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/