In a MaidSafe state of mind

Posted on April 19, 2014 by David Irvine — 3 Comments

I have often been asked by people near me saying “how did you come up with all these parts and glue them together in your head” I then usually answer, “you need to think the maidsafe way”. First though we need to recognise that I came up with seeds of ideas that others helped me develop over time. This is a very tough thing to describe and I suppose it is a few different parts that all come together in a weird idea soup. To try (and probably fail) to sum this up I think it may involve:

FInd a vision and go all out towards that
Look for the parts considered impossible and consider them solvable (always)
Figure out the logic at the very heart of the issue
As the parts solve themselves try and use those core algorithms to integrate with the next problem
As these structures build into a system, be prepared to start again (many times)
Know the whole time until all the parts do compliment each other you will never know what it looks like

Now if this sounds difficult, it is. If it sounds easy, it’s not. There are other significant parts you will need to do:

Find people to pay you enough to live on (no more) to achieve this
Provide a reward mechanism for supporters
Find criticism whilst avoiding negativity

The last part is significant and extremely difficult. The investor part is less difficult, but will cause you to be interrupted in your thoughts continuously. You learn to work with these interruptions (I do it by working through the night and knowing I will not be able to think complex systems during the day). The people who disturb you in this way will all tell you that you need to sleep and take a break, its strange, but true.

Learning to shun negativity whilst seeking critique is the extremely difficult part though. The proportion of critiques to informed opinion is pretty imbalanced in some forums, particularly those that find themselves at the peak of voices wanting to be heard, such as many Internet sites. This is certainly an innovator’s dilemma and may be related to the commonly known version of that paradigm.

What is an Innovator or Inventor?

This is an unusual stance I think. It is a person who is looking sideways at things we all look at and consider impossible. It is also a person who wants to make something more efficient or simple, occasionally its just somebody who looks at something and sees something very different from the rest of us. An invention to me is a fix for something. Many people invent all the time and do not even consider it. I see inventors of the past and think that it’s great. I do think though an invention is a single thing, so perhaps the person who invents a new widget will only ever do that. This is where I see the difference between inventors and innovators. I think invention is the continued output of an innovator. A single invention may be stumbled upon by anyone, an innovator seeks the next problem immediately as that is what drives them.

I think this drive for finding better ways defines innovators and just like a Physicist or Engineer, they likely will not stop. The search for the next answer can be like a drug. It drives people to despair and ruin on occasion. Innovators look for hard problems, so monetising in Invention seems to easy an issue and unfortunately innovators are forced to protect an invention by stopping finding the next problem and doing a relatively boring (to them) job of monetisation. This should not be misunderstood, monetisation is one way to get an invention to the masses sometimes. I strongly feel this should not always be the way though, look at Jonas Salk and his polio cure, he just gave it away, polio got cured, how much was that worth to a monetisation expert? how much was it worth to society? Which is the most important?

An important excerpt from Wikipedia

But as he was sitting in a park and watching children play, he realized how important his work was. He saw that there were thousands of children and adults who would never walk again and whose bodies would be paralyzed. He realized his awesome responsibility, and so he continued his task with renewed vigor

What if in our work we could see the people we could help, would the drive for monetisation really be so important in all cases?

In any case, we know now I see innovators as those who constantly invent.

Incremental or step change

Every innovator will be doing something that he or she is told by the educated in that field is impossible. This is great and food for the drive required. This is even more pronounced though as the size of the invention is described. I find myself finding people intellectually lazy, by this I mean we as a species seem to want soundbites and fast summaries of complex ideas. The more complex the idea the harder this becomes, until the Invention cannot be summarised to a sentence. So incremental improvements are easier to fund and understand and we humans love it. A fatter coffee jar that does not slip out of your hand so easy, a wheelchair with ratchets to allow users to go uphill easier, a battery that lasts longer etc. These are all soundbitable (another invention :-)) and easily sold to investors. This is because investors can understand it, and if you add a market size, selling price and some hockey shaped growth curve to a spreadsheet they are as happy as Larry. This is especially true as they can show their expertise of coffee jars and batteries and pontificate market opportunities etc. These investors are not the ones you want to work with, honestly. There are some real forward looking smart investors out there, it’s hard to get to them in todays wash of ‘theres an app for that’ pitches, but they are there, persevere and find the smart guys if you want to stand half a chance.

So back to the step change proposition, the invention that is so large it has few words anyone could understand to describe it and maybe has revenue potential so huge nobody would believe it. Here I think of aeroplanes (if nobody else had been trying), telephones, television etc. In many of these cases though there was a furor and race to get to the line, it seemed many thought these were possible. What though if a huge changing invention were to come about, what would we all feel then? Imagine, what did we call a wheel before we seen one, or a telephone before it existed, it’s a tougher question than we realise as we are not good at thinking about these issues, they show our fallibility.

In today’s world of “explain it in two words or a short sentence” then the wheel would be hard, the telephone impossible to believe. I wonder if they would have actually succeeded?

Of course I am talking about innovators with no financial means to look after themselves here. For the wealthy these questions are less relevant. Edison and Tesla are great examples of both sides of this fence.

So a step change leads to an incredibly difficult place for an innovator. That innovator will find themselves asking why why why can nobody see this. I think again its my old friend nature. If we improve to quickly then we could be wiped out. If we back all the things we do not understand we may kill the planet around us. So I believe we are built with a defense against massive change and this defence is for the best. So a large innovation is gonna be a fight, that innovator will need tenacity and the ability to make it happen, even with very limited resources. Nature made some of us very tough and this is one reason. This is also a reason to not worry about revenue models of how to monetise, these innovators will be a different breed and will certainly know 1+1 = 2 and understand they want to have enough cash that nobody else suffers this pain. I think that is why so many set up foundations for education and research, its just to valuable to not let it happen. Added to that the revenue model may be one that does not exist or can be believed (charge people for talking into a bit of bakelite!), another problem.

Is it worth it

This is the whole point. The innovator cannot only see the advantage of an innovation, he or she can see the faces of the children who will die if this is not done! Oh yes it’s worth it and that motivation is more powerful than any soundbite or wondering how much cash you will get. So worry not about monetisation, worry more about not doing it, this is what drives true change in our society and what makes humans different. We need to not be to far removed from that premise and this is one place capitalism fails dramatically. We must find ways to let people dream and that means removing stress. This is one thing maidsafe will meet with project SAFE, give people back control, give them cash and remove the stress. Then when they dream (as opposed to worry) they may see a solution and the childs face I mentioned and that is where the magic will happen.

Tagged with: innovator, invention
Posted in complex systems, nature, Personal Opinion, strategy

Safecoin, why it’s safe and what it means for us all

Posted on April 12, 2014 by David Irvine — 37 Comments

Secure Access For Everyone coin

Is a coin that is generated and protected by the SAFE network and stays on the SAFE network (It of course can be copied as it is data, but off-network copies are of no value as a coin). Wallets will actually ask the network what their balance is and allow transactions to happen. The network can confirm and exchange coin ownership via a digitally signed authority from the coins last owner. This operation is ‘network atomic’ which basically means the network will make sure all copies update to show the transaction. This is a different approach to the ‘blockchain’ mechanism employed by bitcoin. The SAFE network allows many millions of transactions per second and the larger the network the more transactions per second can be executed.

Safecoin only holds the last and current owner. It does this to make sure the current owner has signed authority from the last owner to take ownership. This allows coins to be transferred between people very easily and without delay. Safecoins use a proof of resource to create coins and this is a system that is waste free, so the proof is that a node or application is providing immediate value to society.

Currency or resource payment?

The answer is both, it is a currency and payment! Safecoin will perform in society as cash, whether people call it currency, store of wealth or all the associated pigeonholing that is happening with bitcoin, it does not matter. Consider safecoin as cash, instantly transferable, secure and anonymous, except between the parties in the exchange. In this way safecoin is a transfer of wealth. It will be used inside project SAFE to pay for resources and enable many more features over time such as cpu sharing, bandwidth sharing and much more. Safecoin will be used external to this network as a currency.

Within project SAFE there is another hidden currency that will not be enabled initially and hopefully will never be. This is a proof of resource token. This token will prove a node has provided a resource and can be sold to another entity to use that resource. This is not now considered a need as long as there are enough incentives to offer resources for everyone. This is a fallback method if a ‘crisis of commons’ situation were to occur. I feel that is unlikely and I will give you one reason why.

I spoke to a Skype and Kazaa senior person recently. This person had been through these very interesting projects and noted something. Both Kazaa (like Bittorrent in vision) and Skype required people provided resources to the network. In terms of Kazaa, people has to continually give access to public files and in Skype’s case the super nodes has to be kept up and running. In both cases people did this and with no financial incentive. A worry for Skype as why would people do this and incredibly it completely dispels the ‘crisis of commons’ theory, people loved the networks and services like free calls, so they happily provided resources. I really like this as it’s working proof that the crisis of commons in many cases is an interesting theory that in practice may prove incorrect. I believe there are only very small amounts of people really greedy and a lesser amount that wish to do damage. You can see greed and vandalism, you cannot see the negative of these, perhaps we hypothesis too much about how bad people are, based on false measurements and the human yearning that our knowledge is best. We do create our own paradox sometimes. In any case bad behaviour will be detected and acted upon rather easily as time goes by.

This means the SAFE network will launch and allow everyone to become part of the system free of charge. The farmers will provide resources and the builders will provide the tools to manage our data. If there was a need to force payment then the proof of resource token could be easily introduced or an access cost of a safecoin may be introduced in several ways. This is unlikely though as rapid network adoption will be faster if its free and more nodes joining will provide more resources very quickly. If safecoin were required to join these would be recycled for farmers and builders to earn, in this case a wider adoption of the network would be better for everyone prior to that event.

safecoin launch fundamentals

finite amount of 2^32 (4.3 billion)
Each coin may be later subdivided into a further 2^32 parts if required
crowd sale of 10% of safecoin (429,496,729)
safecoin website explaining crowd sale
safecoin initial value set via this sale and in initial trading
funds raised will be used to create remote development teams (essentially MaidSafe competitors for core improvements), fund MaidSafe for 3 years and provide accommodation (office space etc.) via the MaidSafe Foundation
funds will also allow the network to be seeded via many very small nodes that will not farm much, but will provide valuable routing information. Initial farmers will benefit from a stronger network to begin with.

This may seem strange that as a company MaidSafe raise funds to create competitors, but it is incredibly important. Open Source does not mean shared knowledge as can be seen in many projects. The core protocols used in project SAFE should and must be developed by a great many teams who can all develop and understand the code base. In this way the proposition is stronger and the network should be more powerful. More eyes do make better systems, but complex projects need many minds working in unison and co-operating and debating continually.

Farming for coins

Imagine if we incentivise people to give resources and do so financially as well as ethically!

Every desktop PC user who downloads and runs a project SAFE application ‘should’ automatically be running a farmer. These farmers will offer unused resources to the network. The network will pay for this resource via safecoins. The user then has free applications, free access and receives a financial reward for doing so.

Many users will install farmers to simply help the system, others may install farmers to earn revenue. Both of these cases are good. Almost all users will install farmers automatically and may not even know they are providing services, until their wallet shows revenue. This is also terrific.

As the network improves efficiencies, then it is likely all devices will farm as well as use resources. This will become the ultimate mechanism in the future in terms of self sustaining the network. This is likely to be a few years in the future, possibly around a decade.

Building for coins

As I alluded to in a recent post this is perhaps one of the most exciting things about safecoin and project SAFE. As Application Developers (Builders) provide the resources to produce and consume data then they are also rewarded. The rate of reward is smaller than the farmers, but the fact it is there is amazing. There will be many millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of farmers, but there will be a lot less Builders. This is a simple matter of fact, however the network requires both, humanity requires both and therefore both are rewarded.

I intend to put up a public share with many open source programs for people to use and I hope this becomes very popular. Instead of me putting in my wallet address I will actually create a wallet for each software project. As these are used and rewards come in I will be contacting each project and let them know to create a wallet so I can transfer the funds to them and transfer the wallet I have set up for them. Of course they will want me to replace this wallet address with one they create. I will be delighted when that happens. Then we will reward all the efforts of these projects and increase the popularity of this project SAFE by doing the right thing. Imagine Apache, Boost, OpenSSL etc. all receiving cash to help their project, whether to pay for test machines or pay developers and contributors.

Cash is dangerous though, isn’t it?

Prior to the 80’s a huge proportion of the workforce had no bank accounts. So how did they operate? Well cash is how they got paid and how they paid bills. Then along came the finance industry, driven by a human greed to get something for nothing. It was good for the normal person who could use automation to pay bills, so it seemed great. We all then were paid in numbers and the cash was centralised. This centralised cash created enormous institutions who using fractional reserve mechanisms made the numbers bigger and lent them back to us. This was the start of the financial goliath we now have.

Then came regulators and regulations, to protect it all. As the industry created even more complex number manipulations (derivatives, futures, bonds, triple A securities etc.) the regulators played catch up. The system became parasitic and dangerous, with huge amounts of people earning a living manipulating numbers. Many numbers like the Libor rates were actually lies and people made fortunes from telling lies. This is indicative of a broken system.

This change in society is reminiscent of the server-based Internet, pre project SAFE. As we centralised our cash, the organisations were not only able to just manipulate numbers for wealth they actually started to manipulate society. With all the regulations and regulators and laws etc. these institutions have, lent money badly, funded terrorism, laundered money for drug cartels (all of this is public record and factual, it is not a story) on a scale unimaginable.

If we go back to cash and the pre intense greed era, then we did not have this corruption on such a massive scale. People earned their cash and lived on that cash. There was corruption, but local and limited. Sam from the corner could not crash the world economy and prevent innovation while funding terrorism on a global scale. We needed a whole new economy for that and that is the regulated financial industry.

So now imagine a new cash, simple, electronic and vastly distributed among us all. Cash with the ability to buy goods across the world instantly, or pay at the local shop with the same ease. Imagine this cash with zero transaction costs no matter what amount.

Corruption and crime

One of the most important elements about the Internet so far has been the chasing down and reporting of corruption. This is of course hampered by Internet spying etc. We know project SAFE will make sure everyone can be a whistleblower with complete safety now.

So safecoin is a digital asset on a network that ensures whistleblowing is completely safe and more importantly simple. This is a network of equals and these people can police themselves to a great extent. A person could report a crime be investigated without fear of being exposed. This is how natural systems work and how humanity must work. We can allow people worldwide to uncover corruption and harm to others on project SAFE.

So now we have very convenient digital cash and more than that, it is on a network that will find and expose corruption, stopping it dead in its tracks. This is how we regulate money and how money is used, not by creating complex financial instruments and playing a board game with humanity, but by fast, simple and effective rules on a system where all society is in control of themselves.

Is it only safecoin?

Safecoin is a cryptographically secured digital asset. This sounds like a small issue, but in fact it is far from a small thing. One thing bitcoin was able to do was to find ways around the Byzantine Generals problem. This same problem is solved in the SAFE network. Unlike bitcoin though this is not a ledger type single piece of information copied multiple times for safety. This is a fully decentralised approach. This has several advantages.

Many of the bitcoin technologies rely on adding to the blockchain and using it as proof of something or evidence of an event. These things in SAFE are non transferable digital assets. There can be billions of these systems at very little cost, certainly not bloat. This gets interesting now. We can have transferable assets and non transferable assets. So we can have auditable events locked in the network and transactions locked in the network with ‘network atomicity’. This means that with some clever work by app developers we can emulate almost every system imaginable, including contracts and laws etc. Add this to the capabilities of SAFE already and we can see what the future holds!

Creation of assets

Safecoin is farmed, this means farmers get safecoin for looking after data. In a similar way Builders get safecoin for supplying tools to manage and manipulate data (producer and consumer devices). A coin type structure is a special type of digital asset. These require a mechanism to allow creation of the asset, otherwise anyone could create coins and become rich (well they would not become rich they would simply destroy the eco-system). After creation then these coins are network types and can be handled with several very small and concise rules, all of which are cryptographically secured.

A safecoin is only able to be created under certain circumstances. It is a little complex and requires some knowledge of vaults basically though it happens like this:

A person Gets data from the network. This happens via the MaidManager group through the DataManager group and eventually to the PmidManager group. The storing node (that is giving the data) takes the address of the data, the message ID and the address of it’s close nodes (the PmidManagers). It then hashes all of these into a mining request. The mining request is sent to the network to store a coin. If there is space in the safecoin address space (2^32) then the storing nodes there (Transaction Managers) can check the hash is correct. They can check the address of the requestors close group and the messageid of the Get request (this is intact and comes from the MaidManagers of the requesting node). This means there is a lot of checking a request is valid and is still valid (if any nodes change the request is dropped as a failure).

mining request == Hash(messageid + Get Request message + coin owner (pmid Node) + pmid Managers + Data Managers of the requested chunk)

This happens every X Get attempts and this X is calculated by an algorithm that slows or speeds up mining requests based on network data stored and free space available. A hack attempt would be computationally infeasible and require an attack group possibly larger than the networks size (something like network_size*3 + 17%). So a safecoin mine attempt is a secure PUT of a transferable digital asset. These rules can be applied in similar systems, but is possibly only required here. A very similar approach allows Builders to receive rewards, but at a reduced rate of X.

Other assets merely need to be signed contracts and can be stored as such, either as digitally signed documents or in specialised systems similar to the types an Ethereum like script may create. The possibilities are very wide and varied.

Posted in bitcoin, MaidSafe, Personal Opinion, safecoin

Project SAFE – Is this the fair business model at last?

Posted on April 2, 2014 by David Irvine — 6 Comments

This post is a little more technical than many others. I apologise in advance, however the system described could prove very significant for us all.

Some people will know I am on the maidsafe developers mailing list a lot. There I try to help out, but occasionally ask questions and get great feedback on ideas, even crazy, mental half-baked nonsense, a speciality of mine. One recent spate of ideas and suggestions on the list have led me to ponder something and this thing could be as much a game changer as a fully decentralised and private Internet of the people for the people.

The free lunch

We all love the idea of a free lunch and many jump at the chance. We all know there is no such thing, even if it looks that way a lot. Natural systems always balance and overcome overindulgence for great reason, the constant search of equilibrium is one of natures key lessons.

This proposal has many features of a free lunch and further reading, I hope, shows the push towards equilibrium. If this is the case, then the chance of success is very high.

This proposal is that in terms of network resources, we give people free access at one end and incentivise others to provide resources at the other. This free access is a consumption and production mechanism. Consumption educates and production of data provides the education materials. This balance means consumers of the data and communications are better placed to improve our system (humanity) through education. A key notion. So the value production here is in many areas, providers of information, consumers of information and providers of resources to convey the information. As people can communication, learn and collaborate more efficiently, then trade improves. Goods and services can be exchanged via a mechanism of value transfer. The most common of those is money, we convert nearly everything into money, store value there and eventually trade that value for another good or service. This is a fairly efficient mechanism (when kept very simple) and allows seemingly unrelated goods and services to be exchanged for each other via the intermediary value store (money).

The value store mechanism, in this proposal is a cryptographically secure digital asset called a safecoin. These safecoins are actually created by use of the global data infrastructure that we think of as the Internet, but re-implemented as project SAFE. This is the MaidSafe codebase and inventions given to the world with many companies and people building service applications to allow this exchange of data and knowledge to happen.

Safecoins are created by providing network resources, this is important, these miners waste no resources, instead they provide immediately valuable and importantly validatable resources. The value of this is significant to the success of a global information network. These coins are earned by resource providers, called miners. These miners will actually allow the engine to run smoothly, the providers of information will fuel the system. As the miners exchange their safecoin for other goods and services the eco system starts to complete the circle. The system then extends from a global information mechanism to a global trading mechanism, still using the global information system to facilitate transactions and trade.

So we ask ourselves, is us getting access to input information to an information system really a free lunch, or is it an essential part of the system? This part is certainly as important as the miners who give resources. The lunch is not free, but the benefits are possibly immense. The beauty here is that we all feel good being involved, the feeling of a free lunch makes us feel good, the knowledge we regain control ensures we feel empowered. An empowered society, as we know from history can achieve amazing things.

Is it something for nothing?

This is the part of the puzzle that is most confusing. So I propose we give everyone full access to the system free of charge. I say free here in terms of they need not give or buy physical resources to get access. At the moment MaidSafe checks a user has provided a resource, or purchased a resource token from a user who has excess resources. I mean the network now should no longer demand a user provides resources, but can make full use of them, from the networks perspective. It is up to application developers if they wish to charge users for their applications etc. but that is another matter.

The issue though is maybe the answer to the question, where is the value? Is the value in providing resources or is the value in what the network holds? I believe the answer is is in the future thinking view. Resources in terms of disk space, bandwidth, CPU capability etc. are decreasing in cost exponentially. These resources will tend towards zero cost over time. The data on the network, on the other hand is the wealth of our species knowledge. So where is the value? I think the value is in gathering, protecting and preserving the vast sum of all human knowledge, both private and public. The value in protecting this is vital and requires a very powerful incentive scheme. Most importantly it requires the ownership of such a scheme is absolutely in the hands of us all and equally so. Any centralised elements would prove to be detrimental. This is one of the parts of this proposal that is addressed head on. In this system we all decide to take part, where, when and as much or as little as we wish with zero control exerted by anyone over us.

It is worth noting, this proposal address two issues in one system, that is increasing value of a currency and decreasing cost of resources. This is an area not addressed by many systems today with any clarity.

Private data maybe seen as useless to the wider society, but it is generally the raw material for public data. The public data is extremely valuable. We absolutely must protect this resource. Of course farming this resource, or perhaps encouraging this resource to be available is a critical issue. If we remove all barriers to adding public data, then the flood gates open.

Application developers will use access to this data for good, the more value from this data the more valuable the application will be. Look at WikiPedia as an example of great value public data, or perhaps wikileaks or pretty much any web site out there, from rubbish to incredibly useful info, even maps, travel guides, consumer marketplaces, digital libraries, open research publications etc. There is little doubt public data is incredibly valuable.

But, as humans we will all say, you cannot give this to people, they will abuse it! I think differently though, we can have the network recognise bad unused data, it can recognise bad patterns in data streams etc. If people are storing good data that we can use, or private data that will convert eventually, then this proposal will make more sense to many.

Pay contributors directly

Physical resources are required, but from whom and why? Every desktop pc user who uses the MaidSafe network also runs a vault. This vault connects the computer to the network. This computer then provides the resources the network requires. These are resources for everyone, including you! This is an area coined as the ‘crisis of commons’ and is subject to human greed. Initially people think , I will give nothing and take everything for myself, others can give resources from me. I win, I win!

Enter cryptocurrency, in particular safecoin! These vaults that install and run automatically are very small, use resources you are not using, but more importantly they start earning you safecoin. So you get paid for providing a resource that you were not using. That seem like a good idea, your computer starts paying you back! This is an unusual proposition. You are not supplying anything you were using, instead you supply what spare resources you had, but you are earning money!

How much do you earn?

Well this is another part of the circle. your machine will earn based on a double curve graph, most likely a sigmoid curve pattern. The lower curve is less steep and represents the mining speed, below the network average (resources) and the upper curve is steeper and represents mining speed above network average. The algorithm adjusts dynamically based on supply and demand of the network. You want as many people as possible storing data, you want these people to store data with no barriers. This earns you money!

You want people to store and store freely from all types of devices, even if they have no vault as this earns you more. So yes let people switch off vaults and not use them, these people will not earn, but increase your own earning rate. This seems to me like a very natural balance and very much like a natural system. Plants that do not grow higher get less sun, they are not as successful, ants the refuse to walk far for food, get less food and grow smaller and weaker. There is no ‘crisis of the commons’ in this story, only success of the strong and those strong are the providers. They will contribute and be rewarded, bringing balance and equilibrium to the system.

Pay developers on measured value

The seemingly eternal question of the business model particularly for Open Source developers in such a system. Is it build applications to support them? or perhaps provide consulting? None of these seem to have much to do with the core skill of the developer, that is coding. What about commercial applications, how much to charge, what revenue model, how many users etc. these are all questions start-ups and existing projects must evaluate. What if the answer to both of these questions was, provide something people value and you will be automatically rewarded!

Let the network measure the value

In the MaidSafe network computers who provide resource are awarded an opportunity to request a safecoin. This mechanism can be considered in this following simplified form. (N.B. messageid is a random number on the network, it is not settable to a known mine attempt by client apps)

if (messageid % current_rank == 0)

Mine_Attempt (sign coin with vault key over to client that owns that vault)

Ignore how the mine attempt and proof works for now. This is done on data Get requests, so popular data, but mining frequency is based on stored data (current_rank). Client applications access the network through the Nfs layer. This is where the PUT GET DELETE mechanism happens. Here application developers will add a field to GET and that is a wallet address (or ID) of the client application provider. So developers build an app and insert their wallet address in the client software they build. This address will be inserted in every GET request the client makes on the network. So from the above example we multiply by a factor of 10 (devs always get 10% of safecoin). so it becomes

if (messageid % (current_rank * 10) == 0)

Mine_Attempt (sign coin with vault key for client address contained in Get request, i.e. the developer).

else if (messageid % current_rank == 0)

Mine_Attempt (sign coin with vault key over to client that owns that vault)

Can this be gamed ?

There are several issues that will pop into many minds and it is a good idea to discuss each of these individually.

What if somebody copies an application and changes the wallet address?
What happens if a developer creates an application purely to issue Get requests?

The answers are not all that difficult to find. Some analysis could show that:

Copying of code is an attribute anyone can do. In some cases copy is protected in law and in other cases the protection is handled by market forces. A good application will be the one people adopt, not the one they copy and alter. Applications that attain first mover advantage or simply network effect will outlast any cheap copies that are less well thought out. Applications that do not perform well or fall behind, may in fact be forked and improved. This is a good thing for consumers to. Later we will see this is not a model where people download applications anyway, they are already installed, making copies potentially impossible.
This is a situation the network handles itself. Multiple Get request would mean data comes from cache, thereby no earning capability will come from this. If apps randomly choose addresses to retrieve, the application will be sluggish for a start, also the network will not allow range based searches. Such activity can easily trigger a ‘no-mine‘ signal to the managers of the wallet in question. Thereby preventing any coin being created and a sluggish user experience. These applications would likely not be widely sought after.

Is this then, an automatic revenue model?

Yes, one of the shortest paragraphs I have written.

Additional advantages for application developers

As MaidSafe shares data at the file system level, applications can be shared just as easily as a web page. This means that an application is pre-installed as users wish to use them. No installers are required any more. In addition as the applications would exist on a public share, then no virus attacks on the binary is possible. This reduces developers route to market and ensures a clean and tested user experience. Many applications disappoint with poor installers or installation mechanisms. In a decentralised Internet, these issues just are not there.

Additional advantages for the system

The advantages for the MaidSafe system internally are huge. The conversion of a proof of resource token per account to a network wide proof of resource means the maintenance costs are dramatically minimised. As clients or people access the system there is no need to check what they are allowed to store in relation to what they have provided. This allows the client access managers on the network to become truly stateless. This lack of state means these nodes can handle churn at routing speed, this is very fast and in many cases sub second.

The advantages are quiet extraordinary in terms of network performance and security. Client connections can now be full routing connections. The extra personas in the vaults will still remain as full routing nodes, but the clients can take part in routing now. This will at least double the network size, making attack that much more difficult. As these managers are then numerous on the network, the concentration of clients around a close group of vaults is minimised. These manager groups can now spend time on data analysis to spot rogue connections or misbehaving clients applications. This is a significant issue.

A problem we need to solve in any case

Archive of old data, potentially removal of stale data (debatable) is an issue the network will have to tackle as time goes by. The network wide proof of resource means no or vastly reduced delete of data. This will mean data does accumulate and in some cases may be private or junk data, although we must keep in mind the real time de-duplication of even junk data (temporary data). There is no use the network spending resources looking after this data in the same manner as current valuable data. So we can look at archive personas. These are simpler than we imagine. It works like this.

Archive locations are inserted into the network, initially these will be the leading 6 bits of the 512 bit address. These archive chunks will be akin to sparse files and may contain no data to begin with.

As data is deemed redundant, i.e. not accessed over a calculated set of events (MaidSafe does not use time across the network, this is vital) then it is transferred to an archive store. These archive stores will be held in high ranked large disk space machines just as normal immutable data is. The process is as follows:

data chunk ab764sdkl…(512) is marked for archive.
All data managers synchronise this judgement.
The data chunk move request is transferred to the data managers for ab764s0000…(512)
The PmidManagers (vault managers for storing vaults) then are issued with a transfer request to archive
The PmidManagers then request the PmidNode sends the chunks to the archive address.
The PmidManagers are then instructed by the data managers for the archive to delete the record of the chunk.
The store node itself will have deleted the chunk on transfer to the archive data managers.

This process can replace the management on millions of chunks to a single chunk management cost. This mechanism is fairly straightforward and requires a double targeted attack at least. This size of attack is larger than the network population.

If data is requested from the network and not found then an archive retrieval request is carried out. The data is served and this process is reversed, putting the chunk back in the general network data store once more. This process increases network efficiency and allows older data to be maintained for an extended period.

Fall back position

What if all of this did not work? Well this is unlikely, if the currency failed, then the safecoin simply becomes an internal market value token for network wide proof of resource. This will mean miners are paid in another currency for their resources. This will mean an internal market system similar to a bidding system be employed.

If resources could not keep up with demand then clients can be restricted in data storage and be forced to buy resources in a similar way as above. A simple mechanism is a safecoin == 2* network average., otherwise people can only store up to network average. The management of this type of system is in pretty much in place today. This would be winding back some code to today’s code base for client managers.

Tagged with: applications, business partners
Posted in complex systems, MaidSafe, strategy

Security and ethics

Posted on March 21, 2014 by David Irvine — 1 Comment

Ethics and exploitation

In the security world there is a seemingly unique requirement according to Cory Doctrow in this video (which is a great watch BTW). I agree the security industry requires full disclosure of algorithms and methods to run effectively, but I do not believe this is unique. We all hear companies professing their ethics, it’s a badge of honour flung on every Wall Street bakers lapel and shared with every business marketing exec. Of course much of this is smoke and mirrors as exploitation is the heart of many businesses. We exploit customers and innovation. The common phrase on finding an innovation is ‘how do we exploit this’!

Ethics, I propose, like security cannot happen without openness and importantly the ability to adjust, just as security researchers do, why else make algorithms public? If a company finds itself using products manufactured by slave labour, it should immediately state this and how it was going to fix it. In many cases this does not mean shut the sweat shop as it could cripple very poor villages, instead the situation should be resolved properly and without further damage to the poor people caught up in this mess. Many PR experts will disagree as brand tarnish may happen, well guess what? we are part of a species and not a brand, it’s our number one priority to advance humanity, not to have shiny wee pictures of fruit on our computer lid.

Open ethics, or none

The conjecture here is that and ethical approach to business means an open approach. To be open requires great strength for many companies. The reason for this strength is the companies inability to act fairly, they may have sales people trained to ‘leave nothing on the table’ as many UK sales people will chant. An ethical company will have tiny problems being open. In MaidSafe we have tried many ways to achieve this so our code is open, our development is open etc. but that’s not even close to being open and ethical.

When I do talks or presentations, I handle them in a scary way for professionals in this field. I use no notes, don’t practise and never ever use slides. I have no idea what I will say and many times change track part way through a talk. This is possible because I think I have a few rules, never lie and never associate with liars, never exploit others but help them and never associate with overly negative or greedy people, where possible. This gives me great strength as I do not need to remember ‘the company line’ all I do is talk openly and freely about anything and it will be OK. Mistakes are something I need to learn from and I am in no way scared of these, that is very important to.

We tried to even record staff meetings and put them on line. After a couple we stopped, not because we are not open. We stopped because folk felt like they were on the Truman show. I fought this hard, but failed to convince staff it was worth the feelings of discomfort. I lose many such debates, but that’s important in itself. Now we host Google Hangout sessions and take questions from the public and answer them, there and then. We debate and argue in public, wow!. Surely that is dangerous? No the opposite, humans deal with humans and not scripts. So this actually allow people to see our strength through our flaws. As for ‘toe the company line’ then everyone does as there is no company line. We all share a vision and that is to provide privacy security and freedom to all the worlds people. This is as close to a company line as anyone needs. I think nearly everyone in the company knows my passwords and can read my emails, as I leave machines logged in at work so people can get at my mail. It is important to try and get to this stage, even for privacy advocates like me. Dichotomy? not at all, openness and privacy are bedfellows.

I firmly believe this model of speaking with business partners, mixed in with the public is very powerful. This means our algorithms are peer reviewed and market tested and adjusted in real time. It is way better than company oversights, board meetings etc. this is us and its open.

Unless these types of actions are taken then it would be as hard to say we are ethical as it would be difficult to create a new encryption algorithm in secret. Both options would fail and the encryption argument has been won many years ago.

I believe it is now time to progress the ethics argument.

Sell value or shut

Any transaction that leads to sustainable business should be an exchange of value. If people exchange their cash (value) for your product or service then they expect the same or better value (for them) in return. Today many companies think this is achieved by telling the people they get value and tell them over and over in an attempt at neuro-linguistic programming. This is not a transfer of value. Many of these companies will profess and ethical approach, many even may give donations to charity and attempt to purchase their ethical stance. That should not work but it does seem to, but does it really (remember sustainability)?

There is something happening in society, we moved towards self interest and a ‘grab all the cash’ approach in the 80’s. Such behaviour was encouraged as the free (to exploit everything) market was touted as the way to all the riches of the world for all the people on the planet. That approach has led to the near collapse of our society. I think like many others the current approach needs dramatic change. Is this reflected in business practices though? Apparently not as we still hear daily of unbelievable corruption, or system failure.

This is where ethical companies can jump in and see huge profitability. Yes ethical to me means profitable. It seems people hear ethical and think philanthropic or similar. Ethical is an approach to transferring value more effectively than marketing heavy persuasion of unethical or closed business models. Consumer facing companies in particular benefit a lot here, as they try to sell value to the public they can benefit from including as many of the public in their thoughts and product designs. These companies would also benefit from the legions of supporters who will feel included.

Closed companies should be considered unethical just as a closed security algorithm should be considered flawed. Not until these companies can prove their ethics should they be considered ethical. Failure to do this should probably have the same effect as an unproven security algorithm.

Profit for the long-term

I have previously written that immense amounts of cash in people’s banks is not a good thing as society runs on cash like an engine runes on oil. Removing any of these two causes problems. Why then do I advocate profitability, is this not grabbing cash? Well no! This is proving value and that in itself is all we need to be doing as a profit driven business. The investors in such business will reap great returns and they should. To keep investing again and again, is a great thing. These investors should include actual investors, staff, business partners and society.

In MaidSafe we are partnering with many companies who are like-minded. This in itself makes the proposition stronger. With the increase in value transfer between these companies we can provide a greater value transfer to people. As the machine kicks in then this value transfer leads to profit. To increase the profit, the model scales upwards. This does not mean MaidSafe becomes Goliath, it means it grows the eco-system around it. This profit is invested, not in MaidSafe alone, but in the eco-system. Each member of the eco-system is as important as the other. I think of this like grass growing, the single tall stem will be blown over as there is no protection, but if it shares food and light with those around it then it can grow tall with others around it for protection. This blade of grass (or company) is then a catalyst for a field of success. This strength allows more profit as the thing picks up.

Many companies would love this and maybe even profess to be doing it, but the difference is important. Like the consumer approach, each business needs to be openly ethical with each other business. People will go bad and greed can set in, in an open society this greed will be detected and removed quickly. This keeps strength in the system. So growing a large successful eco system and profiting will also need the same openness and provable ethics. The members of this system though will be both profitable and these profits will come from actually providing value.

A good nights sleep can be obtained with success that comes from smiling faces!

You cannot buy back ethics. No point in becoming amazingly rich at the pure expense of others and giving to charity then. It may be best to share as you grow. It may prove easier, stronger and more fulfilling, we will see.

Tagged with: business partners, company line
Posted in MaidSafe, strategy

Give a person the ability and they will change the world

Posted on March 11, 2014 by David Irvine — 3 Comments

Capitalism. Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Labour and all the rest of the prescribed rule-sets for humanity fail. Over and over again they fail and all we do is ping-pong between them. Some weeks the yellow shirts win and gloat then the blue shirts take back the crown. In each case all that happens is people get control, power and ultimately self-interest corrupts each system beyond recognition.

We all know this happens, we watch it and some of us partake in the game of X and O’s that we all know has no winner. What is it we are trying to do here in all these systems?

The answer is a fair society, a society where work is rewarded and value to society is recognised appropriately.

The answer to these issues may be right in front of our noses and about to jump onto the scene. This answer is:

Proof of Resource

This key reason allows people to build or do something of value. Have the value recognised mathematically and rewarded. This is a simple proposition that requires an advanced way of thinking to carry out. So what does it all mean?

Examples are always good, so lets take health. If there was a health ‘system’ that could recognise the purpose was to prolong healthy and productive life then we can make proof of resource. All that is required is a person does something, say take a person to hospital, offer primary care, prepare a meal and bed or whatever. All these things go to make up the resource of a health service.

So ultimately the service has to run at an ideal ‘cost’ and this is where proof of resource changes this world. The system values all actions by all actors in the scene based on the outcomes. So actions that lead to a positive and measurable treatment are rewarded (all actions, meaning even the smallest positive influence). The reward is based on a fraction of the total that everyone provides. So what does everyone provide? Well we identified a small list of players and they all offer something, time, ability and maybe even raw materials (food, drugs etc.). All of this ‘time’ is the system total. If the person who needed treatment then ‘got some’ and ‘paid’ for the treatment with some ‘proof of resource’ the system could balance based on the total of everyone’s effort and actions. This seems slightly recognisable and it should be, it is what all the isms above try to achieve but fail. They fail because they alter politically the ‘proof of resource’ for political and self interest, but if maths controlled this system then greed and self interest vanishes, interesting!

Utopia is a dream

Yes it is and this is not a utopian model. Until recently there was not a maths based system that was so prevalent and available as the current reach of the Internet is. As we see the power of a connected system unveiling itself in recent years, then we see corruption already being noted and in some cases even stopped. What we have not done though is to allow the system to be planned for society. This is what we must do. Let the system measure, balance and reward effort. We have the raw materials in front of us today!

Small efforts cannot be measured

This is true, a system that catalogues and tries to measure every little action will fail. We are not clever enough to do this and again self-interest programming this will be harmful. The answer is remarkably simple, measure outcomes and not actions. So instead of measuring each action for each patient, measure the outcomes of all the health system in this example. That’s easy, we measure life expectancy and work towards that. This gives us the system totals.

Now as we calculate all the smaller actions they must only add up to this total. This is the beauty of ‘proof of resource’ you cannot go past this total, no billionaire money jugglers here, no point lobbying congress, they do not do maths and cannot influence the laws of physics. Those days are numbered and rightly so.

As we recognise the system value, all we have to do is recognise all the parts that make it up and let the system reward each part. Importantly the system should evolve to recognise every small part, so we sub divide ‘proof of resource’ to all the smaller parts. So for instance the ambulance part is a measurable resource it becomes a smaller system in itself with easily measured outcomes. Never mind the value in terms of dollars or pounds, that’s silly. All we need do is recognise the value as a total and sub divide this. If we do this with every system then it’s value will be subdivided into constituent parts with an overall total.

In the next post I will outline a system that does this in great detail. It’s not simple, but it should be truly ground-breaking. It is time to show the world that fair is the new success story and once and for all stop this success by cash total nonsense. A billionaire only represents a system imbalance, we should not see that as a success, but a failure to balance. This is what proof of resource should achieve. No isms any more just total value divided into constituent parts and awarded to actors in the system. People will call it an ism, but that will be short-sighted and easily proved incorrect. The world is about to change and it will be irreversible and fair. Money will become a mechanism to feed society and all its needs efficiently. It’s not easy, but it is completely logical. More importantly its calculable and repeatable as well as able to improve based on inference based maths.

Posted in complex systems, nature

Machines that own themselves in bitcoin part II

Posted on March 2, 2014 by David Irvine — 3 Comments

In the first part of this series I suggested that machines can own themselves. This seems reasonable and there are many good examples to show this, for instance, the self driving car that is a taxi. These are an incremental improvement on what we have today, there is more.

No pictures this time, I am on the road and Shona (our graphics whiz) is back at the office, I am sure she would say this post suffers greatly from lack of graphics and she is right.

Add autonomous networks to our picture

As I have said before though, bitcoin is a part of this system, there is much more required. One extremely important thing needed will be an autonomous data network. This is where MaidSafe fits into the picture. If these machines or systems could communicate, we will see real improvements. So, imagine again that self driving taxi. As one drives past a person looking for a taxi, it would automatically call any taxi in the proximity to pick up.

This is OK, but even we humans can do better than that. So now we add the ability to store, share and analyse data between all the taxis. Now what?

Now the cabs can take bookings, analyse traffic in real-time, work together to find the best repair deals and much more. Interestingly these taxis would not be killing anyone, breaking laws or telling lies about when they will arrive. They would also run at maximum financial efficiency, only charging what they required to say on the road. That seems like an improvement and one that actually costs less, saves fuel, helps the environment and provides a better service to us all. This is only the beginning.

A proof of concept of this could be done now. We have bitcoin, MaidSafe is ready and Google have the cars and the capital. There is no reason these improvements need to be decades away.

The dark side

Before I move on though, there could be a dark side. If these taxi’s could now recognise people, get to know where you live, work and play. The service may improve. They could be waiting near where you will want one etc. as they analyse patterns and behaviours. If the police and governments could use that data, its big trouble. This is where we are heading, but it is also why I keep harping on about autonomous machines and systems. If the limits of the system were defined correctly, spying will not happen, as it would break the maths. Of course there could be very good reason to allow some of these things to happen. If the laws could be into a system where they could be automatically carried out by machines, perhaps it would not be such a bad thing.

Imagine a thief spotted by the system, is captured and the crime stopped there and then, I am sure we all agree that seems like a good thing. Where are the limits though? This part will be a long way off, I hope.

Of course being able to code laws into a system would require the laws were logical, complete and that is another blog post, a worldwide legal system.

Reality check

I see machines and services on the MaidSafe network calculating in real-time, the input’s and outputs of the systems language would be in a form that machines could quickly interpret. This data would be using many mathematical techniques, especially Bayesian Inference type tools, to enhance existing knowledge. As this will be real-time, then human understanding of this data will be minimal. It will also be a very limited view of the data that we humans could get. Decisions will be happening at very high speeds. At any time all we would see is a thought developing. I have no fear of misuse of advanced systems like this by humans. I think you need to bend logic to be evil and that act makes the system weak and easily defeated. It’s a reason I like computing and the sea (nature) etc. there are no lies in these things and that’s what makes them endure.

Now what can we do?

Medical advances

OK taxis are a good easy example, but this new system will bring things we could not imagine today. Take CT scans or X-rays, today we get them for specific issues when we feel some symptom. A doctor will get us processed to check our shoulder or whatever part ails us. A clinician will do the scan and a specialist (if we are lucky) will analyse the part of the scan that reflects the part in question. Why not scan out whole body?

The answer is humans are checking the scan and can only deal with small amounts of information. This is all only when we have suffered enough to begin this process.

If the medical machines such as scanners were all part of an autonomous system that could infer information as it went along then amazing things would happen. No longer would we have to wait until we we’re ill and have that part looked at. The whole body scan would be analysed by machines that will not miss anything. In addition the scans of every other person would be factored into the diagnosis. Where there were similar differences in organ sizes, skin impurities etc. then these factors would be included. This means you are treated by the best doctor in the world. the next person will take that title from you though.

Such systems would mean that we would be treated for ailments we never even knew we had or were about to get. Now it’s not difficult to take this several steps further and add in gene processing to the equation. Then the machines would be able to not only detect ailments, but be able to apply the exact medicine in the exact dose for our unique body.

So this is not machines competing with doctors, no there is no competition in this case.

The end of corruption

As machines award and search for suppliers and consumers to match requirements the days of bribery are over. A logical system would not understand what a bribe is never mind accept one. It makes no sense, invites errors into the system and would simply be rejected. The only way to win work will be to give a value that is now required, that is it.

The tax avoidance and evasion techniques employed by many large corporations and wealthy individuals, would simply not compute. These loopholes would just not exist.

Remove imbalances in world wealth

In a system managed by such machines, the supply should meet exactly the demand. This will mean that there will be a little borrowing to begin with, but as the system calculated all the parameters and adjusted its prediction models then supply would in fact equal demand. In such a system there would be zero trade deficit or debt. If the system had a baseline that ensured everyone had food, water, heat (or cool) and a comfortable dwelling then all additional perks may or may not exist during fluctuations in trade due to weather or unforeseen conditions in the marketplace. This would be most obviously implemented as a global tax the system made to ensure these basic needs. Over time these basics should include education and training to offer value to society.

Learn how to dream again

One place humans beat machines every time, is the ability to dream. These dreams make us unique and compel us to innovate, explore and reach beyond our capabilities. A trait apparently unique to us, or at least way more abundant in us than any other species we know of.

So many of us today, work very hard paying of debts we never created, for faceless people. Even those of us lucky enough to have no personal debt are having to pay government debt. Today we are a society so unhinged and confused that we dare not dream of better things. In some parts of the world over 50% of wealth is in financial services, 30% of all cash is hidden offshore and we are all trying to make what’s left for us stretch to allow us to live a little. If we remove the imbalances and work within a system that’s logical and to a set of rules we can easily see and agree on then these issues go away, immediately.

Then we will have people who can sit on hill in the sunshine and wonder WHAT IF?

Then we start moving forward again and reverse the decline created by imperfect and corrupt systems that we have in place today.

So just imagine a clear head, no worries whatsoever and just looking at a star or a bird or whatever and just think WHAT IF?

That is our logical destination and it will happen.

Tagged with: Bitcoin, google, MaidSafe, nature
Posted in bitcoin, MaidSafe

Machines that own themselves in bitcoin

Posted on February 19, 2014 by David Irvine — 6 Comments

What?

Yes I really mean machines that own themselves. This is the first of a three-part series that will take the reader through my vision of the future. I see this future as within this decade, i.e. the next six years.

How?

Imagine an AI machine is built, say a robotic waiter. Not too difficult, we almost have this already, but let’s add a tiny difference.

This robot waiter will serve food and drinks to people in a restaurant all day every day. It requires certain things such as:

Power
Repairs

The robot charges customers for each item they buy. The customer simply pays in bitcoin to the robots internal wallet. The robot can plug itself into a wall socket and recharge, of course paying the wall socket’s wallet in bitcoin. The robot can be paid by the establishment owner by the hour, or the robot could be paid a % of all orders. This is something that people will resolve as time goes by and choose different systems initially.

As the robot breaks or servo’s wear out (if using servo’s of course, another story) it will require repairs. This is a simple mechanism. The robot takes himself to the repair shop and of course pays the mechanic in bitcoin. Of course many security features will be built in such as a tamper proof wallet to prevent theft of the system.

As the robot requires no tips and will not steal, this scenario looks pretty workable, but let’s take it further.

Who built the robot?

This is easy, anybody or any company. This is a market driven environment and will be open to all comers. The competition to release these will be ferocious, eventually. The early mover position here will initially be costly, but the rewards could be significant.

These people can benefit in many ways, the robot could immediately pay a % of its takings to the builder, maybe even up to a certain level. After the builder is paid back, the robot can reduce its costs to the restaurant. The builder could sell the robot, the options of varying business models are truly staggering. In any case the opportunities for success are patently obvious though. Without bitcoin or similar these options are incredibly limited, if not impossible.

Who owns the robot?

This is potentially the beautiful part. After a payback period, the robot owns himself. It can go from restaurant to restaurant to find the best paying restaurant. It can tell the restaurant owner how much it has to charge to allow it to perform its duty. It can also be outperformed by a newer model that is faster, cheaper or in other ways more suitable.

What happens at the robot’s end of life?

At the end of life the robot will check itself into a builder. The builder will charge the robot for whatever bitcoin it has left and of course parts. The robot may be re-purposed to perform other tasks, upgraded to a later model etc.

Other obvious examples

Autonomous car, e.g. A car that picks people up, gets repaired and pays for its own power.
Service station attendant, pretty similar to above idea.
Aeroplane
Train

The list is pretty obvious and huge. This purely the tip of the iceberg though. For readers who have read my other blog post then part 2 may not be so much of a surprise. It may be though as the implications are pretty amazing and obvious.

Posted in bitcoin

Bitcoin blockchain is not a thing, it’s a design pattern

Posted on February 15, 2014 by David Irvine — Leave a comment

Imagine somebody in the decentralised Internet space for over 10 years seemingly attacking the first decentralised information system?

This is not an attack on bitcoin!

Bitcoin as a decentralised system of value transfer is indisputable. It has proven that to be the case and it’s growth is now exponential. Many features are being created, many people now invest in a multitude of ways, it is a wave of innovation that will lead the way for us all.

Is it guaranteed to work? Well no, but it has led the way towards the information based world being managed by agreed algorithms and this is hugely important.

A decentralised system is a phenomenal solution to many issues today. There are many things we need to get decentralised fast and money is an obvious first choice. I have been to bitcoin meetups and conferences etc. it is amazing to see the grungy enthusiasm and I am certainly including myself there.

I firmly believe bitcoin will be around for many years, as I said before though it may be the broom with many new heads and several new handles. It will have to be, that’s evolution.

This is an attack on centralised structures

So we all know of centralised structures being an impediment to innovation and furthering of humankind. We have seen banks now fail dramatically. We have seen the financial system fail dramatically. We have seen government manipulation of finance fail dramatically. We have seen many ways that a centralised solution to a mathematical problem creates failure and it must. The handling of wealth is a purely a maths problem and must be handled by maths. The handling of information of all kinds falls into this category.

So we all know that! It goes further though. Mt Gox is a centralised structure in bitcoin and it will fail in its current form, I believe all closed source, human manipulated systems in bitcoin will, and should fail!

What about the blockchain then?

I hear blockchain being touted continually as a solution to everything and it’s frustrating. Bitcoin is not a great solution because of the blockchain. Bitcoin is a great solution because it can cryptographically confirm transactions in a manner that is not reversible. The blockchain is a mechanism to agree the lock, that’s it.

Many projects say, we will build X on the blockchain so it’s guaranteed to work right? No!

Instead I would like projects to state how they will make use of decentralised mechanisms, fixed in space and time via an agreed and open algorithm that serves a specific purpose. This is key to building on bitcoin, not adding code and figures to a centralised (even if it is distributed) data structure. The blockchain is currently a distributed centralised data structure and this is important.

What I mean is that the blockchain is not decentralised in itself and it must. Decentralisation that is partial in my mind is only distributed. The further we can decentralise then the more robust our systems will become.

It’s the human psyche to just build on the first bit of a system like this. The systems just now like MasterCoin, Ethereum etc are great, do not get me wrong. We need to keep innovating for sure. We must, though, extend what bitcoin has started and that means we must continue to decentralise information systems at their core as well as extending them where it’s seemingly obvious, as in the earlier examples. It’s the reliance on ‘the only blockchain’ that concerns me. These projects can exist without doing that, if we get it right.

The key to decentralised systems is decentralisation

In nature we see many decentralised systems, ants, plants, wolves etc. Nature has a ton of decentralised systems and it works. We need to pay attention to this. An ant does not grow a paw and become a wolf, a sunflower does not grow its roots in a wolf. These systems are decentralised and at their heart they have their own ‘blockchain’. They co-exist in an eco system that allows them all to survive with connections at the edge!

I think nature shows a system of decentralised species that are all co-dependent, but not by sharing parts of their core system with each other. They do share design patterns and are all co-existing in a system with varying degrees of co-dependency. The co-dependency is very loose in general and these co-dependent relationships can be replaced by other relationships as the system evolves. for instance Native Americans may have depended on Bison to survive and now depend on other species, the co-dependency is not fixed, the failure of one species does not necessarily end another. So in this case co-dependency is a fleeting notion in a huge system of co-existence locked in time.

What I mean by this is that many species will feed other species in many ways, food, altering environment, protection in numbers etc. The world we live in is a huge system of interconnected decentralised systems. They are interconnected though and not built on each other. If wolves become extinct, ants will probably survive, close symbiotic relationship related species may die out, but in essence the whole system keeps going and importantly improving.

If all of our decentralised systems shared ‘the blockchain’ then we design against the systems nature shows us to work.

Is the blockchain bad then?

No the blockchain as a design pattern is evolving for now, it is incomplete as a pattern. It is one mechanism to decentralise information. In the case of bitcoin this is decentralising the agreement of where coins or wealth is currently located. It’s structure may change and it should, that’s evolution.

The blockchain as a single centralised data structure is OK for now, it works and will continue to work for a while, perhaps a very long while. It will not last though and I feel it must decentralise at least. That’s perhaps not so difficult, but I would add a merkle tree approach is not the answer, it’s just an easier to manage centralised data structure (it has a root). The answer is very complex (still not difficult) though. It requires taking the core bitcoin thinking and growing that. At maidsafe this is all we do and we have done that for years now. We know it’s a very tough transition in thinking and requires a completely different view of data structures, I believe Satoshi also went through some of the same debates and issues we have had to overcome. I also hope he would agree with this piece.

What about projects built on the blockchain?

I believe these are a good thing! Now that seems to fly in the face of what I have laid out so far, is this not the ant growing a paw? Well yes this is in many ways bad. To have many projects depend on a centralised data structure is bad. The core protocol could take down the eco system so it is bad in that sense.

The intent is great though. I believe these projects do not need to be locking themselves into ‘the blockchain’ they simply need a mechanism of an agreed mathematical lock. Bitcoin agrees this for them and they can flourish. They do and will continue to flourish if their offering is of value. That’s evolution again.

If the blockchain could be distributed and become a design pattern then we will all win. If any project fails (including bitcoin) then it should have a positive net affect (evolution again). This is what I believe must happen and this will need a larger set of algorithms and data protection to be made available to the world. If we are to manage information effectively and in a way that allows failure to exist in a non threatening manner then the future of decentralised systems will be unstoppable.

Tagged with: blockchain, decentralised systems
Posted in bitcoin, complex systems, MaidSafe, nature

A compelling business strategy for a fair world

Posted on February 10, 2014 by David Irvine — 1 Comment

This is going to be a bit of a long post. There are many ideas and responses to recent comments that I would like to clear up as well as some suggestions that would be good to get comments on.

Is the world changing?

Well it would seem so, the collapse of the financial system that now seems to depend on rapid changes to the value of currencies around the planet. The overthrowing of governments. The exposing and subsequent disgust at the financial sector bonuses, government corruption of both politicians and lobbyist groups. The collapse of housing markets. The wars that seem to just never go away and even less so, seem justified. The growing gap between dying people and others who languish in wealth beyond counting. Yes the world is changing and no wonder!

An option for the future

MaidSafe has been a journey of a lifetime. I say that as I believe you could not do it twice. The focus, attention and complete tenacity of all of us involved has been pretty tough to say the least. It’s not about working hard, many do that, it’s not about sacrifice, many die for a country or cause and none of us died. It’s the sheer effort of introducing something that’s hard to understand and harder to implement. That is a task that I for one underestimated. Anyway would I do it again? definitely!

The technology MaidSafe has created is extraordinary in many ways. No less than the fully distributed nature of the network, which I believe is a worlds first, only if you ignore almost every single species that has existed over the years. In terms of technology and invention of humankind then I think it is right at the edge of the level of change we can accept. I think many reading this blog will know enough about MaidSafe to have an understanding of the overview. The detail is absolutely fascinating though and I wish everyone could see it. I think it represents something truly revolutionary and of such benefit to us all that it’s just a privilege to have seen it, never mind be a small part of its creation.

So we can establish the MaidSafe technology is at the very least, innovative, novel and commercially applicable. If that sounds like patent talk, it is and I will come back to that later.

Strong technology fails without a strong business model

The best technology in the world will fail or delay for many decades without a cohesive and thought out business model. Even fully Open Source projects will agree, the need to engage the world as it is, must be done with careful thought. In many ways the business model has to be innovative and novel to introduce a new paradigm successfully. Here in the UK and maybe further afield there has been a shift in the economic climate towards financial sector modelling. This has lead to businesses being run by ‘professionals’ not versed in the very art that created the business. This piece assumes no such nonsense and instead realises innovators who invent complex advances are probably able to count and when absolutely necessary read a spreadsheet.

So a strong business model is required. I would go further and say an innovative business model is required. This should be something an innovator does, it will require deep thought, investigation, measuring and an execution plan. This will have to take into account existing models in order to make the changes necessary in society for a step change.

Patents are not the root of all evil

OK lets get controversial! Patents were set up to allow inventors to be able to profit from inventions, not to be used as a weapon of mass destruction and killing innovation as they do today. There are many opinions on patents and their value. In software particularly they are a double edged sword. In any case if you are innovating and get attacked by a patent troll then you may be finished.

So instead of bringing a knife to a gunfight, get ‘tooled up’ and get yourself protected. MaidSafe has a pretty large patent portfolio which cost a fortune. Many people attack when they hear this, oh no you are bad, evil and many more insults. In any case, we have patents and I am delighted. We are going to turn up to a gunfight with much more than a knife for sure.

As MaidSafe is extremely innovative, it allows certain advantages. To be awarded a patent you have to show how you can implement the claim. This means your application should have enough information that anyone versed in the art could reproduce your claims. So as nobody has created an autonomous network with self authentication and a PKI system that’s implemented in maths alone, we have a great advantage over others. We can make broad claims, very broad.

This means that we have a patent portfolio that covers a wide area and this area is central to a distributed Internet to exist.

Whoa! that sounds very dangerous!

It is and we are not afraid of the risks. That and to also protect us and the technology while we ironed out all of the kinks. I would hate to think what would have happened if a large incumbent had got this technology and extended and locked it into their own network. A network that allowed no competition and could enhance vendor lock-in, we have all seen that previously, it’s bad for innovation.

Don’t try and take over the world, be part of a new world

So what do you do when you have technology that could disrupt nearly every other company out there? I mean every company, no matter how large or powerful. Well the first thing to do is find friends, like minded people to share the initial costs of getting started. These are your seed investors. We were very successful there. Then build your product and think the whole time how this technology could change the world. Stay excited and focussed.

As the technology is ready, then it’s time to launch your attack on the status quo. Do not run in front of a speeding car or a machine gun nest. Others may not want you to succeed, initially the jealous then later the dangerous. It’s time to find more friends. These, like your investors should be great friends. These people take you to the next stage. For us these friends are all the projects, people and companies who will help build the decentralised Internet.

One of the things you must do for your friends is to include them at the final steps of launch. When all the wrinkles are flattened and the bugs under control and you have a working system, get some friends involved. These new friends, the users of your invention, your customers, are going to have to be amongst the best friends you get. They do not need risks involved with getting your product ready, they have their own battles to fight and you need to supply the ammo.

MaidSafe supplies its customers with an amazingly powerful armament. That is technology that dramatically improves customer experiences and helps people to live with privacy, security and the freedom to communicate, share and store information of all types. This is done with no infrastructure costs or any start up worries related to registering interest etc. No API keys and no limit on what can be achieved. That’s all great, but we also do something that adds significant benefit. We use the very broad patents to protect the sphere these customers will be operating in. That’s right, when our friends are drawn into a gunfight, we bring in the heavy artillery.

Together we present a larger and more powerful force to enable us to make the changes to this world and improve it for everyone. As opponents try and continue to enforce rules, regulations and oppressive regimes on people, we free them.

What about the projects that develop, do they patent?

In my opinion, if there are terrific innovations, I would prefer they did get defensibly patented. These days, whether it is right or wrong, it is the current landscape. It’s better to be protected and fight against innovation stifling businesses, rather than be closed down by a judge somewhere. This is a symptom of the world we live in today. No point in creating a brilliant application with phenomenal ideas and somebody patents around you, stifling your ability to grow that application. It will happen.

I hope the MaidSafe network can create a container for all the associated projects to place patents in. These would be used by everyone to help everyone else and protect this new culture from the ravages that plagued the old ways.

What about this dual license thing?

A quandary for many and it’s a shame the licensing system is so complex and seems to have become a war-ground with opposing forces completely at odds with each other.

The GPL license issue

This works very well for us. I met a chap who is well known in the GNU community who told me, you will hate the GPL and want to kill it eventually. For your company to succeed you will have to tell everyone how evil the GPL is!

Oh how I laughed (internally), this is where people miss the point. GPL is not bad in our case. It allows the code to be protected by a fantastic community. That community need fear nothing from us as the network owners, because in GPL world we do not own the network or the code, great! A problem solved. If the MaidSafe network is to be the underpinning of the decentralised Internet, how can it be owned. So it’s not owned any more.

The Non GPL license issue

This is the license the GNU person thought was our goal. Yes this is where we will make our revenue, sometimes, but a goal? To me it’s like a fisherman wishing the only bit of water was surrounding the fish he wanted to catch at that moment, insane!

We need everyone to create decentralised applications, that means, schoolkids, enthusiasts, tinkerers, open source projects, free projects, community projects, commercial projects etc. Yes we want an ecosystem that encompasses all walks of life. We want all the water to still be in the sea and other fish for later on for everyone.

So if anyone wanted to link our code into their application, for instance, they can, in any way they want. They can statically compile our code and we don’t care, we just hope they succeed in whatever their goal is. Simple!

They can build applications, sell them, give them away, raffle them or bin them, all comers welcomed and more importantly able. No hindrance, no registration and no hassle.

How does MaidSafe make money then?

Aha, that good business model issue, yes I agree this is an important point. It’s so important in fact that we have thought about it long and hard and only at the end of the journey have we unveiled our plans. Yes we got to the line first, checked the landscape, confirmed our thoughts and put our plan in place. We have two immediate options here and we think they are both very fair. Our mantra has always been, profit follows value. i.e. profit is not something to be forced from people and yes you should leave something on the table. Greed fails, it always has and always will.

Option 1, license fee

As a project, open source (except GPL) or commercial brings in revenue from a MaidSafe enabled project then our license kicks in. That is there is a 1% payment to be made to MaidSafe. This is a small amount and known in advance. It’s super simple to allow projects to factor in as a cost of goods sold item on their business plan. It’s also at a level to not cause grief and should provide significantly more in return through continued advancements in our technology.

What I like about this, especially, is that if a project builds a product and it does not work out for them, i.e. little or no sales, then their investment in terms of MaidSafe is extremely small if not zero. That’s fantastic for innovation.

Option 2, Token based system

There is a fantastic paper here that outlines a phenomenally exciting proposition. This is a proposition based on utilising systems of crypto backed tokens (or currency if you like). There are many options available here and they all need investigated. Essentially a project like MaidSafe supplies tokens to another project who builds on top of the platform. These other companies then increase the value of their token as they become successful in the marketplace. This in turn increases the tokens that MaidSafe has. So a mechanism to increase wealth, yes, but so much more.

Every company with such a token now sees their value increase as others increase the value of their own business. Now it gets interesting, wealth starts flowing through the system and nothing moves, no bankers or third parties got involved, it was just some calculations. This means the wealth increases and is free of the professional services burdens and fees associated with wealth movements today.

This is at an early stage and many questions need to be worked out, such as do you pre-create tokens (called pre-mining in many areas), or create them as projects are created, is there a finite amount, do they convert to other currencies and token systems etc. These are all mechanical questions, but in a decentralised world this is all possible. That’s what is exciting, the possibilities are immense and these are paths no human has walked on before. We are charting new territory here and there is no need to be scared, we know we will not fall off the end of the world. It’s what growth this value will bring for everyone that is exciting.

What if somebody just steals the code and does not pay or take a token?

Well my first thought is, I am glad they stole our code. My second is they possibly could not afford to pay and maybe the project failed in some way. Those are probably quite good reasons and easy to understand.

If, however, a project was generating substantial revenue and not paying or increasing the value of tokens then they are a threat to the community. In this case they have broken the law with respect to a license agreement, bad enough and I would not like to be in that position. That is very hard to defend. But it’s not over yet.

The thieves have not only broken a license agreement, they are acting outside the community. They threaten our friends and network. They are outside another important thing, they are outside the protection of our patent umbrella, they have also broken patent law, so they have a license issue but they also have a trading issue now. This is looking serious for enemies of the community.

As I said, do not bring a knife to a gunfight; if large companies steal from the community we bring in the hounds of hell.

Where do we go from here: Chaos or community?

OK, you may have noticed the Martin Luther King Jr rip off in this section’s title. You get the book here, I feel it’s the least I can do.

It’s just a perfect question for MaidSafe. Many think immediately, change equals chaos, whilst others see it as bringing a better sense of community. Take the case in point, we had to change slavery, we had to change child labour laws, we had to stop killing indigenous people etc. Change can be very good and nature requires us to keep probing the unknown. So let’s investigate some of that unknown now!

Options for the consumer Internet

This is a particularly easy issue for the decentralised community. The easy wins here are:

Private data sharing (e.g. DropBox, Box.net etc.)
Video provisioning (youtube, vimeo etc.)
Social networking (FaceBook, Twitter etc.)
Email and messaging

There is a plethora of ‘low hanging fruit’ that would benefit immensely from decentralisation. Ask any of the businesses mentioned if they would like their infrastructure to be secure, reliable and free. I think the answer is obvious. Now ask their users if they would prefer to not have their identity taken and used in advertisements or have their activity tracked to advertise to. We know the answer to that one too, I think.

Well how do they profit?

Good question, maybe some don’t. Others will come up with ingenious mechanisms I cannot foresee. They should be innovators, right?

There are in fact many ways to profit. advertising is still possible. Build advertising into the app, select adverts from a network location that’s sorted on some categories, geographies etc. and serve these to the user. Significantly though there is no need to take user data, store it and mine it. All the matching for advertisements can be done in your application. Simple, cheap and in no way a harm to privacy of users. It’s still possible to measure advertising impressions etc. It just reverses the proposition, where advertisers get what they want, users get what they want at no cost to their privacy and security, now that’s great.

There will be a ton of opportunities to commercialise applications on the market.

Options for AI/robotics

I spoke with the RoboEarth project a while back on this very issue. One of my goals is Autonomous Distributed Intelligence. This is ONLY possible when there is a secure network that is not owned by anyone and takes decisions based on sound logic (math based). The RoboEarth people really liked the idea of not storing AI data on the public web, under the control of server admins and maybe corporations.

Imagine being able to have our machines all communicate on a network with the ability to securely share data that can be ranked on validity and shared. Add in some inference techniques and you have the culmination of intelligence recalculating continuously.

What could that achieve?

An experiment I am currently looking at is with robotics. I have 3d printed parts of 2 robots now and need to reconfigure a couple of beagleboards as brains. These already compile and build all the MaidSafe code (small ARM devices). They will join the MaidSafe network when it’s up an running.

I will then locate these robots at opposite ends of the house and have face recondition software on them. When people come in the front of the house and introduce themselves to Alebert1 he will upload the image and tags etc. to the share. When the person goes to the back of the house Albert2 will be able to greet them by name.

In a similar manner, teach Albert1 French and Albert2 knows French at the same time (almost).

Now start dreaming of the possibilities. I do and they are endless. The system will as I said earlier allow for inference to alter existing data as new variables are known.

Options for medicine

A decentralised Internet holds exciting medical advances. Imagine you had access to your records. Only when you give a doctor access can the doctor see them. In case of illness then you have nominated others who can also do this (using n+p data dispersal techniques). Now you are in charge of your data.

Another aspect could be that all machines taking scans report as the robots do. The results of all scans are shared between all medical machines and they can use inference again to build up patterns and check results. If these machines could access medical records in an anonymous fashion, amazing things would happen. You go for an MRI scan of your hip, the machine, unlike a human can process all the scan details and compare with others. The machine notes you have some growth or similar where the doctor was looking. In this case the machine notes you have a very small imperfection in an organ, apparently unrelated and not even considered by the human doctor. The machine notes that every time these two events happened a single dose of pill X cures it all. Meanwhile the human doctor is booking surgery to cut parts out of you, unnecessarily.

Not to get rid of doctors, but to provide this amount of information and cross referencing would be a dramatic help for us all. That is only the start, now think of genetics and proteomics, the advances could be astounding.

What about longevity, it is really exciting and I do not think this glance even touches on the possibilities.

Options for trade

Bitcoin has been pretty remarkable for MaidSafe as it shows that even a system that is not fully decentralised makes so much sense. If we take bitcoin and merge it with a fully decentralised system we can achieve massive improvements. Secure wallets (simple), decentralise the blockchain (privacy returns) and add in transaction accountability via scripting (aka Ethereum project) and things start to look bewildering.

I have not even started on the possibilities here, worldwide voting systems, autonomous corporations etc. the list is incredible and the future will make all of our heads spin and life will be significantly better.

Tagged with: MaidSafe, nature, privacy security freedom
Posted in MaidSafe, nature

Why do I keep going on about ants and nature.

Posted on February 4, 2014 by David Irvine — 1 Comment

Quick post this time. I answered this in an email today and figured, posting it may mean I repeat it less 🙂 So here it is:

PS Can you remind me of your ant analogy wrt your network?

Yes no problem ( I visited Deborah Gordon in the Gordon Institute at Stanford to discuss)

Deborah studies Harvester ants and did a TED video about it (very interesting). She noted several good points

The ants act independently
The queen lays eggs and can have no impact
The ant colonies are 150Million years old and are very sophisticated and complex
There are 4 types of ant in the study (harvester, forager, cleaner and soldier), she painted them all to test this.

As ants leave the nest they rub against each other and detect patterns. So an ant may have been a forger yesterday and therefore goes to do that job today. Brushing past other ants they bump into each other and from their scent they can see the pattern. If there are many cleaner ants then the ant becomes a cleaner, too many harvesters, she (all ants are female except for the breeding season where some males are born and fly to new nest sites) becomes a harvester (no need to forage today) and so on …

People talk about AI as building larger smarter computers (IBM Watson etc.). My conjecture is that it’s not a large thing you build, it should be like ants. Lots of very small things with very few rules that are easily followed. Deborah did like this approach as I attempted to dispel the AI myth of a supercomputer. Each complex system should not do too much, like ants they have a limited function to do, too many functions is inordinately difficult to cope with. It’s the combination of complex systems that make up larger systems, not building Goliath systems, humans are not that smart (yet).

So in maidsafe our network nodes are like ants, they will react to different messages and routes of messages and change their persona (harvester -> forager etc.). This builds a very large scale complex and sophisticated ability, in the same way nature does (cells in the body are the same, neurons in the brain etc.). We have about 7 main personas.

The variables involved to build a single complex system like Watson are in my opinion unnatural and not found in nature (it’s like creating God or something silly like that).

So complex colonies or cell groupings is in our ability and in maidsafe we have done this to create a very complex system that manages data. It does so using three guiding principles for the node.

1: Protect self

2: Protect data (food)

3: Protect network (colony)

Each of these rules govern what a node will do, so it will delete bad data, it will self terminate on getting a virus (others will terminate it as well). It will terminate itself to save some data. It will lose data to save the network.

It’s a bit of a mind shift for everyone, but in my wee world inside my head it makes perfect sense and it’s a replica of natural systems in action,

Tagged with: complex systems, nature
Posted in complex systems, nature

	Tracey Moyer on Shortest distance between two…
	Lori on MaidSafe a network that shares…
	Henry on MaidSafe part III – Join…
	Autonomous Networks… on The Impossible Network
	Ethereum addresses h… on Data chains: what? why? h…