From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search


i'm into the edit of a shareful invitation in a external wiki. im all up for platforms which enables the user choice of advertiing exchange for my profit(icludig federted group's currency) , share(as in owners' view), shareful according to ppp, ...

My experience comes from the definition of fair exchange . i think there is a dangerous trend about discriminating the concept of exchange in favour of gift, donation, contribution, sharing, and so on, which are more ambiguos and somehow still reciprocal or agreed and/o privateproperty based. i dont deny there's free exchange but this is etc.

the commons are not owned by anyone is also a dangerous statement

i gift you my trash, buuuut dont drop it into my face.

in a related way, similar things happened to many fields that wanted to be aparently neutral(as in politics) or keyword trendy. ex: sociobiology, memetics cant be further explained without taking into conidertion the 'purpose' . see also; [1] . social dont mean solidary, for this same reason the relation within a distributed network, which this wiki tries to investigate needs some P2P_Companion_Concepts( which further define what a fair relation would be for then easier implementing those 'centralized' principles in aplications. the non fair relation is not a p2p relation so probably there's not need of adjectivizing it with fair cos p2p already means fair..

i also wanna bug into the distributed network vs tendent to distributed , but this is probably hard trolling. lol. recicle.

see you at some other page