You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: An open-ended question to @ned and @dan
Nope, I don't think any is doing it yet. The algorand guy is pushing towards it though, with his new project. SporeDB is along similar lines as what Algorand is doing, but not nearly so well funded. Well, that may change in the future, if my 'monetisation of code' concept is as killer as it sounds.
What we want is a protocol like TCP/IP or HTTP, for distributed systems. This requires the field to be fairly well codified, and that will then require a reference implementation.
What you said in the last paragraph is where I think Dan is going with his "Blockchain OS" concept. You raise some great points and are obviously no spring chicken to coding and systems architecture.
Having a solid foundation upon which to build higher layers is an important architectural principle. As things change in the upper layers they impose new requirements on the lower layers that test how flexible and comprehensive the foundation layers were designed. Sometimes a redesign of the foundational layer is more cost effective or quicker to implement than trying to retrofit changes (refactoring) to meet new requirements.
I'm reminded of the way the systems of the Voyager space probe were designed, both hardware and software, and b/c that design was so good the probe had a much longer lifespan that was ever anticipated. This depth of engineering and innovation is what we need for systems whose aim is to make mainstream institutions obsolete. We need long term thinking motivated by the value to humanity, not limited by greed or personal gain. An attitude of altruism but marketed in a way that provides support.
I want to read more of your ideas to motivate coders via 'monetisation of code', but on the surface it doesn't address this altruistic / innovation aspect for the long haul. It does address personal rewards for the coders, but it's divorced from the goal and purpose of the coding effort. It's not easy to anticipate future needs and build flexible systems than are adaptable to those needs in a cost effective way. How that type of innovation is incentivized and rewarded is the distinction I'm getting at.
This is the kind of depth of thinking that we want!
The monetisation of code is only one side of the equation. I think I made it clear that the reward calculation for code has to be STRONGLY modulated by reputation, which is peer review. The more, and more weight of reputation, as well as tied up stake, that votes on your code, the more you get, the more you rise. This may sound at first like a recipe for a circle jerk, but it doesn't take that many, opposed and competing peers to smack up such stake-powered nonsense. To earn on the code, you have to raise your rep, to have influence on the code, you have to raise your rep. It is primary.
Some idiot comes along with zero coding rep, and they have only 0.000001% reputation, even if they have a million tokens, they still can only up you by one, and because they have zero rep, they don't raise your rep that much either. The two formulas have to be balanced, and it will take some simulations to play out how it will factor and grow.
I don't think anyone has really taken that seriously the idea of really building an effective reputation system. I think there could be attempts out there, but probably their domain is too generalised to be useful. Having a constraint of 'generally recognised skill at software development' narrows it down a lot and gives a lot more possibility for peer regulation, polycentric, to be effective. I mean, we have already seen with Steem that to a large degree, the reputation system does help stop spammy, scammy, trololololing. The interface does not allow it to be separated from rewards calculations. I am not sure if this is good, or bad. Prima facie, it seems like a good idea to bind them together, but then you have questions about ratios.
Probably curves matter too - as in, similar to the old scheme here, but perhaps differently summed, related to the volume under the curve, as well as the total volume, over time, and other things.
I am of course thinking through it all as I go, but I have tasks to execute in sequence, and right now, I'm building a simple fork, and proposing a specific set of edits, and the chain basically being renewed, so there is an opportunity to fix the database system that is now threatening to destroy the platform. But I think as important as this, is that the premined stake, and the people holding it, not only violates common sense and justice, it also is technically illegal in at least US federal jurisdiction, that the maturity and personalities involved further compound the issue.