασία της διόρθωσης των κειμένων διαμοιράζεται σε πολλούς χρήστες, οι οποίοι ελέγχουν σε εθελοντική βάση όσες σελίδες επιθυμούν. <br />
<br />
Εδώ γίνεται αντιληπτός ο τρόπος με τον οποίο λειτουργούν τα δύο πρώτα βασικά χαρακτηριστικά των ομότιμων έργων: η αρθρωτή δομή και ο διαφορετικός βαθμός ανάλυσης των μερών. Στο συγκεκριμένο έργο, παρατηρείται ότι η αρθρωτή δομή ικανοποιείται ήδη από τη φύση των εργασιών που περιλαμβάνονται, χωρίς να χρειαστεί περαιτέρω παρέμβαση. Η κάθε σελίδα και το κάθε κεφάλαιο, ακόμα και κάθε βιβλίο, μπορεί να αποτελέσει ένα ξεχωριστό συστατικό μέρος (module). Αντίστοιχα, ο κάθε χρήστης συμμετέχει στο βαθμό που επιθυμεί, από μία σελίδα έως ένα ολόκληρο ή και περισσότερα από τα βιβλία που υπάρχουν διαθέσιμα προς διόρθωση. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, ουσιαστικά καθορίζει ο ίδιος και το βαθμό ανάλυσης του συστατικού μέρους που θα αναλάβει, ανάλογα με τη διάθεσή του και τις ικανότητές του. <br />
<br />
Ιδιαίτερα ενδιαφέρον παρουσιάζει ο τρόπος που γίνεται η ολοκλήρωση (integration) των μικρότερων και μεγαλύτερων συνεισφορών σε ένα ενιαίο αποτέλεσμα. Τα βασικά αποτελέσματα του έργου είναι φυσικά τα βιβλία. Η κάθε σελίδα ελέγχεται από περισσότερους από έναν εθελοντές, ενώ αφού ολοκληρωθεί η διόρθωση μία φορά, στη συνέχεια εθελοντές ελέγχουν, επικυρώνουν και διορθώνουν αντίστοιχα, εφόσον χρειαστεί, τη διορθωμένη σελίδα με βάση το πρωτότυπο. Αφότου ολοκληρωθούν όλες οι σελίδες του βιβλίου, γίνεται η τελική επεξεργασία και η προσαρμογή τους σε μορφή ηλεκτρονικού βιβλίου. Έτσι, επιτυγχάνεται τόσο η χαμηλού κόστους ολοκλήρωση όσο και ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος, μέσω της διόρθωσης σε δύο επίπεδα. <br />
<br />
Η συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση αποτελεί ένα εύκολα κατανοητό παράδειγμα των διεργασιών της ομότιμης παραγωγής, λόγω της απλότητας των εργασιών που περιλαμβάνει η διαδικασία της σύγκρισης ενός κειμένου με ένα άλλο. Αντίστοιχα στο έργο των Distributed Proofreaders συνεισφέρουν και περισσότερο εξειδικευμένοι συμμετέχοντες σε πιο απαιτητικές εργασίες, όπως είναι η ανάπτυξη εξειδικευμένου λογισμικού, η διαχείριση της πλατφόρμας, αλλά και εργασίες συντονισμού και project management. <br />
<br />
Τα ανωτέρω χαρακτηριστικά, όπως παρατηρήθηκαν σε μεγαλύτερο ή μικρότερο βαθμό στα πρώτα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα, αποτελούν τα στοιχεία εκείνα που κατέστησαν εξ’ αρχής δυνατή τη διαδικασία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, ενώ ταυτόχρονα αποτέλεσαν και τη βάση του επιτυχούς αποτελέσματός τους. Από το προηγούμενο παράδειγμα γίνεται επίσης ευκολά αντιληπτό ένα από τα βασικότερα πλεονεκτήματα της ομότιμης παραγωγής, ιδιαίτερα στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, το οποίο είναι η αποτελεσματικότητα στον εντοπισμό, την κινητοποίηση και την κατανομή της ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας. Η ευρεία διάδοση των Τεχνολογιών Πληροφόρησης και Επικοινωνίας (ΤΠΕ) ιδιαίτερα την τελευταία εικοσαετία, έχει αλλάξει σε μεγάλο βαθμό τον τρόπο που αντιλαμβανόμαστε την παραγωγή. Στον κόσμο των ΤΠΕ τα βασικά μέσα παραγωγής, δηλαδή οι ηλεκτρονικοί υπολογιστές, γίνονται συνεχώς φτηνότερα και εύκολα προσβάσιμα από ένα μεγάλο μέρος του πληθυσμού. Η βασική «πρώτη ύλη», η πληροφορία, είναι σε αφθονία και τα μέσα διανομής και επικοινωνίας πιο γρήγορα και αποτελεσματικά από ποτέ. Έτσι, ο παράγοντας που κάνει τη διαφορά στην επιτυχία ενός έργου είναι η ανθρώπινη δημιουργικότητα. Ο παράγοντας αυτός, ως κατ’ εξοχήν «ανθρώπινος», δεν ενεργοποιείται με το πάτημα ενός κουμπιού. Στην σύγχρονη αγορά, η ανθρώπινη δημιουργικότητα τοποθετείται πολύ ψηλά στην κλίμακα αυτών που ένας εργοδότης ή ένας μάνατζερ προσπαθεί να ενεργοποιήσει με χρηματικά ή άλλου είδους οφέλη. Στις περισσότερες δε περιπτώσεις η κινητοποίηση των ατόμων στο μεγαλύτερο επιθυμητό βαθμό παραμένει εκτός των ορίων των υλικών απολαβών. Σε έναν τέτοιο κόσμο λοιπόν, όπου τα βασικά μέσα παραγωγής είναι αποκεντρωμένα, η ιδιαίτερη δυναμική της ομότιμης παραγωγής έγκειται στην ικανότητα κινητοποίησης ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ατόμων, ο οποίοι αυτό-προσδιορίζουν τη συνεισφορά τους ανάλογα με τα αντίστοιχα κίνητρά τους. <br />
<br />
Στη βάση της, η ομότιμη παραγωγή είναι μία μορφή ανθρώπινης συνεργασίας, κατανομής κοινών πόρων και προσπάθειας σε ισότιμο πλαίσιο, προς την επίτευξη ενός κοινού αποτελέσματος. Αναφέρθηκε επίσης ότι δεν είναι η πρώτη φορά ιστορικά που παρατηρείται μία μορφή αποκεντρωμένης συνεργασίας και παραγωγής. Ωστόσο, την τελευταία εικοσαετία και λόγω της επανάστασης που έχουν φέρει οι ΤΠΕ σε όλους τους τομείς της ανθρώπινης δραστηριότητας, παρατηρείται ότι αυτή η μορφή οργάνωσης και παραγωγής μπορεί να έχει σημαντικό οικονομικό αποτέλεσμα. Στη βάση των πλεονεκτημάτων της ομότιμης παραγωγής, νέες μορφές κοινωνικής παραγωγής, αλλά και νέα επιχειρηματικά μοντέλα, καινοτόμα προϊόντα και υπηρεσίες έχουν αναδυθεί. Στην επόμενη ενότητα θα παρουσιαστεί μία σύντομη ιστορική αναδρομή των ομότιμων πρακτικών που αποτελούν τους θεμέλιους λίθους του συγκεκριμένου φαινομένου. <br />
<br />
==Ιστορική εξέλιξη==<br />
Ιστορικά οι ρίζες τις ομότιμης παραγωγής, όπως τη μελετούμε σήμερα, θα μπορούσαν να εντοπιστούν στο 1983, όταν ο Richard Stallman, τότε ερευνητής στο MIT, ανακοίνωσε την υλοποίηση του GNU Project, το πρώτο έργο ελεύθερου λογισμικού και μαζικής συνεργασίας. Βασικός στόχος του συγκεκριμένου έργου ήταν να δημιουργήσει τα μέσα που θα παρέχουν στους χρήστες ελευθερία σχετικά με τον έλεγχο των ηλεκτρονικών υπολογιστών και υπολογιστικών συσκευών. Για το σκοπό αυτό, έπρεπε να αναπτυχθεί και να διατεθεί το κατάλληλο λογισμικό, τα οποίο θα σέβεται τις βασικές ελευθερίες των χρηστών του και συγκεκριμένα: <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη χρήση του, για όλους τους σκοπούς. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη μελέτη, τροποποίηση και προσαρμογή του στις ανάγκες του χρήστη. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη διάδοση (αντιγραφή και διαμοιρασμό) του. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη βελτίωση του και τη δημοσίευση των βελτιώσεών αυτών. <br />
<br />
Οι αναφορές αυτές στην ελευθερία του χρήστη ενός τέτοιου λογισμικού, προσδίδουν σε αυτό τον τίτλο του «Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού» (Free Software). Επιπλέον, για να είναι δυνατή η εξασφάλιση των ελευθεριών των χρηστών σε όλο το εύρος της χρήσης των υπολογιστών, βασική επιδίωξη του GNU Project ήταν η ανάπτυξη ενός λειτουργικού συστήματος (Operating System – OS), το οποίο θα ήταν επίσης ελεύθερο λογισμικό. Έτσι τον Ιανουάριο του 1984 ξεκίνησε η ανάπτυξη του λειτουργικού συστήματος το οποίο ονομάστηκε GNU . <br />
Το 1985 ο Stallman ιδρύει το Ίδρυμα Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού (Free Software Foundation) με σκοπό να διαδώσει την ελευθερία στη χρήση των ηλεκτρονικών υπολογιστών και να υποστηρίξει νομικά και πρακτικά τα δικαιώματα των χρηστών. Έτσι, το 1989 ολοκληρώθηκε η πρώτη έκδοση της Γενικής Άδειας Δημόσιας Χρήσης (GNU General Public License – GPL), η οποία κατοχυρώνει τις ελευθερίες αυτές των χρηστών, ενώ η λεγόμενη ρήτρα «copyleft» (σε αντίθεση με τη λέξη copyright που κατοχυρώνει το δικαίωμα της πνευματικής ιδιοκτησίας) υποχρεώνει στη διατήρηση αυτών των ελευθεριών σε όλα τα αντίτυπα. Ουσιαστικά κάθε αντίτυπο, το οποίο περιλαμβάνει ένα συστατικό στοιχείο (κώδικα) που έχει παραχωρηθεί με GPL, πρέπει επίσης να κυκλοφορήσει υπό την GPL. Κατ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο εξασφαλίζεται ότι το ελεύθερο λογισμικό παραμένει ελεύθερο. Το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και η GPL αποτελούν σημαντικά σημεία στην ιστορία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, καθώς για πρώτη φορά κατοχυρώνεται νομικά η ανοικτή, ευρεία συνεργασία πολλών ατόμων. Ομοίως, το αποτέλεσμα της συνεργασίας αυτής κατοχυρώνεται ως συλλογικό και ελεύθερο, με βάση τις ελευθερίες που κατοχυρώνει η GPL. <br />
<br />
Το 1990 μεγάλο μέρος των προγραμμάτων που είναι απαραίτητα για ένα λειτουργικό σύστημα είχαν ολοκληρωθεί από το GNU Project, έλειπαν ωστόσο ακόμη κάποια σημαντικά κομμάτια, με βασικότερο τον πυρήνα (kernel). Την ίδια εποχή, ο Linus Torvalds, σε ένα project εκτός του GNU, αποφάσισε να αναπτύξει τον δικό του πυρήνα, ο οποίος ονομάστηκε Linux. Ο πυρήνας αυτός ενσωματώθηκε με τα υπόλοιπα συστατικά μέρη του GNU, με αποτέλεσμα ένα ολοκληρωμένο, πλήρως λειτουργικό και ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα, το GNU/Linux . Το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και το ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα GNU/Linux αποτέλεσαν την έμπνευση, αλλά πολύ περισσότερο παρείχαν τα τεχνικά και οργανωτικά μέσα για την έκρηξη των ομότιμων έργων που ακολούθησαν. <br />
<br />
Η ταχεία διάδοση του GNU/Linux αποτελεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό αποτέλεσμα συνέργειας και παράλληλης ανάπτυξης με μία άλλη μεγάλη επανάσταση που λαμβάνει χώρα την ίδια περίοδο. Το 1991 το διαδίκτυο γίνεται δημόσιο και μαζικό μέσο, με την παροχή της υπηρεσίας παγκόσμιου ιστού (World Wide Web), μία εφεύρεση του Tim Berners-Lee, ερευνητή του CERN. Παράλληλα, η κουλτούρα των χάκερς (hacking culture), η οποία έχει τις ρίζες της πίσω στο 1960, με τη διάδοση του ελεύθερου λογισμικού και τη μαζικοποίηση του διαδικτύου αρχίζει και προσελκύει συνεχώς μεγαλύτερο αριθμό ατόμων. Κεντρικό σημείο τους αποτελεί το ενδιαφέρον για τη δημιουργία, την εξερεύνηση, τον πειραματισμό και το ξεπέρασμα των ορίων αυτών που μπορούν να πραγματοποιηθούν. Μικρο-ομάδες από χάκερς που ήταν ενεργές για χρόνια σε διαφορετικά μέρη, μοιραζόμενες παρόμοιες αρχές και κυρίως το ίδιο πάθος, άρχισαν να ανακαλύπτουν η μία την άλλη και να συνεργάζονται. Παρατηρείται έτσι η συνειδητή διαμόρφωση και διάδοση μίας κοινής, συλλογικής και συστηματικής ηθικής από μία κρίσιμη μάζα ατόμων. Η ηθική αυτή αφορά το διαμοιρασμό γνώσης και πληροφορίας και την ελευθερία της χρήσης των τεχνολογικών μέσων για την ανάπτυξή τους, μέσα από τη συνεργασία και τη συμμετοχική δημιουργία. <br />
<br />
Με αυτόν τον τρόπο οι ομότιμες πρακτικές αρχίζουν και επεκτείνονται εκτός των ορίων της πληροφορικής και του λογισμικού. Ένας μεγάλος αριθμός ατόμων και ομάδων συσπειρώνονται πλέον γύρω από ένα κοινό σύστημα αξιών σχετικά με τη γνώση και την πληροφορία και κυρίως την ελεύθερη και ανεμπόδιστη κυκλοφορία αυτών. Δημιουργούν έτσι έναν παγκόσμιο χώρο γνωσιακών κοινών (knowledge commons), στη βάση του οποίου αναπτύσσονται παγκόσμια, συμμετοχικά ομότιμα εγχειρήματα, όπως η ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια Wikipedia. Επιπλέον, την τελευταία δεκαετία, η διάδοση των τεχνολογιών επιτραπέζιας κατασκευής (desktop manufacturing), όπως η τρισδιάστατη εκτύπωση και οι CNC μηχανές οδήγησαν στον περαιτέρω πειραματισμό των ομότιμων πρακτικών στον υλικό κόσμο. Ομότιμα έργα όπως ο RepRap εκτυπωτής και το Open Source Ecology αποτελούν σημαντικά εγχειρήματα αξιοποίησης των γνωσιακών κοινών στην παραγωγή άμεσων, πρακτικών, ανοικτών λύσεων. Έτσι, σε αντιστοιχία με το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και το λογισμικό ανοικτού κώδικα (ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ), εμφανίζεται ο όρος του ανοικτού υλισμικού (open hardware), προσδίδοντας νέες διαστάσεις στην ελευθερία στη χρήση βασικών μέσων παραγωγής. <br />
<br />
Σχετικά πρόσφατα το φαινόμενο άρχισε να αποκτά ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον ακαδημαϊκά και ερευνητικά. Χιλιάδες επιστημονικά έργα έχουν ασχοληθεί με το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο από το 2002 και έπειτα, ενώ οργανισμοί, όπως το [[P2P Foundation]], ιδρύονται με σκοπό τη μελέτη, τεκμηρίωση και διάδοση του φαινομένου της ομότιμης παραγωγής και των ομότιμων πρακτικών σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο. Αξίζει να αναφερθεί ότι στην Ελλάδα λειτουργεί από το 2007 ο ελληνικός κόμβος του P2P Foundation, ενώ το 2011 ιδρύθηκε στα Ιωάννινα το [[P2P Lab]], ένα διεπιστημονικό ερευνητικό εργαστήριο με σκοπό την θεωρητική τεκμηρίωση, τη διάδοση και πρακτική εφαρμογή των ομότιμων πρακτικών. <br />
<br />
==Αντί επιλόγου== <br />
Σημαντικό είναι να αναφερθεί ότι η μελέτη και η τεκμηρίωση του φαινομένου της ομότιμης παραγωγής βρίσκεται ακόμη σε πολύ αρχικό στάδιο, ενώ νέα εμπειρικά στοιχεία προκύπτουν συνεχώς από τις μυριάδες ομότιμες πρακτικές που βρίσκονται σε εξέλιξη. Για το λόγο αυτό το παρόν κείμενο δεν επιχειρεί να υποστηρίξει την γενικότερη υπεροχή του συγκεκριμένου μοντέλου έναντι των παραδοσιακών μορφών οργάνωσης και παραγωγής σε όλους τους τομείς, ούτε την ολοκληρωτική ανατροπή τους από την ομότιμη παραγωγή. Η μελέτη και ανάλυση των δυναμικών της ομότιμης παραγωγής αποσκοπεί στην αναγνώρισή της ως ένα αναδυόμενο παραγωγικό μοντέλο, διαφορετικό από άλλα υφιστάμενα, το οποίο διαθέτει συγκεκριμένα πλεονεκτήματα στην ενεργοποίηση και την αξιοποίηση συγκεκριμένων κοινωνικών και οικονομικών δυνάμεων. Η διάδοση των ομότιμων πρακτικών αντίστοιχα φιλοδοξεί στην ενδυνάμωση των αναδυόμενων παραγωγικών δυναμικών του συγκεκριμένου παραγωγικού μοντέλου, προς την επίτευξη ενός θετικού και βιώσιμου κοινωνικού και οικονομικού αποτελέσματος.<br />
<br />
==Σχετική βιβλιογραφία==<br />
Bauwens, M. (2005), ‘The Political Economy of Peer Production’, CTheory Journal, http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
Benkler, Y. (2001), ‘Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm’, Yale Law Journal, 112: 369.<br />
<br />
Benkler, Y. (2006), ‘The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom”, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press. <br />
<br />
Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., Dafermos, G. & Bauwens, M. (2015), ‘Design global, manufacture local: Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model’, Futures, 73: 126-135<br />
<br />
GNU Operating System, Free Software Foundation, ‘What is free software?’, < https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
P2P Foundation, ‘Peer production’ <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
P2P Foundation, “Peer production characteristics’, <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_-_Characteristics>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
Κωστάκης, Β. (2012), ‘Το ομότιμο μανιφέστο: Δημιουργώντας τον κόσμο που θέλουμε μέσα στον κόσμο που θέλουμε να ξεπεράσουμε’, Βορειοδυτικές εκδόσεις, Ιωάννινα. <br />
<br />
==Σχετικοί σύνδεσμοι - Περαιτέρω ανάγνωση==<br />
P2P Lab: http://www.p2plab.gr <br />
<br />
The GNU Project: https://www.gnu.org</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=%CE%9F%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%B7_%CE%A0%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%B3%CF%89%CE%B3%CE%AE&diff=98437Ομότιμη Παραγωγή2016-02-13T20:30:14Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Ομότιμη Παραγωγή= <br />
''Του Αλέξανδρου Παζαΐτη''<br />
<br />
==Ορισμός==<br />
Το ενδιαφέρον γύρω από το φαινόμενο της ομότιμης παραγωγής (peer production) έχει ενταθεί τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια, ιδιαίτερα μετά την ανάδειξη σημαντικών συνεργατικών εγχειρημάτων στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, όπως το ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα GNU/Linux, ο Apache web server και η ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια Wikipedia. Παρόλα αυτά, το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο δεν είναι κάτι εντελώς καινούριο στην ιστορία των ανθρώπινων κοινωνιών. Πολιτιστικά αγαθά, όπως το ελληνικό δημοτικό τραγούδι, ανέκδοτες ιστορίες και παραμύθια, αποτελούν χαρακτηριστικά δείγματα, ενός άτυπου, μέχρι πρόσφατα, τρόπου συν-δημιουργίας. Η ελευθερία που χαρακτηρίζει πολιτιστικές δημιουργίες, όπως τα δημοτικά τραγούδια, εντοπίζεται στην ανεμπόδιστη αναπαραγωγή και τροποποίηση τους, καθώς και στην από-στόμα-σε-στόμα διάδοσή τους πέρα από χωρικά και πολιτισμικά όρια. Η ελευθερία αυτή επιτρέπει την ενσωμάτωση στους στίχους και τη μουσική τοπικών χαρακτηριστικών, ενώ τα δένει με τοπικούς χορούς και εθιμοτυπικές παραδόσεις. Τα χαρακτηριστικά αυτά είναι που προσδίδουν την ιδιαίτερη αξία των τραγουδιών αυτών για την τοπική παράδοση, ως μία μορφή δια-πολιτισμικής επικοινωνίας, ενσωματώνοντας παράλληλα την ιδιαίτερη ιστορία και της παράδοση ενός τόπου, τις αξίες και τους ανθρώπους του. Τα ελληνικά δημοτικά τραγούδια δεν «υπογράφονται» από κάποιον συγκεκριμένο δημιουργό και κυκλοφορούν πολλές φορές σε εκατοντάδες παρόμοιες ή διαφορετικές εκδοχές, προσαρμοσμένα στα γλωσσικά ιδιώματα, τη μουσική παράδοση και τα ιστορικά και πολιτιστικά γνωρίσματα του κάθε τόπου στον οποίο τραγουδήθηκαν. Αποτελούν ελεύθερα πολιτιστικά αγαθά, τα οποία διαμορφώθηκαν από μικρές και μεγάλες συνεισφορές αμέτρητων δημιουργών, οι οποίοι μοιράστηκαν την κοινή τους γνώση στο πέρασμα πολλών γενεών. <br />
<br />
Με παρόμοιο τρόπο, στα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα του ελεύθερου λογισμικού, προγραμματιστές, σχεδιαστές ιστοσελίδων, γραφίστες και άλλοι λιγότερο ή περισσότερο εξειδικευμένοι δημιουργοί, συσπειρώνονται γύρω από ένα κοινό αγαθό, το οποίο σε αυτήν την περίπτωση είναι η πληροφορία και συγκεκριμένα ο κώδικας. Χωρίς να υπάρχει κεντρικός συντονισμός, οι ομότιμοι δημιουργοί (peers) μοιράζονται άυλους πόρους, όπως την πληροφορία και τη γνώση, ανάλογα με τις ανάγκες τους και προσφέρουν στην κοινή δημιουργία ανάλογα με τις ικανότητές τους. Η ομότιμη παραγωγή είναι κατ’ εξοχήν μία διεργασία συλλογής και ανταλλαγής πόρων μεταξύ ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ατόμων χωρίς προκαθορισμένη ιεραρχία και δομή. Έτσι, ως ομότιμη παραγωγή ορίζεται η συνεργασία αυτό-οργανωμένων ομάδων ατόμων, τα οποία συμμετέχουν σε ισότιμη βάση (equal footing), με σκοπό την επίτευξη ενός κοινού σκοπού . Στον ορισμό εντοπίζονται ήδη τα κεντρικά σημεία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, τα οποία αποτελούν και τις βασικές δυναμικές της: η ανοικτή και αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενη συμμετοχή και η ισότιμη βάση. Είναι τα στοιχεία εκείνα που προσδίδουν στα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα τα ιδιαίτερα χαρακτηριστικά τους σε ότι αφορά το δυναμικό περιεχόμενό τους και την κινητοποίηση μεγάλου εύρους της ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας. <br />
<br />
==Τυπολογία==<br />
Ο όρος ομότιμη παραγωγή (peer production), όπως και η γενικότερη θεωρητική και εμπειρική τεκμηρίωση των συγκεκριμένων πρακτικών, έχουν αναπτυχθεί σχετικά πρόσφατα. Ο όρος εισήχθη για πρώτη φορά από τον Yochai Benkler, καθηγητή της νομικής σχολής του πανεπιστημίου του Harvard, μόλις το 2002 . Ο Benkler παρουσιάζει την ομότιμη παραγωγή ως ένα νέο παραγωγικό φαινόμενο, όπως προέκυψε από τη μελέτη των πρώτων πρακτικών που παρατηρήθηκαν στο χώρο του ελεύθερου λογισμικού και λογισμικού ανοικτού κώδικα (ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ) και στο χώρο του διαδικτύου. Ο ορισμός της ομότιμης παραγωγής αφορά περισσότερο τη διεργασία της μετατροπής μίας εισροής (input) σε ένα αποτέλεσμα (output), εστιάζοντας στην αποκεντρωμένη δομή και συμμετοχική μέθοδο εργασίας. Αντίστοιχα σε μεταγενέστερο έργο του με τίτλο «The Wealth of Networks» το 2006 ο Benkler εισάγει την έννοια της «βασισμένης στα κοινά ομότιμης παραγωγής» (commons-based peer production – CBPP).Η διαφορά σε αυτήν την προσέγγιση είναι η εστίαση στους πόρους και τα αποτελέσματα της διεργασίας και κυρίως η σχέση των συμμετεχόντων με αυτά. <br />
<br />
Το επαναστατικό στοιχείο της βασισμένης στα κοινά ομότιμης παραγωγής είναι ότι τα μέσα και τα αποτελέσματα της δεν αποτελούν αντικείμενα αποκλειστικής ιδιοκτησίας. Αντίθετα, διαμοιράζονται μεταξύ των συμμετεχόντων στο πλαίσιο μίας θεσμικής δομής η οποία διαθέτει τους πόρους ισότιμα σε όλους ανάλογα με την κρίση τους. Ανήκουν δηλαδή στη σφαίρα αυτών που ονομάζονται «κοινά» (commons), ή αλλιώς δημόσια, ελεύθερα αγαθά. Παραδοσιακά, ο χώρος των κοινών θεωρούταν ότι βρίσκεται εκτός της παραγωγικής οικονομίας. Οι κοινοί πόροι αντιμετωπίζονταν ως εν δυνάμει παραγωγικοί πόροι, που θα μπορούσαν να παράγουν αξία εφόσον υπεισέλθουν υπό κάποιο καθεστώς διαχείρισης ή ιδιοκτησίας, από το κράτος ή τον ιδιωτικό τομέα. Ωστόσο, ένας νέος τύπος σχέσεων συνεργασίας και παραγωγής αναδεικνύει την προοπτική των κοινών πόρων στην παραγωγή αξίας, παραμένοντας στη σφαίρα των κοινών, μέσα από μία διεργασία η οποία τα προστατεύει και τα ανατροφοδοτεί. Για το λόγο αυτό η βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή αναφέρεται συχνά και ως ένας τύπος «κοινωνικής παραγωγής». <br />
<br />
Σημαντικό είναι ωστόσο να διευκρινίσουμε ότι όλοι οι τύποι παραγωγής με βάση τα κοινά δεν αποτελούν ομότιμη παραγωγή. Η παραγωγή με βάση τα κοινά εστιάζει στην ελεύθερη χρήση των μέσων και των αποτελεσμάτων, ενώ η ομότιμη παραγωγή στην αποκεντρωμένη οργάνωση και την αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενη, συμμετοχική μέθοδο εργασίας. Ο συνδυασμός των δύο παραπάνω στοιχείων συνθέτει την βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή. <br />
Αντίστοιχα είναι δυνατόν να έχουμε ομότιμη παραγωγή η οποία στηρίζεται σε ιδιόκτητους πόρους. Σύγχρονοι μέθοδοι παραγωγής, ιδιαίτερα στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, εξωτερικεύουν μεγάλο μέρος της παραγωγής δεδομένων σε έναν μεγάλο αριθμό χρηστών, οι οποίοι συνεργάζονται αυτόνομα και χωρίς ιεραρχία, ανάλογα με την κρίση τους. Παρόλα αυτά, τόσο τα μέσα όσο και τα αποτελέσματα αυτής της διεργασίας αποτελούν ιδιοκτησία κάποιας εταιρίας ή ενός οργανισμού. Ιδιαίτερα επιτυχημένα παραδείγματα τέτοιων μεθόδων αποτελούν οι περιπτώσεις της Google και του Facebook, όπου η παραγωγή των δεδομένων προέρχονται από την αναζήτηση και την περιήγηση χρηστών και τη χρήση συμμετοχικών πλατφορμών, όπως το Facebook και το Google Developers. Ωστόσο, τόσο ο κώδικας, οι πλατφόρμες και τα λοιπά μέσα που χρησιμοποιούνται, όσο και τα δεδομένα που παράγονται τελούν υπό την ιδιοκτησία και τη διαχείριση των εταιριών αντίστοιχα. <br />
<br />
Είναι σκόπιμο να διευκρινιστεί ότι η προσέγγιση του παρόντος κειμένου αφορά την ομότιμη παραγωγή ως διεργασία. Ωστόσο τα παραδείγματα και οι ιστορικές αναφορές αφορούν κυρίως τη βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή, ως ένα αναδυόμενο παραγωγικό μοντέλο στο πλαίσιο των γενικότερων φαινομένων εναλλακτικών τρόπων παραγωγής και κοινωνικο-οικονομικής οργάνωσης. <br />
<br />
==Βασικά χαρακτηριστικά==<br />
Παρά την πληθώρα των εγχειρημάτων που παρατηρούνται σε ένα μεγάλο εύρος τομέων και δραστηριοτήτων, ο Benkler διακρίνει τρεις βασικές αρχές που αποτελούν κοινά χαρακτηριστικά σε αυτά τα εγχειρήματα, καθώς και κρίσιμους παράγοντες για την επιτυχή υλοποίηση και ολοκλήρωση τους: <br />
# Αρθρωτή δομή (modularity): Τα ομότιμα έργα αποτελούνται από πολλά μικρότερα, διακριτά συστατικά μέρη (modules), το καθένα από τα οποία μπορεί να παραχθεί αυτόνομα. O διαχωρισμός αυτός επιτρέπει πολλούς ανεξάρτητους συμμετέχοντες να εργάζονται με ασύγχρονο τρόπο, χωρίς να εξαρτάται η εργασία του ενός από την εργασία του άλλου. <br />
# Διαφορετικός βαθμός ανάλυσης (granularity) των συστατικών μερών: Διαφορετικά επίπεδα ανάλυσης των συστατικών μερών, και συνεπώς μεγαλύτερα και μικρότερα συστατικά μέρη, κινητοποιούν άτομα με μεγαλύτερα ή μικρότερα κίνητρα, αντίστοιχα, στο να συνεισφέρουν, ανάλογα με το ενδιαφέρον τους, αλλά και τις ικανότητές τους. Έτσι σε ένα ομότιμο έργο διακρίνονται μεγαλύτερα μέρη με ιδιαίτερες απαιτήσεις σε χρόνο και ικανότητες των συμμετεχόντων, έως πολύ μικρά μέρη, η υλοποίηση των οποίων δεν απαιτεί περισσότερο από 5 λεπτά ενασχόλησης κάποιου, ακόμη και στο πλαίσιο ενός καθημερινού ψυχαγωγικού «ξεφυλλίσματος» στο ίντερνετ (browsing). <br />
# Χαμηλού κόστους ολοκλήρωση: Ως ολοκλήρωση (integration) εννοείται η ενσωμάτωση όλων των συστατικών μερών στο τελικό αποτέλεσμα. Στη διαδικασία της ολοκλήρωσης, εμπεριέχεται τόσο ο μηχανισμός της ενσωμάτωσης όλων των συνεισφορών σε ένα ολοκληρωμένο προϊόν, όσο και ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος του κάθε συστατικού μέρους ξεχωριστά, αποφεύγοντας σφάλματα που προκύπτουν από τη λανθασμένη αντίληψη του κάθε συμμετέχοντα, σχετικά με τις ικανότητές του, τους στόχους του έργου κ.α. <br />
<br />
Ένα καλό παράδειγμα για το πώς λειτουργούν τα τρία αυτά χαρακτηριστικά αποτελεί το project «Distributed Proofreaders ». Πρόκειται για ένα υποστηρικτικό έργο ενός άλλου έργου, του «Project Gutenberg », το οποίο αποτελεί μία προσπάθεια εθελοντών για τη ψηφιοποίηση λογοτεχνικών και άλλων δημιουργικών κειμένων. Η διεργασία της ψηφιοποίησης περιλαμβάνει το σκανάρισμα των αυθεντικών κειμένων και τη μετατροπή τους σε ψηφιακό, επεξεργάσιμο κείμενο μέσω της χρήσης λογισμικού αναγνώρισης χαρακτήρων (Optical Character Recognition – OCR). Το λογισμικό αυτό, αν και αρκετά αποτελεσματικό, δεν είναι ιδιαίτερα ακριβές στην αναγνώριση των χαρακτήρων, με αποτέλεσμα έναν μεγάλο αριθμό τυπογραφικών λαθών. Σε αυτή την προσπάθεια συνεισφέρει αποφασιστικά το έργο Distributed Proofreaders, το οποίο είναι στη βάση του μία διαδικτυακή πλατφόρμα που επιτρέπει πλήθος εθελοντών να αναγνωρίσει και να διορθώσει τυπογραφικά λάθη. Η πλατφόρμα, η οποία στηρίζεται στο ελεύθερο λογισμικό GNU/Linux, παραθέτει στον χρήστη για κάθε σκαναρισμένο κείμενο την πρωτότυπη εικόνα του κειμένου πλάι στο επεξεργάσιμο κείμενο, όπως έχει προκύψει μετά τη διεργασία του OCR. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, η επίπονη και χρονοβόρα διαδικασία της διόρθωσης των κειμένων διαμοιράζεται σε πολλούς χρήστες, οι οποίοι ελέγχουν σε εθελοντική βάση όσες σελίδες επιθυμούν. <br />
<br />
Εδώ γίνεται αντιληπτός ο τρόπος με τον οποίο λειτουργούν τα δύο πρώτα βασικά χαρακτηριστικά των ομότιμων έργων: η αρθρωτή δομή και ο διαφορετικός βαθμός ανάλυσης των μερών. Στο συγκεκριμένο έργο, παρατηρείται ότι η αρθρωτή δομή ικανοποιείται ήδη από τη φύση των εργασιών που περιλαμβάνονται, χωρίς να χρειαστεί περαιτέρω παρέμβαση. Η κάθε σελίδα και το κάθε κεφάλαιο, ακόμα και κάθε βιβλίο, μπορεί να αποτελέσει ένα ξεχωριστό συστατικό μέρος (module). Αντίστοιχα, ο κάθε χρήστης συμμετέχει στο βαθμό που επιθυμεί, από μία σελίδα έως ένα ολόκληρο ή και περισσότερα από τα βιβλία που υπάρχουν διαθέσιμα προς διόρθωση. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, ουσιαστικά καθορίζει ο ίδιος και το βαθμό ανάλυσης του συστατικού μέρους που θα αναλάβει, ανάλογα με τη διάθεσή του και τις ικανότητές του. <br />
<br />
Ιδιαίτερα ενδιαφέρον παρουσιάζει ο τρόπος που γίνεται η ολοκλήρωση (integration) των μικρότερων και μεγαλύτερων συνεισφορών σε ένα ενιαίο αποτέλεσμα. Τα βασικά αποτελέσματα του έργου είναι φυσικά τα βιβλία. Η κάθε σελίδα ελέγχεται από περισσότερους από έναν εθελοντές, ενώ αφού ολοκληρωθεί η διόρθωση μία φορά, στη συνέχεια εθελοντές ελέγχουν, επικυρώνουν και διορθώνουν αντίστοιχα, εφόσον χρειαστεί, τη διορθωμένη σελίδα με βάση το πρωτότυπο. Αφότου ολοκληρωθούν όλες οι σελίδες του βιβλίου, γίνεται η τελική επεξεργασία και η προσαρμογή τους σε μορφή ηλεκτρονικού βιβλίου. Έτσι, επιτυγχάνεται τόσο η χαμηλού κόστους ολοκλήρωση όσο και ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος, μέσω της διόρθωσης σε δύο επίπεδα. <br />
<br />
Η συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση αποτελεί ένα εύκολα κατανοητό παράδειγμα των διεργασιών της ομότιμης παραγωγής, λόγω της απλότητας των εργασιών που περιλαμβάνει η διαδικασία της σύγκρισης ενός κειμένου με ένα άλλο. Αντίστοιχα στο έργο των Distributed Proofreaders συνεισφέρουν και περισσότερο εξειδικευμένοι συμμετέχοντες σε πιο απαιτητικές εργασίες, όπως είναι η ανάπτυξη εξειδικευμένου λογισμικού, η διαχείριση της πλατφόρμας, αλλά και εργασίες συντονισμού και project management. <br />
<br />
Τα ανωτέρω χαρακτηριστικά, όπως παρατηρήθηκαν σε μεγαλύτερο ή μικρότερο βαθμό στα πρώτα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα, αποτελούν τα στοιχεία εκείνα που κατέστησαν εξ’ αρχής δυνατή τη διαδικασία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, ενώ ταυτόχρονα αποτέλεσαν και τη βάση του επιτυχούς αποτελέσματός τους. Από το προηγούμενο παράδειγμα γίνεται επίσης ευκολά αντιληπτό ένα από τα βασικότερα πλεονεκτήματα της ομότιμης παραγωγής, ιδιαίτερα στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, το οποίο είναι η αποτελεσματικότητα στον εντοπισμό, την κινητοποίηση και την κατανομή της ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας. Η ευρεία διάδοση των Τεχνολογιών Πληροφόρησης και Επικοινωνίας (ΤΠΕ) ιδιαίτερα την τελευταία εικοσαετία, έχει αλλάξει σε μεγάλο βαθμό τον τρόπο που αντιλαμβανόμαστε την παραγωγή. Στον κόσμο των ΤΠΕ τα βασικά μέσα παραγωγής, δηλαδή οι ηλεκτρονικοί υπολογιστές, γίνονται συνεχώς φτηνότερα και εύκολα προσβάσιμα από ένα μεγάλο μέρος του πληθυσμού. Η βασική «πρώτη ύλη», η πληροφορία, είναι σε αφθονία και τα μέσα διανομής και επικοινωνίας πιο γρήγορα και αποτελεσματικά από ποτέ. Έτσι, ο παράγοντας που κάνει τη διαφορά στην επιτυχία ενός έργου είναι η ανθρώπινη δημιουργικότητα. Ο παράγοντας αυτός, ως κατ’ εξοχήν «ανθρώπινος», δεν ενεργοποιείται με το πάτημα ενός κουμπιού. Στην σύγχρονη αγορά, η ανθρώπινη δημιουργικότητα τοποθετείται πολύ ψηλά στην κλίμακα αυτών που ένας εργοδότης ή ένας μάνατζερ προσπαθεί να ενεργοποιήσει με χρηματικά ή άλλου είδους οφέλη. Στις περισσότερες δε περιπτώσεις η κινητοποίηση των ατόμων στο μεγαλύτερο επιθυμητό βαθμό παραμένει εκτός των ορίων των υλικών απολαβών. Σε έναν τέτοιο κόσμο λοιπόν, όπου τα βασικά μέσα παραγωγής είναι αποκεντρωμένα, η ιδιαίτερη δυναμική της ομότιμης παραγωγής έγκειται στην ικανότητα κινητοποίησης ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ατόμων, ο οποίοι αυτό-προσδιορίζουν τη συνεισφορά τους ανάλογα με τα αντίστοιχα κίνητρά τους. <br />
<br />
Στη βάση της, η ομότιμη παραγωγή είναι μία μορφή ανθρώπινης συνεργασίας, κατανομής κοινών πόρων και προσπάθειας σε ισότιμο πλαίσιο, προς την επίτευξη ενός κοινού αποτελέσματος. Αναφέρθηκε επίσης ότι δεν είναι η πρώτη φορά ιστορικά που παρατηρείται μία μορφή αποκεντρωμένης συνεργασίας και παραγωγής. Ωστόσο, την τελευταία εικοσαετία και λόγω της επανάστασης που έχουν φέρει οι ΤΠΕ σε όλους τους τομείς της ανθρώπινης δραστηριότητας, παρατηρείται ότι αυτή η μορφή οργάνωσης και παραγωγής μπορεί να έχει σημαντικό οικονομικό αποτέλεσμα. Στη βάση των πλεονεκτημάτων της ομότιμης παραγωγής, νέες μορφές κοινωνικής παραγωγής, αλλά και νέα επιχειρηματικά μοντέλα, καινοτόμα προϊόντα και υπηρεσίες έχουν αναδυθεί. Στην επόμενη ενότητα θα παρουσιαστεί μία σύντομη ιστορική αναδρομή των ομότιμων πρακτικών που αποτελούν τους θεμέλιους λίθους του συγκεκριμένου φαινομένου. <br />
<br />
==Ιστορική εξέλιξη==<br />
Ιστορικά οι ρίζες τις ομότιμης παραγωγής, όπως τη μελετούμε σήμερα, θα μπορούσαν να εντοπιστούν στο 1983, όταν ο Richard Stallman, τότε ερευνητής στο MIT, ανακοίνωσε την υλοποίηση του GNU Project, το πρώτο έργο ελεύθερου λογισμικού και μαζικής συνεργασίας. Βασικός στόχος του συγκεκριμένου έργου ήταν να δημιουργήσει τα μέσα που θα παρέχουν στους χρήστες ελευθερία σχετικά με τον έλεγχο των ηλεκτρονικών υπολογιστών και υπολογιστικών συσκευών. Για το σκοπό αυτό, έπρεπε να αναπτυχθεί και να διατεθεί το κατάλληλο λογισμικό, τα οποίο θα σέβεται τις βασικές ελευθερίες των χρηστών του και συγκεκριμένα: <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη χρήση του, για όλους τους σκοπούς. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη μελέτη, τροποποίηση και προσαρμογή του στις ανάγκες του χρήστη. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη διάδοση (αντιγραφή και διαμοιρασμό) του. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη βελτίωση του και τη δημοσίευση των βελτιώσεών αυτών. <br />
<br />
Οι αναφορές αυτές στην ελευθερία του χρήστη ενός τέτοιου λογισμικού, προσδίδουν σε αυτό τον τίτλο του «Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού» (Free Software). Επιπλέον, για να είναι δυνατή η εξασφάλιση των ελευθεριών των χρηστών σε όλο το εύρος της χρήσης των υπολογιστών, βασική επιδίωξη του GNU Project ήταν η ανάπτυξη ενός λειτουργικού συστήματος (Operating System – OS), το οποίο θα ήταν επίσης ελεύθερο λογισμικό. Έτσι τον Ιανουάριο του 1984 ξεκίνησε η ανάπτυξη του λειτουργικού συστήματος το οποίο ονομάστηκε GNU . <br />
Το 1985 ο Stallman ιδρύει το Ίδρυμα Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού (Free Software Foundation) με σκοπό να διαδώσει την ελευθερία στη χρήση των ηλεκτρονικών υπολογιστών και να υποστηρίξει νομικά και πρακτικά τα δικαιώματα των χρηστών. Έτσι, το 1989 ολοκληρώθηκε η πρώτη έκδοση της Γενικής Άδειας Δημόσιας Χρήσης (GNU General Public License – GPL), η οποία κατοχυρώνει τις ελευθερίες αυτές των χρηστών, ενώ η λεγόμενη ρήτρα «copyleft» (σε αντίθεση με τη λέξη copyright που κατοχυρώνει το δικαίωμα της πνευματικής ιδιοκτησίας) υποχρεώνει στη διατήρηση αυτών των ελευθεριών σε όλα τα αντίτυπα. Ουσιαστικά κάθε αντίτυπο, το οποίο περιλαμβάνει ένα συστατικό στοιχείο (κώδικα) που έχει παραχωρηθεί με GPL, πρέπει επίσης να κυκλοφορήσει υπό την GPL. Κατ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο εξασφαλίζεται ότι το ελεύθερο λογισμικό παραμένει ελεύθερο. Το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και η GPL αποτελούν σημαντικά σημεία στην ιστορία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, καθώς για πρώτη φορά κατοχυρώνεται νομικά η ανοικτή, ευρεία συνεργασία πολλών ατόμων. Ομοίως, το αποτέλεσμα της συνεργασίας αυτής κατοχυρώνεται ως συλλογικό και ελεύθερο, με βάση τις ελευθερίες που κατοχυρώνει η GPL. <br />
<br />
Το 1990 μεγάλο μέρος των προγραμμάτων που είναι απαραίτητα για ένα λειτουργικό σύστημα είχαν ολοκληρωθεί από το GNU Project, έλειπαν ωστόσο ακόμη κάποια σημαντικά κομμάτια, με βασικότερο τον πυρήνα (kernel). Την ίδια εποχή, ο Linus Torvalds, σε ένα project εκτός του GNU, αποφάσισε να αναπτύξει τον δικό του πυρήνα, ο οποίος ονομάστηκε Linux. Ο πυρήνας αυτός ενσωματώθηκε με τα υπόλοιπα συστατικά μέρη του GNU, με αποτέλεσμα ένα ολοκληρωμένο, πλήρως λειτουργικό και ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα, το GNU/Linux . Το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και το ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα GNU/Linux αποτέλεσαν την έμπνευση, αλλά πολύ περισσότερο παρείχαν τα τεχνικά και οργανωτικά μέσα για την έκρηξη των ομότιμων έργων που ακολούθησαν. <br />
<br />
Η ταχεία διάδοση του GNU/Linux αποτελεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό αποτέλεσμα συνέργειας και παράλληλης ανάπτυξης με μία άλλη μεγάλη επανάσταση που λαμβάνει χώρα την ίδια περίοδο. Το 1991 το διαδίκτυο γίνεται δημόσιο και μαζικό μέσο, με την παροχή της υπηρεσίας παγκόσμιου ιστού (World Wide Web), μία εφεύρεση του Tim Berners-Lee, ερευνητή του CERN. Παράλληλα, η κουλτούρα των χάκερς (hacking culture), η οποία έχει τις ρίζες της πίσω στο 1960, με τη διάδοση του ελεύθερου λογισμικού και τη μαζικοποίηση του διαδικτύου αρχίζει και προσελκύει συνεχώς μεγαλύτερο αριθμό ατόμων. Κεντρικό σημείο τους αποτελεί το ενδιαφέρον για τη δημιουργία, την εξερεύνηση, τον πειραματισμό και το ξεπέρασμα των ορίων αυτών που μπορούν να πραγματοποιηθούν. Μικρο-ομάδες από χάκερς που ήταν ενεργές για χρόνια σε διαφορετικά μέρη, μοιραζόμενες παρόμοιες αρχές και κυρίως το ίδιο πάθος, άρχισαν να ανακαλύπτουν η μία την άλλη και να συνεργάζονται. Παρατηρείται έτσι η συνειδητή διαμόρφωση και διάδοση μίας κοινής, συλλογικής και συστηματικής ηθικής από μία κρίσιμη μάζα ατόμων. Η ηθική αυτή αφορά το διαμοιρασμό γνώσης και πληροφορίας και την ελευθερία της χρήσης των τεχνολογικών μέσων για την ανάπτυξή τους, μέσα από τη συνεργασία και τη συμμετοχική δημιουργία. <br />
<br />
Με αυτόν τον τρόπο οι ομότιμες πρακτικές αρχίζουν και επεκτείνονται εκτός των ορίων της πληροφορικής και του λογισμικού. Ένας μεγάλος αριθμός ατόμων και ομάδων συσπειρώνονται πλέον γύρω από ένα κοινό σύστημα αξιών σχετικά με τη γνώση και την πληροφορία και κυρίως την ελεύθερη και ανεμπόδιστη κυκλοφορία αυτών. Δημιουργούν έτσι έναν παγκόσμιο χώρο γνωσιακών κοινών (knowledge commons), στη βάση του οποίου αναπτύσσονται παγκόσμια, συμμετοχικά ομότιμα εγχειρήματα, όπως η ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια Wikipedia. Επιπλέον, την τελευταία δεκαετία, η διάδοση των τεχνολογιών επιτραπέζιας κατασκευής (desktop manufacturing), όπως η τρισδιάστατη εκτύπωση και οι CNC μηχανές οδήγησαν στον περαιτέρω πειραματισμό των ομότιμων πρακτικών στον υλικό κόσμο. Ομότιμα έργα όπως ο RepRap εκτυπωτής και το Open Source Ecology αποτελούν σημαντικά εγχειρήματα αξιοποίησης των γνωσιακών κοινών στην παραγωγή άμεσων, πρακτικών, ανοικτών λύσεων. Έτσι, σε αντιστοιχία με το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και το λογισμικό ανοικτού κώδικα (ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ), εμφανίζεται ο όρος του ανοικτού υλισμικού (open hardware), προσδίδοντας νέες διαστάσεις στην ελευθερία στη χρήση βασικών μέσων παραγωγής. <br />
<br />
Σχετικά πρόσφατα το φαινόμενο άρχισε να αποκτά ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον ακαδημαϊκά και ερευνητικά. Χιλιάδες επιστημονικά έργα έχουν ασχοληθεί με το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο από το 2002 και έπειτα, ενώ οργανισμοί, όπως το [[P2P Foundation]], ιδρύονται με σκοπό τη μελέτη, τεκμηρίωση και διάδοση του φαινομένου της ομότιμης παραγωγής και των ομότιμων πρακτικών σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο. Αξίζει να αναφερθεί ότι στην Ελλάδα λειτουργεί από το 2007 ο ελληνικός κόμβος του P2P Foundation, ενώ το 2011 ιδρύθηκε στα Ιωάννινα το [[P2P Lab]], ένα διεπιστημονικό ερευνητικό εργαστήριο με σκοπό την θεωρητική τεκμηρίωση, τη διάδοση και πρακτική εφαρμογή των ομότιμων πρακτικών. <br />
<br />
==Επίλογος== <br />
Σημαντικό είναι να αναφερθεί ότι η μελέτη και η τεκμηρίωση του φαινομένου της ομότιμης παραγωγής βρίσκεται ακόμη σε πολύ αρχικό στάδιο, ενώ νέα εμπειρικά στοιχεία προκύπτουν συνεχώς από τις μυριάδες ομότιμες πρακτικές που βρίσκονται σε εξέλιξη. Για το λόγο αυτό το παρόν κείμενο δεν επιχειρεί να υποστηρίξει την γενικότερη υπεροχή του συγκεκριμένου μοντέλου έναντι των παραδοσιακών μορφών οργάνωσης και παραγωγής σε όλους τους τομείς, ούτε την ολοκληρωτική ανατροπή τους από την ομότιμη παραγωγή. Η μελέτη και ανάλυση των δυναμικών της ομότιμης παραγωγής αποσκοπεί στην αναγνώρισή της ως ένα αναδυόμενο παραγωγικό μοντέλο, διαφορετικό από άλλα υφιστάμενα, το οποίο διαθέτει συγκεκριμένα πλεονεκτήματα στην ενεργοποίηση και την αξιοποίηση συγκεκριμένων κοινωνικών και οικονομικών δυνάμεων. Η διάδοση των ομότιμων πρακτικών αντίστοιχα φιλοδοξεί στην ενδυνάμωση των αναδυόμενων παραγωγικών δυναμικών του συγκεκριμένου παραγωγικού μοντέλου, προς την επίτευξη ενός θετικού και βιώσιμου κοινωνικού και οικονομικού αποτελέσματος. <br />
<br />
==Σχετική βιβλιογραφία==<br />
Bauwens, M. (2005), ‘The Political Economy of Peer Production’, CTheory Journal, http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
Benkler, Y. (2001), ‘Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm’, Yale Law Journal, 112: 369.<br />
<br />
Benkler, Y. (2006), ‘The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom”, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press. <br />
<br />
Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., Dafermos, G. & Bauwens, M. (2015), ‘Design global, manufacture local: Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model’, Futures, 73: 126-135<br />
<br />
GNU Operating System, Free Software Foundation, ‘What is free software?’, < https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
P2P Foundation, ‘Peer production’ <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
P2P Foundation, “Peer production characteristics’, <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_-_Characteristics>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
Κωστάκης, Β. (2012), ‘Το ομότιμο μανιφέστο: Δημιουργώντας τον κόσμο που θέλουμε μέσα στον κόσμο που θέλουμε να ξεπεράσουμε’, Βορειοδυτικές εκδόσεις, Ιωάννινα. <br />
<br />
==Σχετικοί σύνδεσμοι - Περαιτέρω ανάγνωση==<br />
P2P Lab: http://www.p2plab.gr <br />
<br />
The GNU Project: https://www.gnu.org</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Greek_language&diff=98248Greek language2016-02-07T19:33:33Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
{| cellspacing="5" width="100%"<br />
|colspan="3" style="background: #ffffff; border: 1px solid black; padding-left:1em; padding-right:0.5em;"|<br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:176%; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold; padding: 10px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 5px"><br />
Η κεντρική wiki σελίδα του P2P Foundation στα Ελληνικά</div><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#f9f9f9;margin:20px 10px;border:1px grey solid; width: 45%;min-height: 15em; float:left;"><br />
{|style="margin-right:4em;"<br />
|-<br />
|style="padding: 2.5em"|<big>'''Ομιλίες [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9QCs36ADQw 1], [https://vimeo.com/62522368 2], [http://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/handle/10442/13529 3], [http://poulantzas.gr/%CE%B7-%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BC%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%AD%CE%BB-%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%AC%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B5%CE%BD%CF%82-%CE%B5%CF%86%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%83/ 4] ]'''</big><br><br><big>'''Βιβλία ["Το [[Ομότιμο Μανιφέστο]]" (2012)] και "Η [[Ομότιμη Προοπτική]]"(2015)'''</big><br><br><big> Η [[Ομότιμη Παραγωγή]] '''</big><br><br><big>'''Το [http://bloggr.p2pfoundation.net/ blog]'''</big><br><br><big>'''Το [http://p2plab.org/ P2P Lab]'''</big><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#f9f9f9;margin:20px 10px;border:1px grey solid; width: 45%;min-height: 15em; float:left;"><br />
{|style="margin-right:4em;"<br />
|-<br />
|style="padding: 1em"|<big>'''[[In a nutshellGR|Tο P2P για αρχάριους]]'''</big><br><br>Ένας πανεύκολος τρόπος για να ανακαλύψετε τις βασικές ιδέες πίσω από την ομότιμη θεωρία, από τον Mauro Bieg.<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:SphereOfNetworks.png|110px]]<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="clear:both"><br />
*Στείλτε ένα email στο kostakis.b παπάκι gmail.com με θέμα ''ebook'' αν θέλετε να διαβάσετε το βιβλίο '''[[Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy]]''' (εκδόσεις Palgrave Macmillan).<br />
*Διάφορα δοκίμια για την ομότιμη προοπτική στα Ελληνικά [[Δοκίμια|εδώ]].<br />
*Στα Αγγλικά: [[Greece]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
[[Category:Languages]]<br />
[[Category:Greece]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Greek_language&diff=98247Greek language2016-02-07T19:32:29Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
{| cellspacing="5" width="100%"<br />
|colspan="3" style="background: #ffffff; border: 1px solid black; padding-left:1em; padding-right:0.5em;"|<br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:176%; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold; padding: 10px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 5px"><br />
Η κεντρική wiki σελίδα του P2P Foundation στα Ελληνικά</div><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#f9f9f9;margin:20px 10px;border:1px grey solid; width: 45%;min-height: 15em; float:left;"><br />
{|style="margin-right:4em;"<br />
|-<br />
|style="padding: 2.5em"|<big>'''Ομιλίες [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9QCs36ADQw 1], [https://vimeo.com/62522368 2], [http://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/handle/10442/13529 3], [http://poulantzas.gr/%CE%B7-%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BC%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%AD%CE%BB-%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%AC%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B5%CE%BD%CF%82-%CE%B5%CF%86%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%83/ 4] ]'''</big><br><br><big>'''Βιβλία ["Το [[Ομότιμο Μανιφέστο]]" (2012)] και "Η [[Ομότιμη Προοπτική]]"(2015)'''</big><br><br><big> [http://p2pfoundation.net/%CE%9F%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%B7_%CE%A0%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%B3%CF%89%CE%B3%CE%AE]'''</big><br><br><big>'''Το [http://bloggr.p2pfoundation.net/ blog]'''</big><br><br><big>'''Το [http://p2plab.org/ P2P Lab]'''</big><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#f9f9f9;margin:20px 10px;border:1px grey solid; width: 45%;min-height: 15em; float:left;"><br />
{|style="margin-right:4em;"<br />
|-<br />
|style="padding: 1em"|<big>'''[[In a nutshellGR|Tο P2P για αρχάριους]]'''</big><br><br>Ένας πανεύκολος τρόπος για να ανακαλύψετε τις βασικές ιδέες πίσω από την ομότιμη θεωρία, από τον Mauro Bieg.<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:SphereOfNetworks.png|110px]]<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="clear:both"><br />
*Στείλτε ένα email στο kostakis.b παπάκι gmail.com με θέμα ''ebook'' αν θέλετε να διαβάσετε το βιβλίο '''[[Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy]]''' (εκδόσεις Palgrave Macmillan).<br />
*Διάφορα δοκίμια για την ομότιμη προοπτική στα Ελληνικά [[Δοκίμια|εδώ]].<br />
*Στα Αγγλικά: [[Greece]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
[[Category:Languages]]<br />
[[Category:Greece]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Greek_language&diff=98246Greek language2016-02-07T19:29:24Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
{| cellspacing="5" width="100%"<br />
|colspan="3" style="background: #ffffff; border: 1px solid black; padding-left:1em; padding-right:0.5em;"|<br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:176%; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold; padding: 10px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 5px"><br />
Η κεντρική wiki σελίδα του P2P Foundation στα Ελληνικά</div><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#f9f9f9;margin:20px 10px;border:1px grey solid; width: 45%;min-height: 15em; float:left;"><br />
{|style="margin-right:4em;"<br />
|-<br />
|style="padding: 2.5em"|<big>'''Ομιλίες [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9QCs36ADQw 1], [https://vimeo.com/62522368 2], [http://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/handle/10442/13529 3], [http://poulantzas.gr/%CE%B7-%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BC%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%AD%CE%BB-%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%AC%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B5%CE%BD%CF%82-%CE%B5%CF%86%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%83/ 4] ]'''</big><br><br><big>'''Βιβλία ["Το [[Ομότιμο Μανιφέστο]]" (2012)]'''</big><br><br><big>"Η [[Ομότιμη Προοπτική]]"(2015)'''</big><br><br><big>'''Το [http://bloggr.p2pfoundation.net/ blog]'''</big><br><br><big>'''Το [http://p2plab.org/ P2P Lab]'''</big><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#f9f9f9;margin:20px 10px;border:1px grey solid; width: 45%;min-height: 15em; float:left;"><br />
{|style="margin-right:4em;"<br />
|-<br />
|style="padding: 1em"|<big>'''[[In a nutshellGR|Tο P2P για αρχάριους]]'''</big><br><br>Ένας πανεύκολος τρόπος για να ανακαλύψετε τις βασικές ιδέες πίσω από την ομότιμη θεωρία, από τον Mauro Bieg.<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:SphereOfNetworks.png|110px]]<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="clear:both"><br />
*Στείλτε ένα email στο kostakis.b παπάκι gmail.com με θέμα ''ebook'' αν θέλετε να διαβάσετε το βιβλίο '''[[Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy]]''' (εκδόσεις Palgrave Macmillan).<br />
*Διάφορα δοκίμια για την ομότιμη προοπτική στα Ελληνικά [[Δοκίμια|εδώ]].<br />
*Στα Αγγλικά: [[Greece]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
[[Category:Languages]]<br />
[[Category:Greece]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Greek_language&diff=98245Greek language2016-02-07T19:27:52Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
{| cellspacing="5" width="100%"<br />
|colspan="3" style="background: #ffffff; border: 1px solid black; padding-left:1em; padding-right:0.5em;"|<br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:176%; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold; padding: 10px 5px; margin: 0px 0px 5px"><br />
Η κεντρική wiki σελίδα του P2P Foundation στα Ελληνικά</div><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#f9f9f9;margin:20px 10px;border:1px grey solid; width: 45%;min-height: 15em; float:left;"><br />
{|style="margin-right:4em;"<br />
|-<br />
|style="padding: 2.5em"|<big>'''Ομιλίες [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9QCs36ADQw 1], [https://vimeo.com/62522368 2], [http://helios-eie.ekt.gr/EIE/handle/10442/13529 3], [http://poulantzas.gr/%CE%B7-%CE%BF%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%BB%CE%AF%CE%B1-%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BC%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%AD%CE%BB-%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%AC%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B5%CE%BD%CF%82-%CE%B5%CF%86%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%83/ 4] ]'''</big><br><br><big>'''Βιβλία ["Το [[Ομότιμο Μανιφέστο]]" (2012) και "Η [[Ομότιμη Προοπτική]]"(2015)]'''</big><br><br><big>'''Το [http://bloggr.p2pfoundation.net/ blog]'''</big><br><br><big>'''Το [http://p2plab.org/ P2P Lab]'''</big><br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color:#f9f9f9;margin:20px 10px;border:1px grey solid; width: 45%;min-height: 15em; float:left;"><br />
{|style="margin-right:4em;"<br />
|-<br />
|style="padding: 1em"|<big>'''[[In a nutshellGR|Tο P2P για αρχάριους]]'''</big><br><br>Ένας πανεύκολος τρόπος για να ανακαλύψετε τις βασικές ιδέες πίσω από την ομότιμη θεωρία, από τον Mauro Bieg.<br />
|<br />
|[[Image:SphereOfNetworks.png|110px]]<br />
|}<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="clear:both"><br />
*Στείλτε ένα email στο kostakis.b παπάκι gmail.com με θέμα ''ebook'' αν θέλετε να διαβάσετε το βιβλίο '''[[Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy]]''' (εκδόσεις Palgrave Macmillan).<br />
*Διάφορα δοκίμια για την ομότιμη προοπτική στα Ελληνικά [[Δοκίμια|εδώ]].<br />
*Στα Αγγλικά: [[Greece]]<br />
</div><br />
<br />
[[Category:Languages]]<br />
[[Category:Greece]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=%CE%9F%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%B7_%CE%A0%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%B3%CF%89%CE%B3%CE%AE&diff=98244Ομότιμη Παραγωγή2016-02-07T19:26:31Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Ομότιμη Παραγωγή= <br />
<br />
==Ορισμός==<br />
Το ενδιαφέρον γύρω από το φαινόμενο της ομότιμης παραγωγής (peer production) έχει ενταθεί τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια, ιδιαίτερα μετά την ανάδειξη σημαντικών συνεργατικών εγχειρημάτων στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, όπως το ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα GNU/Linux, ο Apache web server και η ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια Wikipedia. Παρόλα αυτά, το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο δεν είναι κάτι εντελώς καινούριο στην ιστορία των ανθρώπινων κοινωνιών. Πολιτιστικά αγαθά, όπως το ελληνικό δημοτικό τραγούδι, ανέκδοτες ιστορίες και παραμύθια, αποτελούν χαρακτηριστικά δείγματα, ενός άτυπου, μέχρι πρόσφατα, τρόπου συν-δημιουργίας. Η ελευθερία που χαρακτηρίζει πολιτιστικές δημιουργίες, όπως τα δημοτικά τραγούδια, εντοπίζεται στην ανεμπόδιστη αναπαραγωγή και τροποποίηση τους, καθώς και στην από-στόμα-σε-στόμα διάδοσή τους πέρα από χωρικά και πολιτισμικά όρια. Η ελευθερία αυτή επιτρέπει την ενσωμάτωση στους στίχους και τη μουσική τοπικών χαρακτηριστικών, ενώ τα δένει με τοπικούς χορούς και εθιμοτυπικές παραδόσεις. Τα χαρακτηριστικά αυτά είναι που προσδίδουν την ιδιαίτερη αξία των τραγουδιών αυτών για την τοπική παράδοση, ως μία μορφή δια-πολιτισμικής επικοινωνίας, ενσωματώνοντας παράλληλα την ιδιαίτερη ιστορία και της παράδοση ενός τόπου, τις αξίες και τους ανθρώπους του. Τα ελληνικά δημοτικά τραγούδια δεν «υπογράφονται» από κάποιον συγκεκριμένο δημιουργό και κυκλοφορούν πολλές φορές σε εκατοντάδες παρόμοιες ή διαφορετικές εκδοχές, προσαρμοσμένα στα γλωσσικά ιδιώματα, τη μουσική παράδοση και τα ιστορικά και πολιτιστικά γνωρίσματα του κάθε τόπου στον οποίο τραγουδήθηκαν. Αποτελούν ελεύθερα πολιτιστικά αγαθά, τα οποία διαμορφώθηκαν από μικρές και μεγάλες συνεισφορές αμέτρητων δημιουργών, οι οποίοι μοιράστηκαν την κοινή τους γνώση στο πέρασμα πολλών γενεών. <br />
<br />
Με παρόμοιο τρόπο, στα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα του ελεύθερου λογισμικού, προγραμματιστές, σχεδιαστές ιστοσελίδων, γραφίστες και άλλοι λιγότερο ή περισσότερο εξειδικευμένοι δημιουργοί, συσπειρώνονται γύρω από ένα κοινό αγαθό, το οποίο σε αυτήν την περίπτωση είναι η πληροφορία και συγκεκριμένα ο κώδικας. Χωρίς να υπάρχει κεντρικός συντονισμός, οι ομότιμοι δημιουργοί (peers) μοιράζονται άυλους πόρους, όπως την πληροφορία και τη γνώση, ανάλογα με τις ανάγκες τους και προσφέρουν στην κοινή δημιουργία ανάλογα με τις ικανότητές τους. Η ομότιμη παραγωγή είναι κατ’ εξοχήν μία διεργασία συλλογής και ανταλλαγής πόρων μεταξύ ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ατόμων χωρίς προκαθορισμένη ιεραρχία και δομή. Έτσι, ως ομότιμη παραγωγή ορίζεται η συνεργασία αυτό-οργανωμένων ομάδων ατόμων, τα οποία συμμετέχουν σε ισότιμη βάση (equal footing), με σκοπό την επίτευξη ενός κοινού σκοπού . Στον ορισμό εντοπίζονται ήδη τα κεντρικά σημεία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, τα οποία αποτελούν και τις βασικές δυναμικές της: η ανοικτή και αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενη συμμετοχή και η ισότιμη βάση. Είναι τα στοιχεία εκείνα που προσδίδουν στα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα τα ιδιαίτερα χαρακτηριστικά τους σε ότι αφορά το δυναμικό περιεχόμενό τους και την κινητοποίηση μεγάλου εύρους της ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας. Τα χαρακτηριστικά αυτά θα αναλυθούν περαιτέρω στη συνέχεια. <br />
<br />
==Τυπολογία==<br />
Ο όρος ομότιμη παραγωγή (peer production), όπως και η γενικότερη θεωρητική και εμπειρική τεκμηρίωση των συγκεκριμένων πρακτικών, έχουν αναπτυχθεί σχετικά πρόσφατα. Ο όρος εισήχθη για πρώτη φορά από τον Yochai Benkler, καθηγητή της νομικής σχολής του πανεπιστημίου του Harvard, μόλις το 2002 . Ο Benkler παρουσιάζει την ομότιμη παραγωγή ως ένα νέο παραγωγικό φαινόμενο, όπως προέκυψε από τη μελέτη των πρώτων πρακτικών που παρατηρήθηκαν στο χώρο του ελεύθερου λογισμικού και λογισμικού ανοικτού κώδικα (ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ) και στο χώρο του διαδικτύου. Ο ορισμός της ομότιμης παραγωγής αφορά περισσότερο τη διεργασία της μετατροπής μίας εισροής (input) σε ένα αποτέλεσμα (output), εστιάζοντας στην αποκεντρωμένη δομή και συμμετοχική μέθοδο εργασίας. Αντίστοιχα σε μεταγενέστερο έργο του με τίτλο «The Wealth of Networks» το 2006 ο Benkler εισάγει την έννοια της «βασισμένης στα κοινά ομότιμης παραγωγής» (commons-based peer production – CBPP).Η διαφορά σε αυτήν την προσέγγιση είναι η εστίαση στους πόρους και τα αποτελέσματα της διεργασίας και κυρίως η σχέση των συμμετεχόντων με αυτά. <br />
<br />
Το επαναστατικό στοιχείο της βασισμένης στα κοινά ομότιμης παραγωγής είναι ότι τα μέσα και τα αποτελέσματα της δεν αποτελούν αντικείμενα αποκλειστικής ιδιοκτησίας. Αντίθετα, διαμοιράζονται μεταξύ των συμμετεχόντων στο πλαίσιο μίας θεσμικής δομής η οποία διαθέτει τους πόρους ισότιμα σε όλους ανάλογα με την κρίση τους. Ανήκουν δηλαδή στη σφαίρα αυτών που ονομάζονται «κοινά» (commons), ή αλλιώς δημόσια, ελεύθερα αγαθά. Παραδοσιακά, ο χώρος των κοινών θεωρούταν ότι βρίσκεται εκτός της παραγωγικής οικονομίας. Οι κοινοί πόροι αντιμετωπίζονταν ως εν δυνάμει παραγωγικοί πόροι, που θα μπορούσαν να παράγουν αξία εφόσον υπεισέλθουν υπό κάποιο καθεστώς διαχείρισης ή ιδιοκτησίας, από το κράτος ή τον ιδιωτικό τομέα. Ωστόσο, ένας νέος τύπος σχέσεων συνεργασίας και παραγωγής αναδεικνύει την προοπτική των κοινών πόρων στην παραγωγή αξίας, παραμένοντας στη σφαίρα των κοινών, μέσα από μία διεργασία η οποία τα προστατεύει και τα ανατροφοδοτεί. Για το λόγο αυτό η βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή αναφέρεται συχνά και ως ένας τύπος «κοινωνικής παραγωγής». <br />
<br />
Σημαντικό είναι ωστόσο να διευκρινίσουμε ότι όλοι οι τύποι παραγωγής με βάση τα κοινά δεν αποτελούν ομότιμη παραγωγή. Η παραγωγή με βάση τα κοινά εστιάζει στην ελεύθερη χρήση των μέσων και των αποτελεσμάτων, ενώ η ομότιμη παραγωγή στην αποκεντρωμένη οργάνωση και την αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενη, συμμετοχική μέθοδο εργασίας. Ο συνδυασμός των δύο παραπάνω στοιχείων συνθέτει την βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή. <br />
Αντίστοιχα είναι δυνατόν να έχουμε ομότιμη παραγωγή η οποία στηρίζεται σε ιδιόκτητους πόρους. Σύγχρονοι μέθοδοι παραγωγής, ιδιαίτερα στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, εξωτερικεύουν μεγάλο μέρος της παραγωγής δεδομένων σε έναν μεγάλο αριθμό χρηστών, οι οποίοι συνεργάζονται αυτόνομα και χωρίς ιεραρχία, ανάλογα με την κρίση τους. Παρόλα αυτά, τόσο τα μέσα όσο και τα αποτελέσματα αυτής της διεργασίας αποτελούν ιδιοκτησία κάποιας εταιρίας ή ενός οργανισμού. Ιδιαίτερα επιτυχημένα παραδείγματα τέτοιων μεθόδων αποτελούν οι περιπτώσεις της Google και του Facebook, όπου η παραγωγή των δεδομένων προέρχονται από την αναζήτηση και την περιήγηση χρηστών και τη χρήση συμμετοχικών πλατφορμών, όπως το Facebook και το Google Developers. Ωστόσο, τόσο ο κώδικας, οι πλατφόρμες και τα λοιπά μέσα που χρησιμοποιούνται, όσο και τα δεδομένα που παράγονται τελούν υπό την ιδιοκτησία και τη διαχείριση των εταιριών αντίστοιχα. <br />
<br />
Γίνεται έτσι αντιληπτό ότι η ομότιμη παραγωγή, ως τρόπος συνεργασίας και παραγωγής αξίας, μπορεί να έχει σημαντικό αποτέλεσμα, τόσο κοινωνικό όσο και οικονομικό. Παρακάτω θα επιχειρήσουμε να αναλύσουμε εν συντομία τα βασικά χαρακτηριστικά που καθιστούν την ομότιμη παραγωγή τόσο αποτελεσματική σε αυτό. Εδώ είναι σκόπιμο να διευκρινίσουμε ότι η ανάλυση που ακολουθεί αφορά γενικότερα την ομότιμη παραγωγή ως διεργασία. Ωστόσο τα παραδείγματα και οι ιστορικές αναφορές αφορούν κυρίως τη βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή, ως ένα αναδυόμενο παραγωγικό μοντέλο στο πλαίσιο των γενικότερων φαινομένων εναλλακτικών τρόπων παραγωγής και κοινωνικο-οικονομικής οργάνωσης. <br />
<br />
==Βασικά χαρακτηριστικά==<br />
Παρά την πληθώρα των εγχειρημάτων που παρατηρούνται σε ένα μεγάλο εύρος τομέων και δραστηριοτήτων, ο Benkler διακρίνει τρεις βασικές αρχές που αποτελούν κοινά χαρακτηριστικά σε αυτά τα εγχειρήματα, καθώς και κρίσιμους παράγοντες για την επιτυχή υλοποίηση και ολοκλήρωση τους: <br />
# Αρθρωτή δομή (modularity): Τα ομότιμα έργα αποτελούνται από πολλά μικρότερα, διακριτά συστατικά μέρη (modules), το καθένα από τα οποία μπορεί να παραχθεί αυτόνομα. O διαχωρισμός αυτός επιτρέπει πολλούς ανεξάρτητους συμμετέχοντες να εργάζονται με ασύγχρονο τρόπο, χωρίς να εξαρτάται η εργασία του ενός από την εργασία του άλλου. <br />
# Διαφορετικός βαθμός ανάλυσης (granularity) των συστατικών μερών: Διαφορετικά επίπεδα ανάλυσης των συστατικών μερών, και συνεπώς μεγαλύτερα και μικρότερα συστατικά μέρη, κινητοποιούν άτομα με μεγαλύτερα ή μικρότερα κίνητρα, αντίστοιχα, στο να συνεισφέρουν, ανάλογα με το ενδιαφέρον τους, αλλά και τις ικανότητές τους. Έτσι σε ένα ομότιμο έργο διακρίνονται μεγαλύτερα μέρη με ιδιαίτερες απαιτήσεις σε χρόνο και ικανότητες των συμμετεχόντων, έως πολύ μικρά μέρη, η υλοποίηση των οποίων δεν απαιτεί περισσότερο από 5 λεπτά ενασχόλησης κάποιου, ακόμη και στο πλαίσιο ενός καθημερινού ψυχαγωγικού «ξεφυλλίσματος» στο ίντερνετ (browsing). <br />
# Χαμηλού κόστους ολοκλήρωση: Ως ολοκλήρωση (integration) εννοείται η ενσωμάτωση όλων των συστατικών μερών στο τελικό αποτέλεσμα. Στη διαδικασία της ολοκλήρωσης, εμπεριέχεται τόσο ο μηχανισμός της ενσωμάτωσης όλων των συνεισφορών σε ένα ολοκληρωμένο προϊόν, όσο και ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος του κάθε συστατικού μέρους ξεχωριστά, αποφεύγοντας σφάλματα που προκύπτουν από τη λανθασμένη αντίληψη του κάθε συμμετέχοντα, σχετικά με τις ικανότητές του, τους στόχους του έργου κ.α. <br />
<br />
Ένα καλό παράδειγμα για το πώς λειτουργούν τα τρία αυτά χαρακτηριστικά αποτελεί το project «Distributed Proofreaders ». Πρόκειται για ένα υποστηρικτικό έργο ενός άλλου έργου, του «Project Gutenberg », το οποίο αποτελεί μία προσπάθεια εθελοντών για τη ψηφιοποίηση λογοτεχνικών και άλλων δημιουργικών κειμένων. Η διεργασία της ψηφιοποίησης περιλαμβάνει το σκανάρισμα των αυθεντικών κειμένων και τη μετατροπή τους σε ψηφιακό, επεξεργάσιμο κείμενο μέσω της χρήσης λογισμικού αναγνώρισης χαρακτήρων (Optical Character Recognition – OCR). Το λογισμικό αυτό, αν και αρκετά αποτελεσματικό, δεν είναι ιδιαίτερα ακριβές στην αναγνώριση των χαρακτήρων, με αποτέλεσμα έναν μεγάλο αριθμό τυπογραφικών λαθών. Σε αυτή την προσπάθεια συνεισφέρει αποφασιστικά το έργο Distributed Proofreaders, το οποίο είναι στη βάση του μία διαδικτυακή πλατφόρμα που επιτρέπει πλήθος εθελοντών να αναγνωρίσει και να διορθώσει τυπογραφικά λάθη. Η πλατφόρμα, η οποία στηρίζεται στο ελεύθερο λογισμικό GNU/Linux, παραθέτει στον χρήστη για κάθε σκαναρισμένο κείμενο την πρωτότυπη εικόνα του κειμένου πλάι στο επεξεργάσιμο κείμενο, όπως έχει προκύψει μετά τη διεργασία του OCR. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, η επίπονη και χρονοβόρα διαδικασία της διόρθωσης των κειμένων διαμοιράζεται σε πολλούς χρήστες, οι οποίοι ελέγχουν σε εθελοντική βάση όσες σελίδες επιθυμούν. <br />
<br />
Εδώ γίνεται αντιληπτός ο τρόπος με τον οποίο λειτουργούν τα δύο πρώτα βασικά χαρακτηριστικά των ομότιμων έργων: η αρθρωτή δομή και ο διαφορετικός βαθμός ανάλυσης των μερών. Στο συγκεκριμένο έργο, παρατηρείται ότι η αρθρωτή δομή ικανοποιείται ήδη από τη φύση των εργασιών που περιλαμβάνονται, χωρίς να χρειαστεί περαιτέρω παρέμβαση. Η κάθε σελίδα και το κάθε κεφάλαιο, ακόμα και κάθε βιβλίο, μπορεί να αποτελέσει ένα ξεχωριστό συστατικό μέρος (module). Αντίστοιχα, ο κάθε χρήστης συμμετέχει στο βαθμό που επιθυμεί, από μία σελίδα έως ένα ολόκληρο ή και περισσότερα από τα βιβλία που υπάρχουν διαθέσιμα προς διόρθωση. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, ουσιαστικά καθορίζει ο ίδιος και το βαθμό ανάλυσης του συστατικού μέρους που θα αναλάβει, ανάλογα με τη διάθεσή του και τις ικανότητές του. <br />
<br />
Ιδιαίτερα ενδιαφέρον είναι ο τρόπος που γίνεται η ολοκλήρωση (integration) των μικρότερων και μεγαλύτερων συνεισφορών σε ένα ενιαίο αποτέλεσμα. Τα βασικά αποτελέσματα του έργου είναι φυσικά τα βιβλία. Η κάθε σελίδα ελέγχεται από περισσότερους από έναν εθελοντές, ενώ αφού ολοκληρωθεί η διόρθωση μία φορά, στη συνέχεια εθελοντές ελέγχουν, επικυρώνουν και διορθώνουν αντίστοιχα, εφόσον χρειαστεί, τη διορθωμένη σελίδα με βάση το πρωτότυπο. Αφότου ολοκληρωθούν όλες οι σελίδες του βιβλίου, γίνεται η τελική επεξεργασία και η προσαρμογή τους σε μορφή ηλεκτρονικού βιβλίου. Έτσι, επιτυγχάνεται τόσο η χαμηλού κόστους ολοκλήρωση όσο και ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος, μέσω της διόρθωσης σε δύο επίπεδα. <br />
<br />
Η συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση αποτελεί ένα εύκολα κατανοητό παράδειγμα των διεργασιών της ομότιμης παραγωγής, λόγω της απλότητας των εργασιών που περιλαμβάνει η διαδικασία της σύγκρισης ενός κειμένου με ένα άλλο. Αντίστοιχα στο έργο των Distributed Proofreaders συνεισφέρουν και περισσότερο εξειδικευμένοι συμμετέχοντες σε πιο απαιτητικές εργασίες, όπως είναι η ανάπτυξη εξειδικευμένου λογισμικού, η διαχείριση της πλατφόρμας, αλλά και εργασίες συντονισμού και project management. <br />
<br />
Αναφέραμε και παραπάνω ότι τα ανωτέρω χαρακτηριστικά, όπως παρατηρήθηκαν σε μεγαλύτερο ή μικρότερο βαθμό στα πρώτα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα, αποτελούν τα στοιχεία εκείνα που κατέστησαν εξ’ αρχής δυνατή τη διαδικασία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, ενώ ταυτόχρονα αποτέλεσαν και τη βάση του επιτυχούς αποτελέσματός τους. Από το προηγούμενο παράδειγμα γίνεται επίσης ευκολά αντιληπτό ένα από τα βασικότερα πλεονεκτήματα της ομότιμης παραγωγής, ιδιαίτερα στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, το οποίο είναι η αποτελεσματικότητα στον εντοπισμό, την κινητοποίηση και την κατανομή της ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας. Η ευρεία διάδοση των Τεχνολογιών Πληροφόρησης και Επικοινωνίας (ΤΠΕ) ιδιαίτερα την τελευταία εικοσαετία, έχει αλλάξει σε μεγάλο βαθμό τον τρόπο που αντιλαμβανόμαστε την παραγωγή. Στον κόσμο των ΤΠΕ τα βασικά μέσα παραγωγής, δηλαδή οι ηλεκτρονικοί υπολογιστές, γίνονται συνεχώς φτηνότερα και εύκολα προσβάσιμα από ένα μεγάλο μέρος του πληθυσμού. Η βασική «πρώτη ύλη», η πληροφορία, είναι σε αφθονία και τα μέσα διανομής και επικοινωνίας πιο γρήγορα και αποτελεσματικά από ποτέ. Έτσι, ο παράγοντας που κάνει τη διαφορά στην επιτυχία ενός έργου είναι η ανθρώπινη δημιουργικότητα. Ο παράγοντας αυτός, ως κατ’ εξοχήν «ανθρώπινος», δεν ενεργοποιείται με το πάτημα ενός κουμπιού. Στην σύγχρονη αγορά, η ανθρώπινη δημιουργικότητα τοποθετείται πολύ ψηλά στην κλίμακα αυτών που ένας εργοδότης ή ένας μάνατζερ προσπαθεί να ενεργοποιήσει με χρηματικά ή άλλου είδους οφέλη. Στις περισσότερες δε περιπτώσεις η κινητοποίηση των ατόμων στο μεγαλύτερο επιθυμητό βαθμό παραμένει εκτός των ορίων των υλικών απολαβών. Σε έναν τέτοιο κόσμο λοιπόν, όπου τα βασικά μέσα παραγωγής είναι αποκεντρωμένα, η ιδιαίτερη δυναμική της ομότιμης παραγωγής έγκειται στην ικανότητα κινητοποίησης ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ατόμων, ο οποίοι αυτό-προσδιορίζουν τη συνεισφορά τους ανάλογα με τα αντίστοιχα κίνητρά τους. <br />
<br />
Στη βάση της, η ομότιμη παραγωγή είναι μία μορφή ανθρώπινης συνεργασίας, κατανομής κοινών πόρων και προσπάθειας σε ισότιμο πλαίσιο, προς την επίτευξη ενός κοινού αποτελέσματος. Αναφέρθηκε επίσης ότι δεν είναι η πρώτη φορά ιστορικά που παρατηρείται μία μορφή αποκεντρωμένης συνεργασίας και παραγωγής. Ωστόσο, την τελευταία εικοσαετία και λόγω της επανάστασης που έχουν φέρει οι ΤΠΕ σε όλους τους τομείς της ανθρώπινης δραστηριότητας, παρατηρείται ότι αυτή η μορφή οργάνωσης και παραγωγής μπορεί να έχει σημαντικό οικονομικό αποτέλεσμα . Στη βάση των πλεονεκτημάτων της ομότιμης παραγωγής, νέες μορφές κοινωνικής παραγωγής, αλλά και νέα επιχειρηματικά μοντέλα, καινοτόμα προϊόντα και υπηρεσίες έχουν αναδυθεί. Στην επόμενη ενότητα θα παρουσιαστεί μία σύντομη ιστορική αναδρομή των ομότιμων πρακτικών που αποτελούν τους θεμέλιους λίθους του συγκεκριμένου φαινομένου. <br />
<br />
==Ιστορική εξέλιξη==<br />
Ιστορικά η ομότιμη παραγωγή, όπως τη μελετούμε σήμερα, έχει τις ρίζες της στο 1983, όταν ο Richard Stallman, τότε ερευνητής στο MIT, ανακοίνωσε την υλοποίηση του GNU Project, το πρώτο έργο ελεύθερου λογισμικού και μαζικής συνεργασίας. Βασικός στόχος του συγκεκριμένου έργου ήταν να δημιουργήσει τα μέσα που θα παρέχουν στους χρήστες ελευθερία σχετικά με τον έλεγχο των ηλεκτρονικών υπολογιστών και υπολογιστικών συσκευών. Για το σκοπό αυτό, έπρεπε να αναπτυχθεί και να διατεθεί το κατάλληλο λογισμικό, τα οποίο θα σέβεται τις βασικές ελευθερίες των χρηστών του και συγκεκριμένα: <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη χρήση του, για όλους τους σκοπούς. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη μελέτη, τροποποίηση και προσαρμογή του στις ανάγκες του χρήστη. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη διάδοση (αντιγραφή και διαμοιρασμό) του. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη βελτίωση του και τη δημοσίευση των βελτιώσεών αυτών. <br />
<br />
Οι αναφορές αυτές στην ελευθερία του χρήστη ενός τέτοιου λογισμικού, προσδίδουν σε αυτό τον τίτλο του «Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού» (Free Software). Επιπλέον, για να είναι δυνατή η εξασφάλιση των ελευθεριών των χρηστών σε όλο το εύρος της χρήσης των υπολογιστών, βασική επιδίωξη του GNU Project ήταν η ανάπτυξη ενός λειτουργικού συστήματος (Operating System – OS), το οποίο θα ήταν επίσης ελεύθερο λογισμικό. Έτσι τον Ιανουάριο του 1984 ξεκίνησε η ανάπτυξη του λειτουργικού συστήματος το οποίο ονομάστηκε GNU . <br />
Το 1985 ο Stallman ιδρύει το Ίδρυμα Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού (Free Software Foundation) με σκοπό να διαδώσει την ελευθερία στη χρήση των ηλεκτρονικών υπολογιστών και να υποστηρίξει νομικά και πρακτικά τα δικαιώματα των χρηστών. Έτσι, το 1989 ολοκληρώθηκε η πρώτη έκδοση της Γενικής Άδειας Δημόσιας Χρήσης (GNU General Public License – GPL), η οποία κατοχυρώνει τις ελευθερίες αυτές των χρηστών, ενώ η λεγόμενη ρήτρα «copyleft» (σε αντίθεση με τη λέξη copyright που κατοχυρώνει το δικαίωμα της πνευματικής ιδιοκτησίας) υποχρεώνει στη διατήρηση αυτών των ελευθεριών σε όλα τα αντίτυπα. Ουσιαστικά κάθε αντίτυπο, το οποίο περιλαμβάνει ένα συστατικό στοιχείο (κώδικα) που έχει παραχωρηθεί με GPL, πρέπει επίσης να κυκλοφορήσει υπό την GPL. Κατ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο εξασφαλίζεται ότι το ελεύθερο λογισμικό παραμένει ελεύθερο. Το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και η GPL αποτελούν σημαντικά σημεία στην ιστορία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, καθώς για πρώτη φορά κατοχυρώνεται νομικά η ανοικτή, ευρεία συνεργασία πολλών ατόμων. Ομοίως, το αποτέλεσμα της συνεργασίας αυτής κατοχυρώνεται ως συλλογικό και ελεύθερο, με βάση τις ελευθερίες που κατοχυρώνει η GPL. <br />
<br />
Το 1990 μεγάλο μέρος των προγραμμάτων που είναι απαραίτητα για ένα λειτουργικό σύστημα είχαν ολοκληρωθεί από το GNU Project, έλειπαν ωστόσο ακόμη κάποια σημαντικά κομμάτια, με βασικότερο τον πυρήνα (kernel). Την ίδια εποχή, ο Linus Torvalds, σε ένα project εκτός του GNU, αποφάσισε να αναπτύξει τον δικό του πυρήνα, ο οποίος ονομάστηκε Linux. Ο πυρήνας αυτός ενσωματώθηκε με τα υπόλοιπα συστατικά μέρη του GNU, με αποτέλεσμα ένα ολοκληρωμένο, πλήρως λειτουργικό και ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα, το GNU/Linux . Το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και το ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα GNU/Linux αποτέλεσαν την έμπνευση, αλλά πολύ περισσότερο παρείχαν τα τεχνικά και οργανωτικά μέσα για την έκρηξη των ομότιμων έργων που ακολούθησαν. <br />
<br />
Η ταχεία διάδοση του GNU/Linux αποτελεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό αποτέλεσμα συνέργειας και παράλληλης ανάπτυξης με μία άλλη μεγάλη επανάσταση που λαμβάνει χώρα την ίδια περίοδο. Το 1991 το διαδίκτυο γίνεται δημόσιο και μαζικό μέσο, με την παροχή της υπηρεσίας παγκόσμιου ιστού (World Wide Web), μία εφεύρεση του Tim Berners-Lee, ερευνητή του CERN. Παράλληλα, η κουλτούρα των χάκερς (hacking culture), η οποία έχει τις ρίζες της πίσω στο 1960, με τη διάδοση του ελεύθερου λογισμικού και τη μαζικοποίηση του διαδικτύου αρχίζει και προσελκύει συνεχώς μεγαλύτερο αριθμό ατόμων. Κεντρικό σημείο τους αποτελεί το ενδιαφέρον για τη δημιουργία, την εξερεύνηση, τον πειραματισμό και το ξεπέρασμα των ορίων αυτών που μπορούν να πραγματοποιηθούν. Μικρο-ομάδες από χάκερς που ήταν ενεργές για χρόνια σε διαφορετικά μέρη, μοιραζόμενες παρόμοιες αρχές και κυρίως το ίδιο πάθος, άρχισαν να ανακαλύπτουν η μία την άλλη και να συνεργάζονται. Παρατηρείται έτσι η συνειδητή διαμόρφωση και διάδοση μίας κοινής, συλλογικής και συστηματικής ηθικής από μία κρίσιμη μάζα ατόμων. Η ηθική αυτή αφορά το διαμοιρασμό γνώσης και πληροφορίας και την ελευθερία της χρήσης των τεχνολογικών μέσων για την ανάπτυξή τους, μέσα από τη συνεργασία και τη συμμετοχική δημιουργία. <br />
<br />
Με αυτόν τον τρόπο οι ομότιμες πρακτικές αρχίζουν και επεκτείνονται εκτός των ορίων της πληροφορικής και του λογισμικού. Ένας μεγάλος αριθμός ατόμων και ομάδων συσπειρώνονται πλέον γύρω από ένα κοινό σύστημα αξιών σχετικά με τη γνώση και την πληροφορία και κυρίως την ελεύθερη και ανεμπόδιστη κυκλοφορία αυτών. Δημιουργούν έτσι έναν παγκόσμιο χώρο γνωσιακών κοινών (knowledge commons), στη βάση του οποίου αναπτύσσονται παγκόσμια, συμμετοχικά ομότιμα εγχειρήματα, όπως η ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια Wikipedia. Επιπλέον, την τελευταία δεκαετία, η διάδοση των τεχνολογιών επιτραπέζιας κατασκευής (desktop manufacturing), όπως η τρισδιάστατη εκτύπωση και οι CNC μηχανές οδήγησαν στον περαιτέρω πειραματισμό των ομότιμων πρακτικών στον υλικό κόσμο. Ομότιμα έργα όπως ο RepRap εκτυπωτής και το Open Source Ecology αποτελούν σημαντικά εγχειρήματα αξιοποίησης των γνωσιακών κοινών στην παραγωγή άμεσων, πρακτικών, ανοικτών λύσεων. Έτσι, σε αντιστοιχία με το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και το λογισμικό ανοικτού κώδικα (ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ), εμφανίζεται ο όρος του ανοικτού υλισμικού (open hardware), προσδίδοντας νέες διαστάσεις στην ελευθερία στη χρήση βασικών μέσων παραγωγής. <br />
<br />
Σχετικά πρόσφατα το φαινόμενο άρχισε να αποκτά ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον ακαδημαϊκά και ερευνητικά. Χιλιάδες επιστημονικά έργα έχουν ασχοληθεί με το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο από το 2002 και έπειτα, ενώ οργανισμοί, όπως το [[P2P Foundation]], ιδρύονται με σκοπό τη μελέτη, τεκμηρίωση και διάδοση του φαινομένου της ομότιμης παραγωγής και των ομότιμων πρακτικών σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο. Αξίζει να αναφερθεί ότι στην Ελλάδα λειτουργεί από το 2007 ο ελληνικός κόμβος του P2P Foundation, ενώ το 2011 ιδρύθηκε στα Ιωάννινα το [[P2P Lab]], ένα διεπιστημονικό ερευνητικό εργαστήριο με σκοπό την θεωρητική τεκμηρίωση, τη διάδοση και πρακτική εφαρμογή των ομότιμων πρακτικών.<br />
<br />
==Σχετική βιβλιογραφία==<br />
Bauwens, M. (2005), ‘The Political Economy of Peer Production’, CTheory Journal, http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
Benkler, Y. (2001), ‘Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm’, Yale Law Journal, 112: 369.<br />
<br />
Benkler, Y. (2006), ‘The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom”, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press. <br />
<br />
Kostakis, V., Niaros, V., Dafermos, G. & Bauwens, M. (2015), ‘Design global, manufacture local: Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model’, Futures, 73: 126-135<br />
<br />
GNU Operating System, Free Software Foundation, ‘What is free software?’, < https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
P2P Foundation, ‘Peer production’ <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
P2P Foundation, “Peer production characteristics’, <http://p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_-_Characteristics>, accessed: 28.10.2015. <br />
<br />
Κωστάκης, Β. (2012), ‘Το ομότιμο μανιφέστο: Δημιουργώντας τον κόσμο που θέλουμε μέσα στον κόσμο που θέλουμε να ξεπεράσουμε’, Βορειοδυτικές εκδόσεις, Ιωάννινα. <br />
<br />
==Σχετικοί σύνδεσμοι - Περαιτέρω ανάγνωση==<br />
P2P Lab: http://www.p2plab.gr <br />
<br />
The GNU Project: https://www.gnu.org</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=%CE%9F%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BC%CE%B7_%CE%A0%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B1%CE%B3%CF%89%CE%B3%CE%AE&diff=98243Ομότιμη Παραγωγή2016-02-07T19:22:32Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Ομότιμη Παραγωγή= <br />
<br />
==Ορισμός==<br />
Το ενδιαφέρον γύρω από το φαινόμενο της ομότιμης παραγωγής (peer production) έχει ενταθεί τα τελευταία 20 χρόνια, ιδιαίτερα μετά την ανάδειξη σημαντικών συνεργατικών εγχειρημάτων στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, όπως το ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα GNU/Linux, ο Apache web server και η ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια Wikipedia. Παρόλα αυτά, το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο δεν είναι κάτι εντελώς καινούριο στην ιστορία των ανθρώπινων κοινωνιών. Πολιτιστικά αγαθά, όπως το ελληνικό δημοτικό τραγούδι, ανέκδοτες ιστορίες και παραμύθια, αποτελούν χαρακτηριστικά δείγματα, ενός άτυπου, μέχρι πρόσφατα, τρόπου συν-δημιουργίας. Η ελευθερία που χαρακτηρίζει πολιτιστικές δημιουργίες, όπως τα δημοτικά τραγούδια, εντοπίζεται στην ανεμπόδιστη αναπαραγωγή και τροποποίηση τους, καθώς και στην από-στόμα-σε-στόμα διάδοσή τους πέρα από χωρικά και πολιτισμικά όρια. Η ελευθερία αυτή επιτρέπει την ενσωμάτωση στους στίχους και τη μουσική τοπικών χαρακτηριστικών, ενώ τα δένει με τοπικούς χορούς και εθιμοτυπικές παραδόσεις. Τα χαρακτηριστικά αυτά είναι που προσδίδουν την ιδιαίτερη αξία των τραγουδιών αυτών για την τοπική παράδοση, ως μία μορφή δια-πολιτισμικής επικοινωνίας, ενσωματώνοντας παράλληλα την ιδιαίτερη ιστορία και της παράδοση ενός τόπου, τις αξίες και τους ανθρώπους του. Τα ελληνικά δημοτικά τραγούδια δεν «υπογράφονται» από κάποιον συγκεκριμένο δημιουργό και κυκλοφορούν πολλές φορές σε εκατοντάδες παρόμοιες ή διαφορετικές εκδοχές, προσαρμοσμένα στα γλωσσικά ιδιώματα, τη μουσική παράδοση και τα ιστορικά και πολιτιστικά γνωρίσματα του κάθε τόπου στον οποίο τραγουδήθηκαν. Αποτελούν ελεύθερα πολιτιστικά αγαθά, τα οποία διαμορφώθηκαν από μικρές και μεγάλες συνεισφορές αμέτρητων δημιουργών, οι οποίοι μοιράστηκαν την κοινή τους γνώση στο πέρασμα πολλών γενεών. <br />
<br />
Με παρόμοιο τρόπο, στα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα του ελεύθερου λογισμικού, προγραμματιστές, σχεδιαστές ιστοσελίδων, γραφίστες και άλλοι λιγότερο ή περισσότερο εξειδικευμένοι δημιουργοί, συσπειρώνονται γύρω από ένα κοινό αγαθό, το οποίο σε αυτήν την περίπτωση είναι η πληροφορία και συγκεκριμένα ο κώδικας. Χωρίς να υπάρχει κεντρικός συντονισμός, οι ομότιμοι δημιουργοί (peers) μοιράζονται άυλους πόρους, όπως την πληροφορία και τη γνώση, ανάλογα με τις ανάγκες τους και προσφέρουν στην κοινή δημιουργία ανάλογα με τις ικανότητές τους. Η ομότιμη παραγωγή είναι κατ’ εξοχήν μία διεργασία συλλογής και ανταλλαγής πόρων μεταξύ ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ατόμων χωρίς προκαθορισμένη ιεραρχία και δομή. Έτσι, ως ομότιμη παραγωγή ορίζεται η συνεργασία αυτό-οργανωμένων ομάδων ατόμων, τα οποία συμμετέχουν σε ισότιμη βάση (equal footing), με σκοπό την επίτευξη ενός κοινού σκοπού . Στον ορισμό εντοπίζονται ήδη τα κεντρικά σημεία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, τα οποία αποτελούν και τις βασικές δυναμικές της: η ανοικτή και αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενη συμμετοχή και η ισότιμη βάση. Είναι τα στοιχεία εκείνα που προσδίδουν στα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα τα ιδιαίτερα χαρακτηριστικά τους σε ότι αφορά το δυναμικό περιεχόμενό τους και την κινητοποίηση μεγάλου εύρους της ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας. Τα χαρακτηριστικά αυτά θα αναλυθούν περαιτέρω στη συνέχεια. <br />
<br />
==Τυπολογία==<br />
Ο όρος ομότιμη παραγωγή (peer production), όπως και η γενικότερη θεωρητική και εμπειρική τεκμηρίωση των συγκεκριμένων πρακτικών, έχουν αναπτυχθεί σχετικά πρόσφατα. Ο όρος εισήχθη για πρώτη φορά από τον Yochai Benkler, καθηγητή της νομικής σχολής του πανεπιστημίου του Harvard, μόλις το 2002 . Ο Benkler παρουσιάζει την ομότιμη παραγωγή ως ένα νέο παραγωγικό φαινόμενο, όπως προέκυψε από τη μελέτη των πρώτων πρακτικών που παρατηρήθηκαν στο χώρο του ελεύθερου λογισμικού και λογισμικού ανοικτού κώδικα (ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ) και στο χώρο του διαδικτύου. Ο ορισμός της ομότιμης παραγωγής αφορά περισσότερο τη διεργασία της μετατροπής μίας εισροής (input) σε ένα αποτέλεσμα (output), εστιάζοντας στην αποκεντρωμένη δομή και συμμετοχική μέθοδο εργασίας. Αντίστοιχα σε μεταγενέστερο έργο του με τίτλο «The Wealth of Networks» το 2006 ο Benkler εισάγει την έννοια της «βασισμένης στα κοινά ομότιμης παραγωγής» (commons-based peer production – CBPP).Η διαφορά σε αυτήν την προσέγγιση είναι η εστίαση στους πόρους και τα αποτελέσματα της διεργασίας και κυρίως η σχέση των συμμετεχόντων με αυτά. <br />
<br />
Το επαναστατικό στοιχείο της βασισμένης στα κοινά ομότιμης παραγωγής είναι ότι τα μέσα και τα αποτελέσματα της δεν αποτελούν αντικείμενα αποκλειστικής ιδιοκτησίας. Αντίθετα, διαμοιράζονται μεταξύ των συμμετεχόντων στο πλαίσιο μίας θεσμικής δομής η οποία διαθέτει τους πόρους ισότιμα σε όλους ανάλογα με την κρίση τους. Ανήκουν δηλαδή στη σφαίρα αυτών που ονομάζονται «κοινά» (commons), ή αλλιώς δημόσια, ελεύθερα αγαθά. Παραδοσιακά, ο χώρος των κοινών θεωρούταν ότι βρίσκεται εκτός της παραγωγικής οικονομίας. Οι κοινοί πόροι αντιμετωπίζονταν ως εν δυνάμει παραγωγικοί πόροι, που θα μπορούσαν να παράγουν αξία εφόσον υπεισέλθουν υπό κάποιο καθεστώς διαχείρισης ή ιδιοκτησίας, από το κράτος ή τον ιδιωτικό τομέα. Ωστόσο, ένας νέος τύπος σχέσεων συνεργασίας και παραγωγής αναδεικνύει την προοπτική των κοινών πόρων στην παραγωγή αξίας, παραμένοντας στη σφαίρα των κοινών, μέσα από μία διεργασία η οποία τα προστατεύει και τα ανατροφοδοτεί. Για το λόγο αυτό η βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή αναφέρεται συχνά και ως ένας τύπος «κοινωνικής παραγωγής». <br />
<br />
Σημαντικό είναι ωστόσο να διευκρινίσουμε ότι όλοι οι τύποι παραγωγής με βάση τα κοινά δεν αποτελούν ομότιμη παραγωγή. Η παραγωγή με βάση τα κοινά εστιάζει στην ελεύθερη χρήση των μέσων και των αποτελεσμάτων, ενώ η ομότιμη παραγωγή στην αποκεντρωμένη οργάνωση και την αυτό-προσδιοριζόμενη, συμμετοχική μέθοδο εργασίας. Ο συνδυασμός των δύο παραπάνω στοιχείων συνθέτει την βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή. <br />
Αντίστοιχα είναι δυνατόν να έχουμε ομότιμη παραγωγή η οποία στηρίζεται σε ιδιόκτητους πόρους. Σύγχρονοι μέθοδοι παραγωγής, ιδιαίτερα στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, εξωτερικεύουν μεγάλο μέρος της παραγωγής δεδομένων σε έναν μεγάλο αριθμό χρηστών, οι οποίοι συνεργάζονται αυτόνομα και χωρίς ιεραρχία, ανάλογα με την κρίση τους. Παρόλα αυτά, τόσο τα μέσα όσο και τα αποτελέσματα αυτής της διεργασίας αποτελούν ιδιοκτησία κάποιας εταιρίας ή ενός οργανισμού. Ιδιαίτερα επιτυχημένα παραδείγματα τέτοιων μεθόδων αποτελούν οι περιπτώσεις της Google και του Facebook, όπου η παραγωγή των δεδομένων προέρχονται από την αναζήτηση και την περιήγηση χρηστών και τη χρήση συμμετοχικών πλατφορμών, όπως το Facebook και το Google Developers. Ωστόσο, τόσο ο κώδικας, οι πλατφόρμες και τα λοιπά μέσα που χρησιμοποιούνται, όσο και τα δεδομένα που παράγονται τελούν υπό την ιδιοκτησία και τη διαχείριση των εταιριών αντίστοιχα. <br />
<br />
Γίνεται έτσι αντιληπτό ότι η ομότιμη παραγωγή, ως τρόπος συνεργασίας και παραγωγής αξίας, μπορεί να έχει σημαντικό αποτέλεσμα, τόσο κοινωνικό όσο και οικονομικό. Παρακάτω θα επιχειρήσουμε να αναλύσουμε εν συντομία τα βασικά χαρακτηριστικά που καθιστούν την ομότιμη παραγωγή τόσο αποτελεσματική σε αυτό. Εδώ είναι σκόπιμο να διευκρινίσουμε ότι η ανάλυση που ακολουθεί αφορά γενικότερα την ομότιμη παραγωγή ως διεργασία. Ωστόσο τα παραδείγματα και οι ιστορικές αναφορές αφορούν κυρίως τη βασισμένη στα κοινά ομότιμη παραγωγή, ως ένα αναδυόμενο παραγωγικό μοντέλο στο πλαίσιο των γενικότερων φαινομένων εναλλακτικών τρόπων παραγωγής και κοινωνικο-οικονομικής οργάνωσης. <br />
<br />
==Βασικά χαρακτηριστικά==<br />
Παρά την πληθώρα των εγχειρημάτων που παρατηρούνται σε ένα μεγάλο εύρος τομέων και δραστηριοτήτων, ο Benkler διακρίνει τρεις βασικές αρχές που αποτελούν κοινά χαρακτηριστικά σε αυτά τα εγχειρήματα, καθώς και κρίσιμους παράγοντες για την επιτυχή υλοποίηση και ολοκλήρωση τους: <br />
# Αρθρωτή δομή (modularity): Τα ομότιμα έργα αποτελούνται από πολλά μικρότερα, διακριτά συστατικά μέρη (modules), το καθένα από τα οποία μπορεί να παραχθεί αυτόνομα. O διαχωρισμός αυτός επιτρέπει πολλούς ανεξάρτητους συμμετέχοντες να εργάζονται με ασύγχρονο τρόπο, χωρίς να εξαρτάται η εργασία του ενός από την εργασία του άλλου. <br />
# Διαφορετικός βαθμός ανάλυσης (granularity) των συστατικών μερών: Διαφορετικά επίπεδα ανάλυσης των συστατικών μερών, και συνεπώς μεγαλύτερα και μικρότερα συστατικά μέρη, κινητοποιούν άτομα με μεγαλύτερα ή μικρότερα κίνητρα, αντίστοιχα, στο να συνεισφέρουν, ανάλογα με το ενδιαφέρον τους, αλλά και τις ικανότητές τους. Έτσι σε ένα ομότιμο έργο διακρίνονται μεγαλύτερα μέρη με ιδιαίτερες απαιτήσεις σε χρόνο και ικανότητες των συμμετεχόντων, έως πολύ μικρά μέρη, η υλοποίηση των οποίων δεν απαιτεί περισσότερο από 5 λεπτά ενασχόλησης κάποιου, ακόμη και στο πλαίσιο ενός καθημερινού ψυχαγωγικού «ξεφυλλίσματος» στο ίντερνετ (browsing). <br />
# Χαμηλού κόστους ολοκλήρωση: Ως ολοκλήρωση (integration) εννοείται η ενσωμάτωση όλων των συστατικών μερών στο τελικό αποτέλεσμα. Στη διαδικασία της ολοκλήρωσης, εμπεριέχεται τόσο ο μηχανισμός της ενσωμάτωσης όλων των συνεισφορών σε ένα ολοκληρωμένο προϊόν, όσο και ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος του κάθε συστατικού μέρους ξεχωριστά, αποφεύγοντας σφάλματα που προκύπτουν από τη λανθασμένη αντίληψη του κάθε συμμετέχοντα, σχετικά με τις ικανότητές του, τους στόχους του έργου κ.α. <br />
<br />
Ένα καλό παράδειγμα για το πώς λειτουργούν τα τρία αυτά χαρακτηριστικά αποτελεί το project «Distributed Proofreaders ». Πρόκειται για ένα υποστηρικτικό έργο ενός άλλου έργου, του «Project Gutenberg », το οποίο αποτελεί μία προσπάθεια εθελοντών για τη ψηφιοποίηση λογοτεχνικών και άλλων δημιουργικών κειμένων. Η διεργασία της ψηφιοποίησης περιλαμβάνει το σκανάρισμα των αυθεντικών κειμένων και τη μετατροπή τους σε ψηφιακό, επεξεργάσιμο κείμενο μέσω της χρήσης λογισμικού αναγνώρισης χαρακτήρων (Optical Character Recognition – OCR). Το λογισμικό αυτό, αν και αρκετά αποτελεσματικό, δεν είναι ιδιαίτερα ακριβές στην αναγνώριση των χαρακτήρων, με αποτέλεσμα έναν μεγάλο αριθμό τυπογραφικών λαθών. Σε αυτή την προσπάθεια συνεισφέρει αποφασιστικά το έργο Distributed Proofreaders, το οποίο είναι στη βάση του μία διαδικτυακή πλατφόρμα που επιτρέπει πλήθος εθελοντών να αναγνωρίσει και να διορθώσει τυπογραφικά λάθη. Η πλατφόρμα, η οποία στηρίζεται στο ελεύθερο λογισμικό GNU/Linux, παραθέτει στον χρήστη για κάθε σκαναρισμένο κείμενο την πρωτότυπη εικόνα του κειμένου πλάι στο επεξεργάσιμο κείμενο, όπως έχει προκύψει μετά τη διεργασία του OCR. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, η επίπονη και χρονοβόρα διαδικασία της διόρθωσης των κειμένων διαμοιράζεται σε πολλούς χρήστες, οι οποίοι ελέγχουν σε εθελοντική βάση όσες σελίδες επιθυμούν. <br />
<br />
Εδώ γίνεται αντιληπτός ο τρόπος με τον οποίο λειτουργούν τα δύο πρώτα βασικά χαρακτηριστικά των ομότιμων έργων: η αρθρωτή δομή και ο διαφορετικός βαθμός ανάλυσης των μερών. Στο συγκεκριμένο έργο, παρατηρείται ότι η αρθρωτή δομή ικανοποιείται ήδη από τη φύση των εργασιών που περιλαμβάνονται, χωρίς να χρειαστεί περαιτέρω παρέμβαση. Η κάθε σελίδα και το κάθε κεφάλαιο, ακόμα και κάθε βιβλίο, μπορεί να αποτελέσει ένα ξεχωριστό συστατικό μέρος (module). Αντίστοιχα, ο κάθε χρήστης συμμετέχει στο βαθμό που επιθυμεί, από μία σελίδα έως ένα ολόκληρο ή και περισσότερα από τα βιβλία που υπάρχουν διαθέσιμα προς διόρθωση. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, ουσιαστικά καθορίζει ο ίδιος και το βαθμό ανάλυσης του συστατικού μέρους που θα αναλάβει, ανάλογα με τη διάθεσή του και τις ικανότητές του. <br />
<br />
Ιδιαίτερα ενδιαφέρον είναι ο τρόπος που γίνεται η ολοκλήρωση (integration) των μικρότερων και μεγαλύτερων συνεισφορών σε ένα ενιαίο αποτέλεσμα. Τα βασικά αποτελέσματα του έργου είναι φυσικά τα βιβλία. Η κάθε σελίδα ελέγχεται από περισσότερους από έναν εθελοντές, ενώ αφού ολοκληρωθεί η διόρθωση μία φορά, στη συνέχεια εθελοντές ελέγχουν, επικυρώνουν και διορθώνουν αντίστοιχα, εφόσον χρειαστεί, τη διορθωμένη σελίδα με βάση το πρωτότυπο. Αφότου ολοκληρωθούν όλες οι σελίδες του βιβλίου, γίνεται η τελική επεξεργασία και η προσαρμογή τους σε μορφή ηλεκτρονικού βιβλίου. Έτσι, επιτυγχάνεται τόσο η χαμηλού κόστους ολοκλήρωση όσο και ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος, μέσω της διόρθωσης σε δύο επίπεδα. <br />
<br />
Η συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση αποτελεί ένα εύκολα κατανοητό παράδειγμα των διεργασιών της ομότιμης παραγωγής, λόγω της απλότητας των εργασιών που περιλαμβάνει η διαδικασία της σύγκρισης ενός κειμένου με ένα άλλο. Αντίστοιχα στο έργο των Distributed Proofreaders συνεισφέρουν και περισσότερο εξειδικευμένοι συμμετέχοντες σε πιο απαιτητικές εργασίες, όπως είναι η ανάπτυξη εξειδικευμένου λογισμικού, η διαχείριση της πλατφόρμας, αλλά και εργασίες συντονισμού και project management. <br />
<br />
Αναφέραμε και παραπάνω ότι τα ανωτέρω χαρακτηριστικά, όπως παρατηρήθηκαν σε μεγαλύτερο ή μικρότερο βαθμό στα πρώτα ομότιμα εγχειρήματα, αποτελούν τα στοιχεία εκείνα που κατέστησαν εξ’ αρχής δυνατή τη διαδικασία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, ενώ ταυτόχρονα αποτέλεσαν και τη βάση του επιτυχούς αποτελέσματός τους. Από το προηγούμενο παράδειγμα γίνεται επίσης ευκολά αντιληπτό ένα από τα βασικότερα πλεονεκτήματα της ομότιμης παραγωγής, ιδιαίτερα στο χώρο της πληροφορικής, το οποίο είναι η αποτελεσματικότητα στον εντοπισμό, την κινητοποίηση και την κατανομή της ανθρώπινης δημιουργικότητας. Η ευρεία διάδοση των Τεχνολογιών Πληροφόρησης και Επικοινωνίας (ΤΠΕ) ιδιαίτερα την τελευταία εικοσαετία, έχει αλλάξει σε μεγάλο βαθμό τον τρόπο που αντιλαμβανόμαστε την παραγωγή. Στον κόσμο των ΤΠΕ τα βασικά μέσα παραγωγής, δηλαδή οι ηλεκτρονικοί υπολογιστές, γίνονται συνεχώς φτηνότερα και εύκολα προσβάσιμα από ένα μεγάλο μέρος του πληθυσμού. Η βασική «πρώτη ύλη», η πληροφορία, είναι σε αφθονία και τα μέσα διανομής και επικοινωνίας πιο γρήγορα και αποτελεσματικά από ποτέ. Έτσι, ο παράγοντας που κάνει τη διαφορά στην επιτυχία ενός έργου είναι η ανθρώπινη δημιουργικότητα. Ο παράγοντας αυτός, ως κατ’ εξοχήν «ανθρώπινος», δεν ενεργοποιείται με το πάτημα ενός κουμπιού. Στην σύγχρονη αγορά, η ανθρώπινη δημιουργικότητα τοποθετείται πολύ ψηλά στην κλίμακα αυτών που ένας εργοδότης ή ένας μάνατζερ προσπαθεί να ενεργοποιήσει με χρηματικά ή άλλου είδους οφέλη. Στις περισσότερες δε περιπτώσεις η κινητοποίηση των ατόμων στο μεγαλύτερο επιθυμητό βαθμό παραμένει εκτός των ορίων των υλικών απολαβών. Σε έναν τέτοιο κόσμο λοιπόν, όπου τα βασικά μέσα παραγωγής είναι αποκεντρωμένα, η ιδιαίτερη δυναμική της ομότιμης παραγωγής έγκειται στην ικανότητα κινητοποίησης ενός μεγάλου αριθμού ατόμων, ο οποίοι αυτό-προσδιορίζουν τη συνεισφορά τους ανάλογα με τα αντίστοιχα κίνητρά τους. <br />
<br />
Στη βάση της, η ομότιμη παραγωγή είναι μία μορφή ανθρώπινης συνεργασίας, κατανομής κοινών πόρων και προσπάθειας σε ισότιμο πλαίσιο, προς την επίτευξη ενός κοινού αποτελέσματος. Αναφέρθηκε επίσης ότι δεν είναι η πρώτη φορά ιστορικά που παρατηρείται μία μορφή αποκεντρωμένης συνεργασίας και παραγωγής. Ωστόσο, την τελευταία εικοσαετία και λόγω της επανάστασης που έχουν φέρει οι ΤΠΕ σε όλους τους τομείς της ανθρώπινης δραστηριότητας, παρατηρείται ότι αυτή η μορφή οργάνωσης και παραγωγής μπορεί να έχει σημαντικό οικονομικό αποτέλεσμα . Στη βάση των πλεονεκτημάτων της ομότιμης παραγωγής, νέες μορφές κοινωνικής παραγωγής, αλλά και νέα επιχειρηματικά μοντέλα, καινοτόμα προϊόντα και υπηρεσίες έχουν αναδυθεί. Στην επόμενη ενότητα θα παρουσιαστεί μία σύντομη ιστορική αναδρομή των ομότιμων πρακτικών που αποτελούν τους θεμέλιους λίθους του συγκεκριμένου φαινομένου. <br />
<br />
==Ιστορική εξέλιξη==<br />
Ιστορικά η ομότιμη παραγωγή, όπως τη μελετούμε σήμερα, έχει τις ρίζες της στο 1983, όταν ο Richard Stallman, τότε ερευνητής στο MIT, ανακοίνωσε την υλοποίηση του GNU Project, το πρώτο έργο ελεύθερου λογισμικού και μαζικής συνεργασίας. Βασικός στόχος του συγκεκριμένου έργου ήταν να δημιουργήσει τα μέσα που θα παρέχουν στους χρήστες ελευθερία σχετικά με τον έλεγχο των ηλεκτρονικών υπολογιστών και υπολογιστικών συσκευών. Για το σκοπό αυτό, έπρεπε να αναπτυχθεί και να διατεθεί το κατάλληλο λογισμικό, τα οποίο θα σέβεται τις βασικές ελευθερίες των χρηστών του και συγκεκριμένα: <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη χρήση του, για όλους τους σκοπούς. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη μελέτη, τροποποίηση και προσαρμογή του στις ανάγκες του χρήστη. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη διάδοση (αντιγραφή και διαμοιρασμό) του. <br />
# Την ελευθερία στη βελτίωση του και τη δημοσίευση των βελτιώσεών αυτών. <br />
<br />
Οι αναφορές αυτές στην ελευθερία του χρήστη ενός τέτοιου λογισμικού, προσδίδουν σε αυτό τον τίτλο του «Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού» (Free Software). Επιπλέον, για να είναι δυνατή η εξασφάλιση των ελευθεριών των χρηστών σε όλο το εύρος της χρήσης των υπολογιστών, βασική επιδίωξη του GNU Project ήταν η ανάπτυξη ενός λειτουργικού συστήματος (Operating System – OS), το οποίο θα ήταν επίσης ελεύθερο λογισμικό. Έτσι τον Ιανουάριο του 1984 ξεκίνησε η ανάπτυξη του λειτουργικού συστήματος το οποίο ονομάστηκε GNU . <br />
Το 1985 ο Stallman ιδρύει το Ίδρυμα Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού (Free Software Foundation) με σκοπό να διαδώσει την ελευθερία στη χρήση των ηλεκτρονικών υπολογιστών και να υποστηρίξει νομικά και πρακτικά τα δικαιώματα των χρηστών. Έτσι, το 1989 ολοκληρώθηκε η πρώτη έκδοση της Γενικής Άδειας Δημόσιας Χρήσης (GNU General Public License – GPL), η οποία κατοχυρώνει τις ελευθερίες αυτές των χρηστών, ενώ η λεγόμενη ρήτρα «copyleft» (σε αντίθεση με τη λέξη copyright που κατοχυρώνει το δικαίωμα της πνευματικής ιδιοκτησίας) υποχρεώνει στη διατήρηση αυτών των ελευθεριών σε όλα τα αντίτυπα. Ουσιαστικά κάθε αντίτυπο, το οποίο περιλαμβάνει ένα συστατικό στοιχείο (κώδικα) που έχει παραχωρηθεί με GPL, πρέπει επίσης να κυκλοφορήσει υπό την GPL. Κατ’ αυτόν τον τρόπο εξασφαλίζεται ότι το ελεύθερο λογισμικό παραμένει ελεύθερο. Το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και η GPL αποτελούν σημαντικά σημεία στην ιστορία της ομότιμης παραγωγής, καθώς για πρώτη φορά κατοχυρώνεται νομικά η ανοικτή, ευρεία συνεργασία πολλών ατόμων. Ομοίως, το αποτέλεσμα της συνεργασίας αυτής κατοχυρώνεται ως συλλογικό και ελεύθερο, με βάση τις ελευθερίες που κατοχυρώνει η GPL. <br />
<br />
Το 1990 μεγάλο μέρος των προγραμμάτων που είναι απαραίτητα για ένα λειτουργικό σύστημα είχαν ολοκληρωθεί από το GNU Project, έλειπαν ωστόσο ακόμη κάποια σημαντικά κομμάτια, με βασικότερο τον πυρήνα (kernel). Την ίδια εποχή, ο Linus Torvalds, σε ένα project εκτός του GNU, αποφάσισε να αναπτύξει τον δικό του πυρήνα, ο οποίος ονομάστηκε Linux. Ο πυρήνας αυτός ενσωματώθηκε με τα υπόλοιπα συστατικά μέρη του GNU, με αποτέλεσμα ένα ολοκληρωμένο, πλήρως λειτουργικό και ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα, το GNU/Linux . Το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και το ελεύθερο λειτουργικό σύστημα GNU/Linux αποτέλεσαν την έμπνευση, αλλά πολύ περισσότερο παρείχαν τα τεχνικά και οργανωτικά μέσα για την έκρηξη των ομότιμων έργων που ακολούθησαν. <br />
<br />
Η ταχεία διάδοση του GNU/Linux αποτελεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό αποτέλεσμα συνέργειας και παράλληλης ανάπτυξης με μία άλλη μεγάλη επανάσταση που λαμβάνει χώρα την ίδια περίοδο. Το 1991 το διαδίκτυο γίνεται δημόσιο και μαζικό μέσο, με την παροχή της υπηρεσίας παγκόσμιου ιστού (World Wide Web), μία εφεύρεση του Tim Berners-Lee, ερευνητή του CERN. Παράλληλα, η κουλτούρα των χάκερς (hacking culture), η οποία έχει τις ρίζες της πίσω στο 1960, με τη διάδοση του ελεύθερου λογισμικού και τη μαζικοποίηση του διαδικτύου αρχίζει και προσελκύει συνεχώς μεγαλύτερο αριθμό ατόμων. Κεντρικό σημείο τους αποτελεί το ενδιαφέρον για τη δημιουργία, την εξερεύνηση, τον πειραματισμό και το ξεπέρασμα των ορίων αυτών που μπορούν να πραγματοποιηθούν. Μικρο-ομάδες από χάκερς που ήταν ενεργές για χρόνια σε διαφορετικά μέρη, μοιραζόμενες παρόμοιες αρχές και κυρίως το ίδιο πάθος, άρχισαν να ανακαλύπτουν η μία την άλλη και να συνεργάζονται. Παρατηρείται έτσι η συνειδητή διαμόρφωση και διάδοση μίας κοινής, συλλογικής και συστηματικής ηθικής από μία κρίσιμη μάζα ατόμων. Η ηθική αυτή αφορά το διαμοιρασμό γνώσης και πληροφορίας και την ελευθερία της χρήσης των τεχνολογικών μέσων για την ανάπτυξή τους, μέσα από τη συνεργασία και τη συμμετοχική δημιουργία. <br />
<br />
Με αυτόν τον τρόπο οι ομότιμες πρακτικές αρχίζουν και επεκτείνονται εκτός των ορίων της πληροφορικής και του λογισμικού. Ένας μεγάλος αριθμός ατόμων και ομάδων συσπειρώνονται πλέον γύρω από ένα κοινό σύστημα αξιών σχετικά με τη γνώση και την πληροφορία και κυρίως την ελεύθερη και ανεμπόδιστη κυκλοφορία αυτών. Δημιουργούν έτσι έναν παγκόσμιο χώρο γνωσιακών κοινών (knowledge commons), στη βάση του οποίου αναπτύσσονται παγκόσμια, συμμετοχικά ομότιμα εγχειρήματα, όπως η ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια Wikipedia. Επιπλέον, την τελευταία δεκαετία, η διάδοση των τεχνολογιών επιτραπέζιας κατασκευής (desktop manufacturing), όπως η τρισδιάστατη εκτύπωση και οι CNC μηχανές οδήγησαν στον περαιτέρω πειραματισμό των ομότιμων πρακτικών στον υλικό κόσμο. Ομότιμα έργα όπως ο RepRap εκτυπωτής και το Open Source Ecology αποτελούν σημαντικά εγχειρήματα αξιοποίησης των γνωσιακών κοινών στην παραγωγή άμεσων, πρακτικών, ανοικτών λύσεων. Έτσι, σε αντιστοιχία με το ελεύθερο λογισμικό και το λογισμικό ανοικτού κώδικα (ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ), εμφανίζεται ο όρος του ανοικτού υλισμικού (open hardware), προσδίδοντας νέες διαστάσεις στην ελευθερία στη χρήση βασικών μέσων παραγωγής. <br />
<br />
Σχετικά πρόσφατα το φαινόμενο άρχισε να αποκτά ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον ακαδημαϊκά και ερευνητικά. Χιλιάδες επιστημονικά έργα έχουν ασχοληθεί με το συγκεκριμένο φαινόμενο από το 2002 και έπειτα, ενώ οργανισμοί, όπως το [[P2P Foundation]], ιδρύονται με σκοπό τη μελέτη, τεκμηρίωση και διάδοση του φαινομένου της ομότιμης παραγωγής και των ομότιμων πρακτικών σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο. Αξίζει να αναφερθεί ότι στην Ελλάδα λειτουργεί από το 2007 ο ελληνικός κόμβος του P2P Foundation, ενώ το 2011 ιδρύθηκε στα Ιωάννινα το [[P2P Lab]], ένα διεπιστημονικό ερευνητικό εργαστήριο με σκοπό την θεωρητική τεκμηρίωση, τη διάδοση και πρακτική εφαρμογή των ομότιμων πρακτικών.</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Cosmo-Localization&diff=94893Cosmo-Localization2015-11-08T09:04:36Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
'''= "describes the dynamic potentials of the globally distributed knowledge commons in conjunction with emerging capacity for localized production of value".''' [http://actionforesight.net/cosmo-localization/] <br />
<br />
<br />
=Description=<br />
<br />
Jose Ramos:<br />
<br />
"describes the dynamic potentials of the globally distributed knowledge commons in conjunction with emerging capacity for localized production of value. The imperative to create economically and ecologically resilient communities is driving initiatives for ‘re-localization’. Yet, such efforts for re-localization need to be put in the context of new technologies, national policy, transnational knowledge regimes and the wider global knowledge commons."<br />
(http://actionforesight.net/cosmo-localization/)<br />
<br />
<br />
=Characteristics=<br />
<br />
Jose Ramos:<br />
<br />
"I argue there are six trends that potentiate cosmo-localization:<br />
<br />
# emerging global knowledge commons<br />
# new technology<br />
# the maker movement<br />
# urbanization and rise of mega-city regions<br />
# distributed energy production and storage<br />
# resource scarcity, eco integrity and precarity<br />
<br />
And there are three identifiable obstacles as well:<br />
<br />
#platform oligopoly / netarchical capital<br />
#adjudication of national policy<br />
#global knowledge regimes"<br />
(http://actionforesight.net/cosmo-localization/)<br />
<br />
=Key Articles=<br />
<br />
* Kostakis, Vasilis, Niaros, Vasilis, Dafermos, George, and Bauwens, Michel. 2015. “Design Global, Manufacture Local: Exploring the Contours of an Emerging Productive Model”. Futures, 73, 126-135. http://www.p2plab.gr/el/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Futures.pdf <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Sustainable Manufacturing]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Global Governance]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Geography]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Category:Sustainable_Manufacturing&diff=94884Category:Sustainable Manufacturing2015-11-06T12:36:05Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>New section to focus on the link between open hardware, distributed manufacturing, and ecological/sustainability concerns<br />
<br />
or, as they say so well in French:<br />
<br />
'''* "Pour un mode de production, libre, durable et solidaire".'''<br />
<br />
i.e. for ''a free, fair and sustainable mode of production''.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Introduction=<br />
<br />
[[Commons-Based Peer Production]] and the associated 'open source stack', are a key ingredient for our sustainable future. Here's a summary of the arguments:<br />
<br />
* design in market entities entails planned obsolescence as market goods have to remain scarce; open design communities inherently design for sustainability, interoperability, inclusion, etc ..<br />
<br />
* shared design is crucial for a circular economy, which can't really develop easily with privatized knowledge<br />
<br />
* mutualization of intrastructure, through a well understood [[Sharing Economy]] based on [[Communitarian Provisioning]], has huge benefits in terms of the re-use of idle resources<br />
<br />
* the [[Cosmo-Localization]] of production allows for a relocalization of production based on expressed local need, and avoids huge transportation expenditures as well as the systematic over-production of supply-driven mass markets<br />
<br />
<br />
Some introductory material:<br />
<br />
* Presentation at Degrowth 2014, video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOIP_GmpY84 Michel Bauwens on The Transition to a Sustainable Commons Society]<br />
<br />
* Article: [http://www.we-magazine.net/we-volume-02/the-emergence-of-open-design-and-open-manufacturing/#.VjcNY7crLIU The Emergence of Open Design and Open Manufacturing]<br />
<br />
=Citations=<br />
<br />
<br />
"[[Cosmo-Localization]] '''describes the dynamic potentials of the globally distributed knowledge commons in conjunction with emerging capacity for localized production of value'''. The imperative to create economically and ecologically resilient communities is driving initiatives for ‘re-localization’. Yet, such efforts for re-localization need to be put in the context of new technologies, national policy, transnational knowledge regimes and the wider global knowledge commons." <br />
<br />
- Jose Ramos [http://actionforesight.net/cosmo-localization/]<br />
<br />
<br />
=Key Resources=<br />
<br />
==Key Articles==<br />
<br />
* Kostakis, Vasilis, Niaros, Vasilis, Dafermos, George, and Bauwens, Michel. 2015. “Design Global, Manufacture Local: Exploring the Contours of an Emerging Productive Model”. Futures, 73, 126-135. http://www.p2plab.gr/el/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Futures.pdf <br />
<br />
* Kostakis, Vasilis, Roos, Andreas and Bauwens, Michel. 2015. “Towards a Political Ecology of the Digital Economy: Socio-environmental Implications of Two Value Models”. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Env-Innov-and-Soc-Trans.pdf<br />
<br />
* Kostakis, Vasilis, Bauwens, Michel and Niaros, Vasilis. 2015. “Urban Reconfguration after the Emergence of Peer-to-Peer Infrastructure: Four Future Scenarios with an Impact on Smart Cities”. In Araya Daniel (Ed.) “Smart Cities as Democratic Ecologies”. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 116-124. http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Palgrave-Macmillan-Chapter.pdf<br />
<br />
* Kostakis, Vasilis, Niaros, Vasilis and Giotitsas, Christos. 2014. “Production and governance in hackerspaces: A manifestation of Commons-based peer production in the physical realm?”. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(5), 555-573. http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/HS.pdf <br />
<br />
* Kostakis, Vasilis and Papachristou, Marios. 2014. “Commons-based peer production and digital fabrication: The case of a RepRap-based, Lego-built 3D printing-milling machine”. Telematics and Informatics, 31, 434-443. http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/TI.pdf <br />
<br />
* Kostakis, Vasilis, Fountouklis, Michail and Drechsler, Wolfgang. 2013. “Peer Production and Desktop Manufacturing: The Case of the Helix_T Wind Turbine Project”. Science, Technology and Human Values, 38(6), 773-800. http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/STHV1.pdf <br />
<br />
* Kostakis, Vasilis. 2013. “At the Turning Point of the Current Techno-Economic Paradigm: Commons-Based Peer Production, Desktop Manufacturing and the Role of Civil Society in the Perezian Framework”. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 11(1), 173-190. http://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/463 <br />
<br />
<br />
==Statistics==<br />
<br />
* [http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/three-times-as-many-raw-materials-are-used-to-export-traded-goods-than-are-used-in-their-manufacture/2013/09/15 Three times as many raw materials are used to export traded goods than are used in their manufacture]: [[Cost of Transportation vs Cost of Manufacturing]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=/index.php&diff=94881/index.php2015-11-06T11:27:28Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Bio=<br />
<br />
Alexandros (Alekos) Pantazis is a research fellow the [http://p2plab.org/ P2P Lab] and environmental engineer, with expertise in the area of participatory design for nature conservation and integrated coastal zone management. He has an extensive 15 years experience of active involvement in civil movements in various rural regions of Greece and abroad, focusing mainly on agrarian grass-root movements, as well as on Degrowth and the Commons movements. Alekos has strong experience in non formal education and has been involved as a scientific assistant/coordinator in a number of European projects in the areas of marine conservation and management, focusing on local communities. <br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Bios]]<br />
[[Category:Greece]]<br />
[[Category:Research]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=User:Alex_Pazaitis&diff=93904User:Alex Pazaitis2015-08-29T12:29:09Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: </p>
<hr />
<div>Alexandros (Alex) Pazaitis is an political economist, post-graduate student of Technology Governance at Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance of the Tallinn University of Technology in Estonia. He has professional experience in project management, as well as in planning and implementation of cooperation projects (inter alia European Territorial Cooperation Projects & EU Programmes), working as a consultant for private and public organizations. He is currently a research fellow at the P2P Lab, interested in Commons-based peer production and P2P value creation.</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Plan_C_for_Advancing_the_Commons_Transition_in_Greece&diff=92938Plan C for Advancing the Commons Transition in Greece2015-07-20T22:11:49Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: /* Energy Infrastructure */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Context=<br />
<br />
Plan A is the name for the capitulation towards the demands of the creditors, now the most realistic possibility; plan B is the Grexit which offers Greece an independent path within the same economic logic, but with basic sovereign powers to protect and advance their own interests; plan C stands for a [[Commons Transition]], which can take place either under conditions laid out by Plan A or Plan B, but which could become the main strategy under conditions of a revival of popular power and democracy.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''* For general background on the concept of Commons Transition''', see,<br />
<br />
# The [[Commons Transition Plan]], crafted for the FLOK Society project in Ecuador, with a better designed [http://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-the-book/ eBook version] at http://commonstransition.org<br />
# A very short summary of that transition logic is [http://p2pfoundation.net/Transition_Proposals_Towards_a_Commons-Oriented_Economy_and_Society here] and [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/towards-a-new-reconfiguration-among-the-state-civil-society-and-the-market/ here]<br />
# An [http://commonstransition.org/a-new-evaluation-of-the-flok-experience-in-ecuador-whats-next/ evaluation of the limitations of the FLOK project], which did not include a mandate for physical commons infrastructures<br />
# The integrative full-spectrum approach of the Center for Planetary Culture is also recommended. See their [http://planetaryculture.com/wiki/index.php?title=Rapid_Transition_Strategy Rapid Transition Strategy]<br />
<br />
'''* Plan C references for Greece:'''<br />
<br />
# [http://roarmag.org/2015/07/syriza-bailout-movements-greece-crisis/ Time for renewed popular resistance]<br />
By Theodoros Karyotis On July 13, 2015 :<br />
<br />
"Now is the moment for a broad alliance of social forces to bring forward a ‘Plan C’, based on social collaboration, decentralized self-government and the stewardship of common goods. Without overlooking its significance, national electoral politics is not the privileged field of action when it comes to social transformation. The withering away of democracy in Europe should be complemented and challenged by the fortification of self-organized communities at a local level and the forging of strong bonds between them, along with a turn to a solidarity- and needs-based economy, and the collective management and defense of common goods."<br />
<br />
<br />
# We must rely on explanding and organizing the solidarity initiatives. By Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch. [http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1145.php]<br />
<br />
"The point we are getting at is that framing the issue in terms of an exhausted Plan A (negotiating with Europe) and a rejection of the euro (Plan B) is too limited a way to frame the dilemmas confronting Syriza. What the deeper preparation for leaving the eurozone and possibly also the EU, actually entails is to build on the solidarity networks that have developed in society to cope with the crisis as the basis for starting to transform social relations within Greece. That is the real plan B, the terrain on which both Syriza and the social movements might re-invigorate now. What, more concretely, might this mean?<br />
<br />
The recent years of struggle have developed the famous grassroots solidarity movement that began – as all organizing must – by addressing the needs of people. Out of this grew the some 400 solidarity groups all across Greece addressing basic community needs through self-organized democratically run collectives which provide support for people's health, food, housing and other needs. Syriza members were among those deeply involved in establishing and maintaining the solidarity networks and its MPs elected in 2012 contributed 20 per cent of their salaries to them. But since the Syriza government was elected this year it has done very little to change and use the state so as to sustain and broaden this remarkable movement."<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
A very very preliminary first draft at this stage, but this document will improve every day.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Proposals=<br />
<br />
==Building up alternative democratic power and self-organization==<br />
<br />
* I propose that in order to get started with the "Plan C", we should focus initially on getting concrete projects underway. Each of these "[[Commons Projects]]" should have an initiator or group of initiators in Greece, and some specific objective of seeking to solve a particular problem or group of problems. For the purpose of discussing such projects (including in regard to figuring out what projects are needed and how to get them started), I have set up a [http://cp4g.net/ Commons Projects for Greece Network] with a [http://cp4g.net/mailman/listinfo/cp4g discussion mailing list]. -- [[User talk:Norbert Bollow|Norbert Bollow]].<br />
<br />
* create [[Commons Transition Circles]] for every town and region to be the advocates and agents of commons creation ; create a [[Coalition of Commons Transition Circles]] to share and coordinate activities; members of these circles support the creation of the initiatives listed below.<br />
<br />
* create [[Assemblies of the Commons]] for every town and region, and per social domain of activity to unite the citizens with commons concerns ; create a [[Coalition of the Assemblies of the Commons]] to share and coordinate activities<br />
<br />
* create [[Chambers of the Commons]], bound by social charters, for every town and region and for economic domains of activity; members are all entrepreneurial and productive entities responsible for the livelihood of the commoners ; create a [[Coalition of the Chambers of the Commons]] to share and coordinate activities<br />
<br />
* create [[Mutual Aid Networks]] in every town and region to assist citizens in their access to basic resources<br />
<br />
* create a [[Association for the Advancement of the Commons Transition]] to coordinate policy proposals to be carried out by civic or public service entities in support of the transition<br />
<br />
* create a 'facilitation skills' and 'self-management learning center' to support even non-commons organizations of all sorts to move to self-management inspired by the experiences described for example in the book, [[Reinventing Organizations]]<br />
<br />
==Monetary Reform==<br />
<br />
* create an independent national currency, citizen-based if need be<br />
<br />
* create a national B2B currency (Swiss bank) for use as B2B reserve currency<br />
<br />
* create a network of local and regional currencies<br />
<br />
* create a national public bank, citizen-based if needed<br />
<br />
* create a solidarity economy bank<br />
<br />
* create a 'self-management learning center' to support even non-commons organizations of all sorts moving towards self-management structures and processes, inspired by the spirit of [[Reinventing Organizations]]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Background Documents===<br />
<br />
* the very realistic proposals of Ellen Brown: [http://ellenbrown.com/2015/07/14/grexit-or-jubilee-how-greek-debt-could-be-annulled/ Grexit or Jubilee? How Greek Debt Can Be Annulled]<br />
<br />
* Mike Gismondi recommends: The Future of Money by mary mellor, Pluto Press 2015. Mary’s next book is Debt or Democracy: Public Money for Sustainability and Justice and will be published by Pluto Press in a few months time.<br />
<br />
==Productive Reform==<br />
<br />
* generalize a framework for independent renewable energy production<br />
<br />
* generalize a framework for direct food production and consumption<br />
<br />
* democratize access to affordable housing by systemizing the creation of Community Land Trusts and similar solutions<br />
<br />
* create local/regional incubators for the solidarity economy<br />
:reclaim abandoned/underutilized places in cities by establishing collaboration spaces, such as microfactories, to enable the production of small-scale social innovation outcomes and enhance citizen participation in decision-making processes<br />
<br />
* create a network of productive workshops for every locality/region and for every domain of economic activity<br />
<br />
* create a network of solidarity economy incubators in every town and region<br />
<br />
* create a network of support for the SME economy<br />
<br />
* create a network of provisioning councils at local, regional and national levels to insure a flow of basic resources to all citizens<br />
<br />
* create and support the creation of knowledge commons for every area of human activity<br />
<br />
* link thematic incubators for the solidarity and SME economy to each of these shared knowledge commons<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Background Documents===<br />
<br />
* [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/#4001 Transforming the productive base of the economy through the open design commons and distributed manufacturing]; by George Dafermos<br />
<br />
==Energy Infrastructure==<br />
* Create local P2P energy infrastructures, consisting of [[P2P microgrids]] and [[P2P energy grid|P2P energy grids]]<br />
* Develop open-hardware solutions for cost-effective, sustainable [[energy production infrastructures]]<br />
* Establish a commons oriented energy regime, conforming to P2P infrastructures<br />
<br />
===Background documents===<br />
<br />
* [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/transforming-the-energy-matrix/ Transforming the energy matrix: Transition policies for the development of the distributed energy model]. George Dafermos ''et al''.<br />
* [http://p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1-s2.0-S0160791X15000251-main.pdf A peer-to-peer approach to energy production]. P2P Lab.<br />
* [[General Principles for Policy Making for Distributed Energy]]<br />
<br />
==Cases / Examples==<br />
<br />
* The [[Kythnos Island Community Microgrid Project]]<br />
* [[Hugh Piggott Small Wind Turbine]]<br />
<br />
==Knowledge Infrastructures==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Background Documents==<br />
<br />
* Commons Approach to EU knowledge policy, http://commonsnetwork.eu/a-commons-approach-to-european-knowledge-policy/<br />
* A short essay by Michel Bauwens & Vasilis Kostakis on [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/towards-a-new-reconfiguration-among-the-state-civil-society-and-the-market/ a new reconfiguration among the state, civil society and the market].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Public/State Infrastructure: The [[Partner State]] and the [[Commonification of Public Services]]==<br />
<br />
<br />
===Background Documents===<br />
<br />
* [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/towards-a-new-reconfiguration-among-the-state-civil-society-and-the-market/ Towards a new reconfiguration among the state, civil society and the market]. Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Kostakis.<br />
<br />
===Discussion===<br />
<br />
John Restakis:<br />
<br />
"The primary challenges to the transfer of state property to a commons structure owned and operated by local communities are the following:<br />
<br />
1. The legislative framework in Greece has no provisions for the kinds of legal structures that would facilitate the kind of commoning/co-operative structures required to support such a system;<br />
<br />
2. There is little to no understanding among most of the the populace or the local governmental institutions about the theory and practice of commons resource management;<br />
<br />
3. The transfer of state assets to local control would open the gate to further manipulation of the process by corrupt local officials, organizations, and private business interests. This could end up being catastrophic for the management and protection of these resources.<br />
<br />
Any such process requires the passage of appropriate legislation, intensive popular education and training on the meaning and management of commons ownership and management, and the reform of local governmental structures so as to minimize the opportunity for corruption and the seizure of state and public assets.<br />
<br />
All this takes time, programming, a committed public policy, and a team of people deployed to research, design, and implement such a transition."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Commons Transition]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Policy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Greece]]</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=P2P_Microgrids&diff=92936P2P Microgrids2015-07-20T21:53:44Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: Created page with "A P2P microgrid is a theoretical model of a microgrid operating, being a P2P network, without a central control node and, therefore, the loss of any of its modules will not re..."</p>
<hr />
<div>A P2P microgrid is a theoretical model of a microgrid operating, being a P2P network, without a central control node and, therefore, the loss of any of its modules will not result in the collapse of the whole system. Each peer of the network is both an energy producer and consumer, with production taking place on individual level (e.g. house). Surplus power can either be stored, which is quite costly with the current technology level, or distributed amongst peers of the microgrid, avoiding energy wasting. The distribution of surplus power can be realized according to wher it might be needed, creating a common energy pool within the microgrid. <br />
<br />
A microgrid can operate both autonomously and as part of a grid, hence a P2P microgrid can operate on another level as part of a second P2P network, one comprised of microgrids, namely a [[P2P energy grid]].</div>Alex Pazaitishttps://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Plan_C_for_Advancing_the_Commons_Transition_in_Greece&diff=92935Plan C for Advancing the Commons Transition in Greece2015-07-20T21:11:44Z<p>Alex Pazaitis: /* Energy Infrastructure */</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
=Context=<br />
<br />
Plan A is the name for the capitulation towards the demands of the creditors, now the most realistic possibility; plan B is the Grexit which offers Greece an independent path within the same economic logic, but with basic sovereign powers to protect and advance their own interests; plan C stands for a [[Commons Transition]], which can take place either under conditions laid out by Plan A or Plan B, but which could become the main strategy under conditions of a revival of popular power and democracy.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''* For general background on the concept of Commons Transition''', see,<br />
<br />
# The [[Commons Transition Plan]], crafted for the FLOK Society project in Ecuador, with a better designed [http://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-the-book/ eBook version] at http://commonstransition.org<br />
# A very short summary of that transition logic is [http://p2pfoundation.net/Transition_Proposals_Towards_a_Commons-Oriented_Economy_and_Society here] and [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/towards-a-new-reconfiguration-among-the-state-civil-society-and-the-market/ here]<br />
# An [http://commonstransition.org/a-new-evaluation-of-the-flok-experience-in-ecuador-whats-next/ evaluation of the limitations of the FLOK project], which did not include a mandate for physical commons infrastructures<br />
# The integrative full-spectrum approach of the Center for Planetary Culture is also recommended. See their [http://planetaryculture.com/wiki/index.php?title=Rapid_Transition_Strategy Rapid Transition Strategy]<br />
<br />
'''* Plan C references for Greece:'''<br />
<br />
# [http://roarmag.org/2015/07/syriza-bailout-movements-greece-crisis/ Time for renewed popular resistance]<br />
By Theodoros Karyotis On July 13, 2015 :<br />
<br />
"Now is the moment for a broad alliance of social forces to bring forward a ‘Plan C’, based on social collaboration, decentralized self-government and the stewardship of common goods. Without overlooking its significance, national electoral politics is not the privileged field of action when it comes to social transformation. The withering away of democracy in Europe should be complemented and challenged by the fortification of self-organized communities at a local level and the forging of strong bonds between them, along with a turn to a solidarity- and needs-based economy, and the collective management and defense of common goods."<br />
<br />
<br />
# We must rely on explanding and organizing the solidarity initiatives. By Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch. [http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1145.php]<br />
<br />
"The point we are getting at is that framing the issue in terms of an exhausted Plan A (negotiating with Europe) and a rejection of the euro (Plan B) is too limited a way to frame the dilemmas confronting Syriza. What the deeper preparation for leaving the eurozone and possibly also the EU, actually entails is to build on the solidarity networks that have developed in society to cope with the crisis as the basis for starting to transform social relations within Greece. That is the real plan B, the terrain on which both Syriza and the social movements might re-invigorate now. What, more concretely, might this mean?<br />
<br />
The recent years of struggle have developed the famous grassroots solidarity movement that began – as all organizing must – by addressing the needs of people. Out of this grew the some 400 solidarity groups all across Greece addressing basic community needs through self-organized democratically run collectives which provide support for people's health, food, housing and other needs. Syriza members were among those deeply involved in establishing and maintaining the solidarity networks and its MPs elected in 2012 contributed 20 per cent of their salaries to them. But since the Syriza government was elected this year it has done very little to change and use the state so as to sustain and broaden this remarkable movement."<br />
<br />
=Status=<br />
<br />
A very very preliminary first draft at this stage, but this document will improve every day.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Proposals=<br />
<br />
==Building up alternative democratic power and self-organization==<br />
<br />
* I propose that in order to get started with the "Plan C", we should focus initially on getting concrete projects underway. Each of these "[[Commons Projects]]" should have an initiator or group of initiators in Greece, and some specific objective of seeking to solve a particular problem or group of problems. For the purpose of discussing such projects (including in regard to figuring out what projects are needed and how to get them started), I have set up a [http://cp4g.net/ Commons Projects for Greece Network] with a [http://cp4g.net/mailman/listinfo/cp4g discussion mailing list]. -- [[User talk:Norbert Bollow|Norbert Bollow]].<br />
<br />
* create [[Commons Transition Circles]] for every town and region to be the advocates and agents of commons creation ; create a [[Coalition of Commons Transition Circles]] to share and coordinate activities; members of these circles support the creation of the initiatives listed below.<br />
<br />
* create [[Assemblies of the Commons]] for every town and region, and per social domain of activity to unite the citizens with commons concerns ; create a [[Coalition of the Assemblies of the Commons]] to share and coordinate activities<br />
<br />
* create [[Chambers of the Commons]], bound by social charters, for every town and region and for economic domains of activity; members are all entrepreneurial and productive entities responsible for the livelihood of the commoners ; create a [[Coalition of the Chambers of the Commons]] to share and coordinate activities<br />
<br />
* create [[Mutual Aid Networks]] in every town and region to assist citizens in their access to basic resources<br />
<br />
* create a [[Association for the Advancement of the Commons Transition]] to coordinate policy proposals to be carried out by civic or public service entities in support of the transition<br />
<br />
* create a 'facilitation skills' and 'self-management learning center' to support even non-commons organizations of all sorts to move to self-management inspired by the experiences described for example in the book, [[Reinventing Organizations]]<br />
<br />
==Monetary Reform==<br />
<br />
* create an independent national currency, citizen-based if need be<br />
<br />
* create a national B2B currency (Swiss bank) for use as B2B reserve currency<br />
<br />
* create a network of local and regional currencies<br />
<br />
* create a national public bank, citizen-based if needed<br />
<br />
* create a solidarity economy bank<br />
<br />
* create a 'self-management learning center' to support even non-commons organizations of all sorts moving towards self-management structures and processes, inspired by the spirit of [[Reinventing Organizations]]<br />
<br />
<br />
===Background Documents===<br />
<br />
* the very realistic proposals of Ellen Brown: [http://ellenbrown.com/2015/07/14/grexit-or-jubilee-how-greek-debt-could-be-annulled/ Grexit or Jubilee? How Greek Debt Can Be Annulled]<br />
<br />
* Mike Gismondi recommends: The Future of Money by mary mellor, Pluto Press 2015. Mary’s next book is Debt or Democracy: Public Money for Sustainability and Justice and will be published by Pluto Press in a few months time.<br />
<br />
==Productive Reform==<br />
<br />
* generalize a framework for independent renewable energy production<br />
<br />
* generalize a framework for direct food production and consumption<br />
<br />
* democratize access to affordable housing by systemizing the creation of Community Land Trusts and similar solutions<br />
<br />
* create local/regional incubators for the solidarity economy<br />
:reclaim abandoned/underutilized places in cities by establishing collaboration spaces, such as microfactories, to enable the production of small-scale social innovation outcomes and enhance citizen participation in decision-making processes<br />
<br />
* create a network of productive workshops for every locality/region and for every domain of economic activity<br />
<br />
* create a network of solidarity economy incubators in every town and region<br />
<br />
* create a network of support for the SME economy<br />
<br />
* create a network of provisioning councils at local, regional and national levels to insure a flow of basic resources to all citizens<br />
<br />
* create and support the creation of knowledge commons for every area of human activity<br />
<br />
* link thematic incubators for the solidarity and SME economy to each of these shared knowledge commons<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Background Documents===<br />
<br />
* [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/#4001 Transforming the productive base of the economy through the open design commons and distributed manufacturing]; by George Dafermos<br />
<br />
==Energy Infrastructure==<br />
* Create local P2P energy infrastructures, consisting of [[P2P microgrids]] and [[P2P energy grids]]<br />
* Develop open-hardware solutions for cost-effective, sustainable [[energy production infrastructures]]<br />
* Establish a commons oriented energy regime, conforming to P2P infrastructures<br />
<br />
===Background documents===<br />
<br />
* [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/transforming-the-energy-matrix/ Transforming the energy matrix: Transition policies for the development of the distributed energy model]. George Dafermos ''et al''.<br />
* [http://p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/1-s2.0-S0160791X15000251-main.pdf A peer-to-peer approach to energy production]. P2P Lab.<br />
* [[General Principles for Policy Making for Distributed Energy]]<br />
<br />
==Cases / Examples==<br />
<br />
* The [[Kythnos Island Community Microgrid Project]]<br />
* [[Hugh Piggott Small Wind Turbine]]<br />
<br />
==Knowledge Infrastructures==<br />
<br />
<br />
==Background Documents==<br />
<br />
* Commons Approach to EU knowledge policy, http://commonsnetwork.eu/a-commons-approach-to-european-knowledge-policy/<br />
* A short essay by Michel Bauwens & Vasilis Kostakis on [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/towards-a-new-reconfiguration-among-the-state-civil-society-and-the-market/ a new reconfiguration among the state, civil society and the market].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Public/State Infrastructure: The [[Partner State]] and the [[Commonification of Public Services]]==<br />
<br />
<br />
===Background Documents===<br />
<br />
* [http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-7-policies-for-the-commons/peer-reviewed-papers/towards-a-new-reconfiguration-among-the-state-civil-society-and-the-market/ Towards a new reconfiguration among the state, civil society and the market]. Michel Bauwens and Vasilis Kostakis.<br />
<br />
===Discussion===<br />
<br />
John Restakis:<br />
<br />
"The primary challenges to the transfer of state property to a commons structure owned and operated by local communities are the following:<br />
<br />
1. The legislative framework in Greece has no provisions for the kinds of legal structures that would facilitate the kind of commoning/co-operative structures required to support such a system;<br />
<br />
2. There is little to no understanding among most of the the populace or the local governmental institutions about the theory and practice of commons resource management;<br />
<br />
3. The transfer of state assets to local control would open the gate to further manipulation of the process by corrupt local officials, organizations, and private business interests. This could end up being catastrophic for the management and protection of these resources.<br />
<br />
Any such process requires the passage of appropriate legislation, intensive popular education and training on the meaning and management of commons ownership and management, and the reform of local governmental structures so as to minimize the opportunity for corruption and the seizure of state and public assets.<br />
<br />
All this takes time, programming, a committed public policy, and a team of people deployed to research, design, and implement such a transition."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Commons Transition]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Policy]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Greece]]</div>Alex Pazaitis