From bf53cb567948ba63971db033ebfcba8e851f5627 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Galen Wolfe-Pauly Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:43:19 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] network goals type --- pub/docs/theory/network-goals.mdy | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/pub/docs/theory/network-goals.mdy b/pub/docs/theory/network-goals.mdy index 8b4304ddf..e2eb8ec1c 100644 --- a/pub/docs/theory/network-goals.mdy +++ b/pub/docs/theory/network-goals.mdy @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ sort: 4 hide: true --- -# Constitution of a digital republic: part 1, goals +# Design of a digital republic
Part I — Goals Some of us remember when the Internet was a social network. Today, the Internet is a modem. @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ It's a wonderful modem. It connects you to all kinds of great online services. Some of which are social "networks," but only networks in the MBA sense. Really they're social *servers*: giant virtual mainframes running one hardcoded program. 1976 -called -- it wants its acoustic coupler back. +called — it wants its acoustic coupler back. So, you prefer 1996. So, you wish you had your decentralized Internet back. So, you don't seem alone in this. So, we know @@ -34,8 +34,8 @@ against "Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel." Well... hindsight is 20/20. But in hindsight, even in 1996 -things were starting to head south. Usenet -- the brain of the -Internet, when the Internet had a brain -- was already +things were starting to head south. Usenet — the brain of the +Internet, when the Internet had a brain — was already disintegrating under the barbarian invasions. And where is the WELL these days? (John Perry Barlow is probably still on it.) @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ Dealing is way better than worrying. 1996 worried about the problem; 2016 ought to deal with it. A constitution is not a declaration. It's not a list of ideals. -It's more like a bridge -- an actual structure, that fails unless +It's more like a bridge — an actual structure, that fails unless it stands up to genuine load. A bridge isn't a bridge unless it works. If you want a bridge, you have to build a bridge. It doesn't typically happen that you set out to build something @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ network. They weren't trying to, and they didn't. If we want a decentralized social network, we can't do it without rigorous engineering work. And we can't limit our work to the world of code. A decentralized network has to work not just -technically -- but politically, economically, and socially. +technically — but politically, economically, and socially. Where do we go from here? How do we get back to 1996? Admit we've failed, and try again. How else? @@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ republic, but it certainly works and it's better than nothing. Thus what seems like an optimal political design: the ugly, centralized, young larva that's designed to molt into a beautiful, mature, decentralized butterfly. And once mature, the -larva must molt or die -- not keep growing into a gigantic, +larva must molt or die — not keep growing into a gigantic, man-eating caterpillar of death. ## Economic engineering @@ -374,8 +374,8 @@ space by giving blocks away. You may even increase the value of your own position. A monopolized network is not politically healthy. So its -economic value is lower. So -- if the network is properly -designed and structured -- it can be stably demonopolized. The +economic value is lower. So — if the network is properly +designed and structured — it can be stably demonopolized. The monopoly power achieved by combining large positions is smaller than the reputation cost of remonopolization, so centrifugal force dominates and the system stays decentralized. @@ -562,4 +562,4 @@ Goals are more interesting than ideals, don't you think? Goals and features are also different things. What are the features of a network that attempts to achieve these design goals? In the next installment, we'll look at how our own -network -- Urbit -- measures up to these yardsticks. +network — Urbit — measures up to these yardsticks.