Hi Michel,>> Bandwidth as well as energy have a cost, even if in the case of energy it> comes from the sun or the wind etc. The cost of production, while it> approaches zero (energy/hour) over time will never be zero.>> So then with abundant production that "near zero" figure will rise. There> is also the cost of the distribution grid and its maintenance, just like the> telecom grid, which adds to the cost of peer energy production, i.e. the> grid's maintenance is paid for by the peers (e.g. as a tax) since there is> no concept of "state" and no one else to pay for infrastructure but the> peers themselves, collectively. This is similar to how each person now pays> a flat fee for all-you-can-eat bandwidth.>> This cost of energy production that each peer carries has to be offset so> if I pump my excess energy into the grid then I'd like to get paid for it> but the money I get does not grow on its own, i.e. there is no interest and> it can't grow over time. It has to be converted to goods and services,> invested in appreciable assets (including revenue generating) or loaned> interest-free to others in return for credit points which give the lender> the ability to sell more goods and services. That's the incentive.>> If I make $1M and let it sit idle while everyone else is investing their> money, using it to make products and services or lending it to others> (interest free for seller credit points), my $1M will buy less over time as> people who do all of the above accumulate greater wealth and as the prices> of appreciable assets rise with the increase in wealth generated. So my> incentive is to share (lend with zero interest) my money with others or use> it myself (for producing goods and services or investing in appreciable> assets)>> The idea of money sitting idle (e.g. in a bank) and collecting profit is> eliminated so in order to grow wealth (this is the main incentive) people> have to share the money or make productive use of it, both of which spur> economic activity.>> The nature of money in this model does not change. Only its behavior> changes, and that ultimately changes the nature of the society that is> largely built around it. It's almost like a way to get capitalists off a bad> drug called interest (bad for their soul, bad for society) and give them a> healthy alternative (good for their soul, relatively speaking, and good for> society)>> Despite being 20-30 years away from implementability the model is itself a> transitional one, not the model we all hope to have in 100 years. It's a way> to get society to consider thinking differently.>> My gripe with idealism is that I often see ideas that conflict with basic> physical laws. How can you get energy for free? or anything for "free"?> There is an energy cost to everything including energy production. I can> invest in solar panels for my home and get "free" energy (there is a cost> which is the maintenance of those panels but that can be near zero) However,> the minute I connect my generator to the grid (to share excess energy) I> absrob a portion of the cost of the grid and its ongoing maintenance.> Entropy, in other words, makes sure that there is a cost to keeping things> in working order, and while we see the cost of creation going to near zero> (after sunk cost) the cost of transport (information or energy) is still a> very real cost. The cost of transport is connected to population and> geographic scale, so as those continue to rise the cost of transport will> continue to be a real cost, even as the cost of transport per mile continues> to drop.>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com>wrote:>>>>> Hi Marc,>>>> I think that Bittorrent works best because it recogniwed bandwidth>> scarcity even within the context of abundance, but it still seems to me that>> the incentive is between the individual and the system, not tit for tat>> between individuals; hence the logic is one of managing the commons, rahter>> than a gift economy logic ...>>>> To the degree a system moves to the scarcity continuum, it needs>> management of the commons to incentive participation and discourage>> free-riding, to the degree it moves to real abundance; it needs those less>> ...>>>> So as you are dealing with physical constraints, such as finite energy,>> your research on incentives is more crucial,>>>> Michel>>>> On 12/22/08, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael,>>>>>> I totally appreciate your support and generous help in accomplishing my>>> objectives.>>>>>> I think this discussion is of general usefullness so I'm going to dig>>> deeper a bit, and see what comes up.>>>>>> <<>>>> does bittorrent follow the principle: voluntary participation, available>>>> to all: to that degree it is peer to peer, to the degree it does introduce>>>> conditionality it is not; but it tries to use the second in the context of>>>> the first>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It tries to use the second in the context of the first, and unfortunately>>> the first is *not* possible without the second.>>>>>> So what does it mean that something can only exist in a modified form?>>>>>> If 5 peers were downloading a given file from 1 peer (and you can have>>> many such exchanges going at the same time at the ratio of 5 downloading to>>> 1 seeding) then it would not be a "Torrent." It would be a Trickle and would>>> take much longer, during which the seeding peer is more likely to go off>>> line. So the whole model becomes dramatically less efficient. In fact,>>> that's why BitTorrent as a protocol became so wildly popular (because it>>> enforced sharing of each downloading peer's upstream bandwidth.)>>>>>> The question becomes idealism vs efficiency (and effectiveness), and a>>> balance is required.>>>>>> The context of "tit for tat" is very important. At its most basic level,>>> tit for tat is "cause and effect" and while much of poetry and beauty is>>> non-causal, classical physics (the laws governing our physical reality)>>> is... Including in that is the laws of thermodynamics. So if I was to build>>> an energy driven economy that works in the real world (not inside an>>> arbitrary computer model) with real people (not abstract automatons) I would>>> have to understand energy and information flows in nature (and hence, the>>> interest engineers and scientists have taken in thermoeconomics and, for me>>> personally, the next layer of that is the models of energy>>> minimization/simulated annealing/self-optimization found in statistical>>> thermodyanmics) and that is because people, goods and services, and material>>> basis for the real-world economy (land, mineral mines, water, sun, wind,>>> etc) are all subject to the laws of nature.>>>>>> That does not mean that the value of a social P2P theory is less than the>>> value of a thermodynamic P2P theory. Not at all. The social theory gives>>> guidance to the model builder but without an understanding of how nature>>> works, we can wreck havoc on it and/or on ourselves. We are not a closed>>> system. Nothing is. So we need to understand nature's own way of things not>>> just the social/ethical ways we espouse. There is really a need to>>> understand both, not one or the other. That's my opinion.>>>>>> The last thing I'd want to do is destroy the fish. They're going extinct>>> in 50 years, all species (except the mercury-laden farmed varieties)>>>>>> The whole idea is to work with nature, but that takes a negotiation>>> between what man wants (the evolved, conscious man) and how to make it work>>> the "natural" (or nature cognizant) way.>>>>>> BitTorrent works the natural way, and by doing so it leverages the power>>> of natural law (in this case, "you can't create bandwidth from nothing")>>> rather just the social law (in this case, content as a common pool or the>>> seeding peer's bandwith as a common pool). Instead it treat's the peers'>>> upstream bandwidth as a common pool and in doing so it forces every peer to>>> contribute.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can it paradoxically enhance the sharing, sometimes it can, but at other>>>> times it can't and produces crowding out effects>>>>>>>> but I think the important thing is to see what is primary and secondary>>>>>>>> for example, ITQ fishing permits are a market based system but placed in>>>> the context of a commons so that fish cannot be destroyed ..>>>>>>>> in the bittorrent case I would argue that the tit for tat is a secondary>>>> incentive, so I agree with you that tit for tat depends on context>>>>>>>> all this being said, I fully support what you are trying to achieve, and>>>> hope it will work as this is indeed a very important protocol you are>>>> working on,>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>> I think it is also useful to distinguish sharing from a real commons>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:13 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the part about no "tit for tat" but the most successful P2P model>>>>> in practice, i.e. bittorrent/file sharing, forces a tit for tat for>>>>> practical reasons (e.g. to make sure every peer downloading a given file is>>>>> contributing to the common bandwidth for that file). If there was no tit for>>>>> tat the sharing model simply stops working.>>>>>>>>>> In the model I'm working on in order for someone to have more wealth>>>>> they have to share some of their money (i.e let others use some their money>>>>> for free and the more they share of their money the more money they can>>>>> make, without punishing the borrower with interest.) If I was to design it>>>>> so that people can get wealthy without sharing their money, i.e. if remove>>>>> the tit (sharing money) for tat (making more money, building wealth), then>>>>> the model of "the more you share, the more you have" would not exist.>>>>>>>>>> "tit for tat" in itself is not bad. It's a tool. It all depends on how>>>>> it's used.>>>>>>>>>> What I'm building is a P2P economic model predicated on the tokenized>>>>> exchange of energy, where "the more you share, the more you have" is enabled>>>>> by a form of "tit for tat" that does not punish and only rewards.>>>>>>>>>> As far as the family types, as you pointed out, all 7 types may have>>>>> some or all of the relationships (per Fisk's definition) but what I'm saying>>>>> is that, in a P2P economy, a family can interact with another family through>>>>> a single point of contact (e.g. a trading interface) rather than having each>>>>> member of the family interact with individual peers out there. It may work>>>>> for some families some of the time, as it does in today's society. For>>>>> example, the Jones family has a common budget that they use to buy>>>>> groceries. Any member of the family can use that budget to buy food items.>>>>> If they use a single ID/interface then they will appear as a single peer to>>>>> the rest of the network. In some exising non-affluent communities, where>>>>> there is a single bread earner the family may have just one account on the>>>>> p2p transaction network and so in such a community there may be more family>>>>> (as peer) to family (as peer) interactions (for local trading) than>>>>> individual peer to individual peer.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Michel Bauwens <>>>>> michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> the family is not a separate structure, there are at least seven>>>>>> fundamentally different family structures worldwide, if I remember correctly>>>>>> (according to Emmanuel Todd's landmark book on the topic)>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you read>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske for a>>>>>> fourfold relational grammar that includes equality matching, authority>>>>>> ranking, market pricing and communal sharing.>>>>>>>>>>>> Peer to peer is specifically communal sharing or 'non-reciprocal>>>>>> exchange' (also called generalized exchange because there is no tit for tat)>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the family several modalities are possible>>>>>>>>>>>> - when father gets more: authority ranking>>>>>>>>>>>> - when you compete for giving a birthday gift to another family member>>>>>> who gave you one before: equality matching>>>>>>>>>>>> - when you sell your motorbike as second hand to your sibling: market>>>>>> pricing>>>>>>>>>>>> - when you selflessly give to your children: communal shareholding>>>>>>>>>>>> P2P Theory, as I define it, is the study of communal shareholding>>>>>> dynamics within distributed structures,>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:42 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then that makes the case that "Peer To Peer" is a universal but>>>>>>> non-trivial social theory that has many facets and that is not one theory>>>>>>> but several...>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that there is no easy way back to "family" in the old>>>>>>> sense of the word and that "family" is now a group of people who have shared>>>>>>> affinity to each other or certain ideals (e.g. the P2P and Open Source>>>>>>> movements)>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, someone can still argue a return to the traditional genetic>>>>>>> family, which is still very alive and well in non-Westernized societies, and>>>>>>> by doing so they'd emphasize Family structure over the more modern P2P>>>>>>> structure with its evolved theories. I happen to dig P2P theories and want>>>>>>> to challenge them at the same time, by borrowing analogies and simulations>>>>>>> from statistical thermodynamics (as applied to the self-governance and>>>>>>> evolution of P2P systems) which is something I started thinking about while>>>>>>> working on the P2P currency model, which by the way is predicated on the>>>>>>> tokenized exchange of energy, per the laws of thermodynamics, and what I was>>>>>>> saying earlier re: Un-Money is that non-tokenized exchange of energy is the>>>>>>> closest thing we can get to as far as removing the concept of money. Prior>>>>>>> to the laws of thermodynamics people were interested in perpetual motion>>>>>>> machines and "free energy" etc. These ideas are creeping back into current>>>>>>> thinking on free culture. To me, p2p theory is subject to the laws of>>>>>>> physics because it has real world usage. It's not merely a social theory.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to go too far too soon with that thought, especially not>>>>>>> before reading/understanding all the amazing work that has been done,>>>>>>> including yours.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Michel Bauwens <>>>>>>> michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marc,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peer to peer does not exclude/disrupt the family,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but rather than a return to premodern holism, it is based on>>>>>>>> affinity-based aggregation around common value, on top of other existing>>>>>>>> relational modes,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is indeed built on the positive achievements of western>>>>>>>> invidiualism, while also an attempt to rectify its many weaknesses through>>>>>>>> alternative voluntary relationality>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Relational for more extensive>>>>>>>> investigation of these aspects,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:51 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea is to disrupt the disruptor so like surface of the ocean>>>>>>>>> our>>>>>>>>> common vision is in constant renewal.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Along these lines, I could make up the argument that P2P is too>>>>>>>>> much>>>>>>>>> abou the individual and not abou the Family. So based on this I>>>>>>>>> would>>>>>>>>> proceed to say that Family2Family would be a more socially fit>>>>>>>>> paradigm than peer to peer, where peer refers predominantly to a>>>>>>>>> single individual.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where Centralized is Parent2Child, we have moved too fast to>>>>>>>>> individualism and forgot about the social importance of family.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disrupting the disruptive model allows the model to be in a>>>>>>>>> constant>>>>>>>>> state of renewal.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what I'm saying is that I don't have to use the word peer in an>>>>>>>>> unorthodox way to disrupt the existing P2P theory. I can offer>>>>>>>>> another>>>>>>>>> theory such as Family2Family.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But all change is good as long as we all derive meaning from it, as>>>>>>>>> you sated.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/08, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>> > Marc,>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > I personally do not object to your usage of peer money, as long>>>>>>>>> as we know>>>>>>>>> > what is meant, which is why I tried to clear the conceptual>>>>>>>>> place.>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Neither my own p2p theory nor oekonux has any monopoly on the>>>>>>>>> "peer" term,>>>>>>>>> > but as you know understand, in our frame, it is somewhat>>>>>>>>> contradictary, but>>>>>>>>> > while Stefan only accepts capitalist money in the transition, I>>>>>>>>> call for>>>>>>>>> > and>>>>>>>>> > support efforts to change the current monetary protocols ...>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Michel>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:48 AM, marc fawzi <>>>>>>>>> marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Some of you did not see this reply (came empty?), so I'm taking>>>>>>>>> the>>>>>>>>> >> opportunity to send you a fuller version of it.>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> -->>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks Michel.>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Per your articulation of "peer informed money" vs. the ideal>>>>>>>>> "p2p>>>>>>>>> >> society,">>>>>>>>> >> I now get where Stefan is coming from with his statement that>>>>>>>>> there is no>>>>>>>>> >> such thing as "peer money" ...>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Indeed, labels are often used for convenience and commonality,>>>>>>>>> so instead>>>>>>>>> >> of proliferating and splintering ad infinitum we tend to use>>>>>>>>> common>>>>>>>>> >> labels,>>>>>>>>> >> e.g. peer money, to refer to a common context, even where a new>>>>>>>>> label (in>>>>>>>>> >> this case: peer informed money) would be more accurate.>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> The case for standardized labeling is if we were to label the>>>>>>>>> same roads>>>>>>>>> >> on>>>>>>>>> >> a map using different names then chances are people will have a>>>>>>>>> hard time>>>>>>>>> >> following us to our common destination.>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> I'm going out on a limb here in saying that the penultimate>>>>>>>>> replacement>>>>>>>>> >> for>>>>>>>>> >> money (or "un-money") for the ideal p2p society would be>>>>>>>>> non-tokenized,>>>>>>>>> >> natural energy transfer as opposed to capturing and transferring>>>>>>>>> various>>>>>>>>> >> forms of energy (e.g. work energy, creative energy, emotional>>>>>>>>> energy,>>>>>>>>> >> mental>>>>>>>>> >> energy, 'intentional' energy, etc) as "tokens">>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> I agree that as we drive toward the same destination, we should>>>>>>>>> not "dead>>>>>>>>> >> end" certain lanes of the highway so that only a few of us would>>>>>>>>> make it>>>>>>>>> >> to>>>>>>>>> >> the destination. All lanes should remain open and the various>>>>>>>>> exits on>>>>>>>>> >> the>>>>>>>>> >> way labeled in a standard way.>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> And I agree that we have to recognize when we're on the road vs>>>>>>>>> having>>>>>>>>> >> arrived at our destination. For now, we're definitely still on>>>>>>>>> the road,>>>>>>>>> >> so>>>>>>>>> >> the concept of "no money, "which is basically moving away from>>>>>>>>> tokenized>>>>>>>>> >> energy transfer, e.g. I pay $1 for a bus ride, to non-tokenized>>>>>>>>> energy>>>>>>>>> >> transfer, e.g. the bus is powered by the energy of its>>>>>>>>> passengers, is>>>>>>>>> >> what>>>>>>>>> >> we will ultimately end up with, IMO, but we don't have the>>>>>>>>> technology yet>>>>>>>>> >> for such universal, non-tokenized, natural energy transfer. By>>>>>>>>> "energy" I>>>>>>>>> >> mean all forms (work energy, creative energy, emotional energy,>>>>>>>>> >> 'intentional' energy, mental energy, spiritual energy, i.e.>>>>>>>>> "energy in>>>>>>>>> >> all>>>>>>>>> >> its forms")>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> In other words, the natural flow on energy in its all forms>>>>>>>>> between>>>>>>>>> >> people>>>>>>>>> >> is the ultimate "un-money">>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> I may add an addendum explaining non-tokenized energy transfer,>>>>>>>>> which to>>>>>>>>> >> me, would make the ultimate "un-money" but it's so far out that>>>>>>>>> it would>>>>>>>>> >> only serve the most forward looking individuals, and only on a>>>>>>>>> >> metaphysical>>>>>>>>> >> level, so it may end up in an article on its own, separate from>>>>>>>>> the ideas>>>>>>>>> >> for the near future expressed in the P2P Social>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Currency<http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model>>>>>>>>> >article.>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Marc>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Michel Bauwens <>>>>>>>>> >> michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I would just like to clarify something, about the concept of>>>>>>>>> peer>>>>>>>>> >> >> money,>>>>>>>>> >> >> taking into account's Stefan's critique>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> First of all, I agree with Stefan that peer production should>>>>>>>>> be>>>>>>>>> >> exclusively>>>>>>>>> >> >> used to moneyless processes involving voluntary contributions>>>>>>>>> and>>>>>>>>> >> universal>>>>>>>>> >> >> availability of the resulting common value.>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> In this sense, peer money is contradictory.>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> However, at present, peer to peer dynamics exist within a>>>>>>>>> broader>>>>>>>>> >> >> field>>>>>>>>> >> >> dominated by market (and state) processes, and it is of>>>>>>>>> interest to>>>>>>>>> >> >> peer>>>>>>>>> >> >> producers that the context in which it operates is as close>>>>>>>>> as>>>>>>>>> >> >> possible>>>>>>>>> >> to>>>>>>>>> >> >> the non-alienating values of p2p.>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Thus it is legimate that it is our wish to move towards a>>>>>>>>> >> >> peer-informed>>>>>>>>> >> >> society and context, at least until such time as a presumable>>>>>>>>> fuller>>>>>>>>> >> >> p2p>>>>>>>>> >> >> society would exist, in which even lots of physical resources>>>>>>>>> could>>>>>>>>> >> possible>>>>>>>>> >> >> be produced and distributed in such a way.>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I think it is crucial to think about such distinctions,>>>>>>>>> between peer>>>>>>>>> >> money>>>>>>>>> >> >> and peer-informed money and processes, the latter not being a>>>>>>>>> >> contradiction>>>>>>>>> >> >> in terms>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> (however, there remains a theoretical possibility of peer>>>>>>>>> money: if>>>>>>>>> >> there>>>>>>>>> >> >> were some unconditional way to reward peer producers, with>>>>>>>>> some form>>>>>>>>> >> >> of>>>>>>>>> >> >> value that were usable outside the peer production process>>>>>>>>> itself,>>>>>>>>> >> >> that>>>>>>>>> >> >> could probably be characterized as peer money?)>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> So, one of the questions is then, how to reform the market>>>>>>>>> structures?>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> A crucial aspect of this reform is to reform/transform the>>>>>>>>> monetary>>>>>>>>> >> system,>>>>>>>>> >> >> to arrive at a peer-informed monetary system. This involves>>>>>>>>> refusing>>>>>>>>> >> >> the>>>>>>>>> >> >> built-in infinite growth protocol of existing capitalist>>>>>>>>> money, and>>>>>>>>> >> using>>>>>>>>> >> >> money and finances with value-sensitive designs.>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Otherwise we arrive at the, in my opinion, absurd position of>>>>>>>>> Stefan,>>>>>>>>> >> which>>>>>>>>> >> >> basically says: until such time as we have a peer to peer>>>>>>>>> society, we>>>>>>>>> >> are>>>>>>>>> >> >> happy to let capitalist money be, 'because it's all money>>>>>>>>> anyway'.>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Such a position is similar as the one saying: fascism and the>>>>>>>>> >> >> keynesian>>>>>>>>> >> >> welfare state are all manifestations of bourgeois society,>>>>>>>>> there the>>>>>>>>> >> same>>>>>>>>> >> >> anyway, so we don't choose one over the other.>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> No, they are not the same, and neither are the current system>>>>>>>>> >> >> producing>>>>>>>>> >> the>>>>>>>>> >> >> financial meltdown, and alternative value-conscious,>>>>>>>>> peer-informed>>>>>>>>> >> monetary>>>>>>>>> >> >> systems that have totally different results for social and>>>>>>>>> natural>>>>>>>>> >> >> externalities.>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> So, in this sense, a project like Marc's called peer money>>>>>>>>> for>>>>>>>>> >> convenience's>>>>>>>>> >> >> sake, is totally legitimate and important,>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Michel>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:30 AM, marc fawzi <>>>>>>>>> marc.fawzi gmail.com>>>>>>>>>> >> wrote:>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > [Converted from multipart/alternative]>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > [1 text/plain]>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Hi Stephan, Michel, Sam, others,>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > I tend to see Stefan's argument that there is no such thing>>>>>>>>> as "peer>>>>>>>>> >> money">>>>>>>>> >> >> > is a case of one person's operative reality versus that of>>>>>>>>> another,>>>>>>>>> >> not a>>>>>>>>> >> >> > case of discourse within a globally or locally shared>>>>>>>>> reality.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Here is the latest draft of the P2P Currency model I've>>>>>>>>> been working>>>>>>>>> >> on:>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > (with simplified arguments and clearer construction)>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > And here is a particularly interesting endorsement>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <http://gredit.org>>>>>>>>>> >> of>>>>>>>>> >> >> > the shared reality I'm working within, from a European>>>>>>>>> based group>>>>>>>>> >> >> > promoting>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Google Credit, a project that is in the running for the>>>>>>>>> Google>>>>>>>>> >> >> > 10^100>>>>>>>>> >> prize>>>>>>>>> >> >> > (see Article of the Year Award on right hand side under>>>>>>>>> video). I>>>>>>>>> >> >> > have>>>>>>>>> >> no>>>>>>>>> >> >> > relation to them and did not know they exist up till a few>>>>>>>>> days ago.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > There are many others who have the same operative reality>>>>>>>>> as myself,>>>>>>>>> >> in>>>>>>>>> >> >> > full>>>>>>>>> >> >> > or in part, when it comes to the peer money and peer>>>>>>>>> credit.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > I'm working on game design that would energetically align>>>>>>>>> people's>>>>>>>>> >> >> > operative>>>>>>>>> >> >> > realities with my own, i.e. to create a locally shared>>>>>>>>> reality by>>>>>>>>> >> changing>>>>>>>>> >> >> > people's perceptions through imagination.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Iff money, not just peer money, can be derived and used>>>>>>>>> more>>>>>>>>> >> intelligently,>>>>>>>>> >> >> > then there is nothing in my (and other people's) operative>>>>>>>>> reality>>>>>>>>> >> against>>>>>>>>> >> >> > its existence. In fact, it's existence is demanded in such>>>>>>>>> scenario,>>>>>>>>> >> partly>>>>>>>>> >> >> > because of pragmatism (and knowledge of the current>>>>>>>>> maturity of man,>>>>>>>>> >> or>>>>>>>>> >> >> > lack>>>>>>>>> >> >> > of) and partly because such new money would enable society>>>>>>>>> to take a>>>>>>>>> >> >> > qualitivate step in the right direction.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > I hope this enables further discussion.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Regards,>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Marc>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > --->>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > *From: Stefan Merten* <smerten oekonux.de> Reply-To:>>>>>>>>> >> list-en oekonux.org>>>>>>>>> >> >> > To: list-en oekonux.org>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Cc: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----->>>>>>>>> >> >> > Hash: SHA1>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Hi list!>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Sorry for being so quiet but - as usual - the conference>>>>>>>>> preparation>>>>>>>>> >> >> > eats up a lot of my free time / energy.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > The following is something I promised Michel to do. It has>>>>>>>>> been>>>>>>>>> >> >> > triggered by the use of the term "peer money" which I think>>>>>>>>> is a>>>>>>>>> >> >> > contradiction in terms. This is an attempt to give reasons>>>>>>>>> why I>>>>>>>>> >> >> > think>>>>>>>>> >> >> > that money and peer production are generally in>>>>>>>>> contradiction.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Having said that I should also say that they can walk>>>>>>>>> together for>>>>>>>>> >> >> > some time but according to germ form theory that is no>>>>>>>>> contradiction>>>>>>>>> >> >> > to the contradiction thesis. But one should keep in mind>>>>>>>>> that to use>>>>>>>>> >> >> > money for peer production projects is always a twisted>>>>>>>>> approach>>>>>>>>> >> >> > because of that contradiction.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > The approach below is based on comparing features of money>>>>>>>>> and peer>>>>>>>>> >> >> > production. In that it is also a contribution to further>>>>>>>>> define peer>>>>>>>>> >> >> > production.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Structural force vs. volunteering>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Money is a structural force used to force your will onto>>>>>>>>> others.>>>>>>>>> >> >> > This is exactly what we call buying - though it doesn't>>>>>>>>> sound so>>>>>>>>> >> >> > nice. If you would not need to force others to do>>>>>>>>> something (for>>>>>>>>> >> >> > you) you don't need to pay them.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Compared to direct force like violence money is a>>>>>>>>> structural force>>>>>>>>> >> >> > because it is indirect. As such it needs a societal>>>>>>>>> framework to be>>>>>>>>> >> >> > effective at all: Payment makes no sense unless the payee>>>>>>>>> can buy>>>>>>>>> >> >> > something himself.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Peer production on the other hand is largely based on>>>>>>>>> volunteering.>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Volunteering, however, is the exact opposite of being>>>>>>>>> forced to do>>>>>>>>> >> >> > something. Someone volunteers for a task because it is own>>>>>>>>> wish to>>>>>>>>> >> >> > do something. In fact the volunteering is a central>>>>>>>>> feature of>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Selbstentfaltung.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Scarcity vs. ampleness>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Money is based on scarcity. In fact in a way it encodes>>>>>>>>> scarcity as>>>>>>>>> >> >> > a societal concept to a so-called real abstraction. In>>>>>>>>> fact money>>>>>>>>> >> >> > which is not scarce in some way simply makes no sense. If>>>>>>>>> I am>>>>>>>>> >> >> > allowed to create arbitrary amounts of money at every time>>>>>>>>> why>>>>>>>>> >> >> > should I require the money of others at all?>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Peer production on the other hand is based on ampleness of>>>>>>>>> the>>>>>>>>> >> >> > product. All examples we found so far for peer production>>>>>>>>> are based>>>>>>>>> >> >> > on ampleness (which is simpler to have in the digital>>>>>>>>> world). In>>>>>>>>> >> >> > fact ampleness of the product is the typical goal of peer>>>>>>>>> >> >> > production>>>>>>>>> >> >> > projects.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Force needed to keep vs. built-in sustainability>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > I said that money encodes scarcity as a general principle>>>>>>>>> of>>>>>>>>> >> >> > society. However, money being an abstraction is not scarce>>>>>>>>> by>>>>>>>>> >> >> > itself>>>>>>>>> >> >> > - everybody can print more dollars. Thus scarcity must be>>>>>>>>> enforced>>>>>>>>> >> >> > by some external means. Typically this is done by the>>>>>>>>> state. In>>>>>>>>> >> >> > effect each money system needs a forceful super-structure>>>>>>>>> to keep>>>>>>>>> >> >> > it>>>>>>>>> >> >> > running.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Peer production on the other hand is based on a built-in>>>>>>>>> >> >> > sustainability. A peer production project is not based on>>>>>>>>> some>>>>>>>>> >> >> > abstract principle but on the need for / want of a perfect>>>>>>>>> solution>>>>>>>>> >> >> > for a problem. It needs no external means to keep a peer>>>>>>>>> production>>>>>>>>> >> >> > project up. All the power comes from within.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Abstract vs. concrete>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > One of the central features of money is that it is>>>>>>>>> abstract. Money>>>>>>>>> >> >> > is not related to any concrete thing - which you easily>>>>>>>>> understand>>>>>>>>> >> >> > when you look at the global flow of money compared to the>>>>>>>>> global>>>>>>>>> >> >> > flow of goods.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Peer production projects on the other hand are always>>>>>>>>> concrete. The>>>>>>>>> >> >> > goals are concrete and the effort spent is for concrete>>>>>>>>> reasons.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Reduction vs. multi-facet perspective>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Money is always a reduction - which is in fact the central>>>>>>>>> feature>>>>>>>>> >> >> > of an abstraction. The result is that huge bunches of>>>>>>>>> concrete>>>>>>>>> >> >> > aspects are projected into a number.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > In peer production projects on the other hand a>>>>>>>>> multi-facet>>>>>>>>> >> >> > perspective is the rule. Though at some times decisions>>>>>>>>> need to be>>>>>>>>> >> >> > made which prefer one possible way over an other possible>>>>>>>>> way these>>>>>>>>> >> >> > decisions are made by a complex consideration of many>>>>>>>>> relevant>>>>>>>>> >> >> > facets.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Exchange value orientation vs. use value orientation>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Money based production is based on a orientation on>>>>>>>>> exchange value:>>>>>>>>> >> >> > You produce because you want to exchange your product for>>>>>>>>> money.>>>>>>>>> >> >> > The>>>>>>>>> >> >> > product itself does not matter to you and it is totally>>>>>>>>> sufficient>>>>>>>>> >> >> > to produce relative quality and relative use.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > In peer production projects on the other hand the very>>>>>>>>> reason of a>>>>>>>>> >> >> > project is producing use value. Why should a peer>>>>>>>>> production exist>>>>>>>>> >> >> > at all otherwise?>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Alienation vs. Selbstentfaltung>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > While money is based on alienation from things and humans>>>>>>>>> peer>>>>>>>>> >> >> > production is based on Selbstentfaltung of humans - which>>>>>>>>> is the>>>>>>>>> >> >> > opposite of alienation.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Immorality included vs. no immorality>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Money as an alienated principle can be used to to immoral>>>>>>>>> things ->>>>>>>>> >> >> > like waging wars. This is something we all know and bemoan>>>>>>>>> more>>>>>>>>> >> >> > often than not.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Peer production on the other hand is based on volunteering>>>>>>>>> and>>>>>>>>> >> >> > nobody volunteers for goals which s/he finds immoral.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > I'll stop here looking forward to responses and further>>>>>>>>> insights.>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Grüße>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Stefan>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >> [2 text/html]>>>>>>>>> >> >> _________________________________>>>>>>>>> >> >> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/>>>>>>>>> >> >> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/>>>>>>>>> >> >> Contact: projekt oekonux.de>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > -->>>>>>>>> > The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to>>>>>>>>> peer>>>>>>>>> > alternatives.>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at>>>>>>>>> > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at>>>>>>>>> > http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499;>>>>>>>>> interview at>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html>>>>>>>>> > BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>>>>> http://del.icio.us/mbauwens>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>>>>> > http://www.shiftn.com/>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>>>>> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer>>>>>>>> alternatives.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at>>>>>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at>>>>>>>> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499;>>>>>>>> interview at>>>>>>>> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html>>>>>>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>>>> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>>>> http://del.icio.us/mbauwens>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>>> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer>>>>>> alternatives.>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at>>>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at>>>>>> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p>>>>>>>>>>>> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview>>>>>> at>>>>>> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html>>>>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU>>>>>>>>>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>> http://del.icio.us/mbauwens>>>>>>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer>>>> alternatives.>>>>>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at>>>> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p>>>>>>>> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview>>>> at>>>> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html>>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU>>>>>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>> http://del.icio.us/mbauwens>>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer>> alternatives.>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at>> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p>>>> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at>> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>> http://www.shiftn.com/>>>>