Hi marc,>> I read your 2 last messages, especially your reasoning in the previous one,> and do not disagree with your basic premise that 'near zero' is not free,> and that right incentives supports sharing choices,>> I personally do not see a contradiction between social and physical p2p> theory, one being grounded in the other,>> that I pay less attention to the physical does not mean I deny it,>> Michel>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:39 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>>> Hi Michel,>>>> I do not mean to suggest that social p2p theory is any less important than>> a physical theory but it means that we ought to understand real limitations>> imposed on any social theory that involves physical processes and resources,>> which places my side of the discussion firmly in the area of thermoeconomic>> theory.>>>> So maybe we can put P2P Theory under a stereoscope, i.e. using the social>> and physical lenses rather than just the social lens.>>>> Model Update:>>>> 1. Re-introduced Model's Scope>>>> 2. Updated "Original Idea" by removing reference to where money gets its>> value today. A whole section called "Existing Model" would have to be added>> that details the model of the economy in use today... I would consider that>> once the game/simulation proves the merits of the model I'm developing.>>>> 3. Under "Peer Credits" I gave a definition for "peer production value of>> money", which I believe is a new phrase.>>>> 4. Clarified wording under Anti-Dumping and Anti-Monopoly Caps for Energy>> Production, with emphasis on why a cap on energy production per peer, which>> is calculated based on demand, is needed to sustain the abundance model (and>> removed mention of price setting since it's explained under Energy Price>> Regulation)>>>> 5. Clarified wording under: Energy Price Regulation, with emphasis on the>> 2-variable price regulation function>>>> 6. Added a note re: affinity matrix and current applicability (at end of>> Clarification to Affinity Matrix)>>>> 7. Improved explanation under Value Creation Model (fka Value Creation>> Process)>>>> 8. Introduced the concept of investing in marketing vs investing in>> production as a model for lending (accumlating credit points) vs investing>> in goods and services>>>> 9. Updated "Why Demurrage Is Bad">>>> R 0.58.0 which incorporates the above is at>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model>>>> Merry xmas and happy holidays to all :-)>>>> Marc>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:45 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:>>>>> 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/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --> 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/>