Objection in the model of the web of trust of Ucoin

[demo]

@cgeek

@demo

I am asking for your help, because it is hard for me to discover the initial values into your code.

You could try to find them, you would not find them hardcoded. These are protocol parameters and are specific to each currency.

So we don’t know “what will be” the initial values, because we don’t know who will create one and which values this/these guy(s) will choose.

Thank you cgeek. This is a usefull answer.

[Galuel]

@demo

Who decides what the official web site is?

The developers of the software.

@demo

Are the same people who want to hide their initial decisions and values into the verbosity of their theories and into the mess of their code ?

Nothing is hidden. If you cannot see or cannot understand something, you have no legitimacy to accuse the other people for your own disabilities.

@demo

And what is this “make an economical proposition”? Do some people want to gain some economical profit from this project?

People who develop any economical value, like a free software for instance, can sell the software, can develop formations for using the software, can make any sort of profit they decide for anything concerning the software. This is absolutely correct.

A free software is not gratis. What other people do from their own economical activities don’t concern you. Develop your own economical activities instead of judging the production of others.

@demo

I am starting to understand the motivation of some of you, over here.

You can understand motivation of other people ?! Like Soviets and KGB I suppose ? You can try, you can study others instead of developing your own being… I’m not sure this will lead to something interesting for you.

[demo]

Ok, this is my first draft. Forgive me for any inconvenience.
I will read your protocol and come back here to edit this message.
have fun!

Protocol parameters

Parameter
Goal

c
The %growth of the UD every [dt] period

can be voted

dt
Time period between two UD

can be voted but it must be voted as a closed set (means you cannot vote infinitive time)

ud0
UD(0), i.e. initial Universal Dividend

can be voted

sigPeriod
Minimum delay between 2 certifications of a same issuer, in seconds. Must be positive or zero.

Dont bother as long as it is Not related to the WoT of assemblies

sigStock
Maximum quantity of active certifications made by member.

Dont bother as long as it is Not related to the WoT of assemblies

sigWindow
Maximum delay a certification can wait before being expired for non-writing.

Dont bother as long as it is Not related to the WoT of assemblies

sigValidity
Maximum age of a active signature (in seconds)

Dont bother as long as it is Not related to the WoT of assemblies

sigQty
Minimum quantity of signatures to be part of the WoT

Dont bother as long as it is Not related to the WoT of assemblies

idtyWindow
Maximum delay an identity can wait before being expired for non-writing.

Dont bother as long as it is Not related to the WoT of assemblies

msWindow
Maximum delay a membership can wait before being expired for non-writing.

Dont bother as long as it is Not related to the WoT of assemblies

xpercent
Minimum percent of sentries to reach to match the distance rule

can be voted to define distance of assemblies

msValidity
Maximum age of an active membership (in seconds)

what is this for?

stepMax
Maximum distance between each WoT member and a newcomer

can be voted to define distance of assemblies

medianTimeBlocks
Number of blocks used for calculating median time.

what is median time?

avgGenTime
The average time for writing 1 block (wished time)

dont know what it is, i have to read.

dtDiffEval
The number of blocks required to evaluate again PoWMin value

what is PoW?

blocksRot
The number of previous blocks to check for personalized difficulty

dont know what it is, i have to read.

percentRot
The percent of previous issuers to reach for personalized difficulty

dont know what it is, i have to read.

[Galuel]

@demo

can be voted

How you decided the type of “vote” you chose in your “big community” ? Did you use majority vote of 50 % ? 67 % ? Other ? Did you chose the Condorcet method vote ? Did you chose another definition of “vote” ? Which one ?

How did you chose this type of vote ? Voting ?

It seems you hide the initial values for confusing people… Where did you publish the rules of your “big community” ?

Very confusing guy, hiding anything, who does not publish his code, definition, explanations… Very strange in fact !

[demo]

@Galuel

@demo

can be voted

How you decided the type of “vote” you chose in your “big community” ? Did you use majority vote of 50 % ? 67 % ? Other ? Did you chose the Condorcet method vote ? Did you chose another definition of “vote” ? Which one ?

How did you chose this type of vote ? Voting ?

It seems you hide the initial values for confusing people… Where did you publish the rules of your “big community” ?

Very confusing guy, hiding anything, who does not publish his code, definition, explanations… Very strange in fact !

The method in order to extract a result from a vote, is also a subject to vote.
But there is a rule of logic here (logic applies in Democracy), the selected method must respect its own self.

For example in order for the rule of majority to be the selected method, 50%+1 must vote for it in a permanent plebiscite. If you want unanimity to be the selected as a method, unanimity must be voted by all.

My prefered method is to vote with numbers, and then extract an average. This method must be proposed to the members of the community, and must be voted if we want this one to be the selected method, in order to extract that way the results from the polls.

So the basic idea is, some permanent plebiscites must exists, incorporated into the code, that will configure and customize the code according to the vote that happens into them. Those plebiscites are of course dependant eachother. There are rules of logic that define this dependancy. For example you cannot extract a result from a vote, if you have not decided yet the method of extraction (majority, average or whatever)

[Galuel]

@demo

The method in order to extract a result from a vote, is also a subject to vote.But there is a rule here, the method selected must respect its own self.

You have a lot of definitions and a lot of rules, but no source to define who agree with all that, no community, no legitimacy, but yourself at the moment.

Start publishing your own project.

@demo

My prefered method is to vote with numbers, and then extract an average.

It is not mine, and so, I’m not part of your community, neither you to mine.

@demo

You cannot extract a result from a vote, if you have not decided yet the method of extraction (majority, average or whatever)

So, how your “community” start ? Where are your starting rules, your starting community, your starting parameters ?

Why do you hide your code ? What is your intention with that “not publishing” code ?

All this is very confusing, hiding information, no source to check… You are thinking alone.

[demo]

Galuel stop cuting my words, and try to understand what I have said as a whole.

I answered to your questions, and you are asking me again the same thing.

[demo]

@Galuel

So, how your “community” start ? Where are your starting rules, your starting community, your starting parameters ?

So let me repeat it to you, maybe you will understand it now.

The starting community is primarily the cryptoparty assembly (I mean the one with the physical ballot box, where we put our public keys inside, as described here). As long as the community is defined, then we go to the next step.

The logic states that we must first define the method to use in order to extract results from the plebiscites.
The (democratic) logic states that no single person should decide this method. So this method must be voted.
The logic states that a method in order to be selected as the preferable one, it must first respect its own self. So if we want majority to be our rule, in that case 50%+1 must vote in favor of majority. If we want unanimity to be our rule , all of us must vote for it. And so on, each proposed (and logical) method that may be used in order to extract a result from the plebiscite that is about to decide the selected method, it must primarily respect its own self.

So we vote-decide the method, and then we start voting and extracting the results from plebiscites using that method. Each assembly votes its own WoT parameters in order to trust the other assemblies, so a Web of Trust of assemblies occurs, and the community is redefined as a broader one. As long as the community is redefined, the method in order to extract results from the plebiscites may also be redefined again, taking into account now the will of the broader community. This is possible, because the vote never ends and the plebiscites never expire, and their result is reflected immediatly into the code.

This is how democracy starts. As you can see, in democracy there are no initial parameters or initial decisions decided by a single person or by an oligarchy. Democracy (with the help of logic of course, nobody can deny logic) is recursive and feedbacks itself. You have to understand recursion and reflection, and feedback terms, in order to understand Democracy. These are mainly programming techniques. If you dont understand them, then have a look below on how recursion looks like. Hope that helps.

[Inso]

@demo

The logic states that a method in order to be selected as the preferable one, it must first respect its own self. So if we want majority to be our rule, in that case 50%+1 must vote in favor of majority. If we want unanimity to be our rule , all of us must vote for it. And so on, each proposed (and logical) method that may be used in order to extract a result from the plebiscite that is about to decide the selected method, it must primarily respect its own self.

Who decides this rule ? That the voting method should be chosen using the same voting method ?

Personally, I do not agree. I think the voting method used in my community should be chosen using Unanimity.

So, who decides this rule ? Is it you, on your own, who dictate this choice to the ones who would like to join your democracy ? How do you decide ?

[Galuel]

@demo

The logic states that a method in order to be selected as the preferable one, it must first respect its own self. So if we want majority to be our rule, in that case 50%+1 must vote in favor of majority. If we want unanimity to be our rule , all of us must vote for it. And so on, each proposed (and logical) method that may be used in order to extract a result from the plebiscite that is about to decide the selected method, it must primarily respect its own self.

Ok, so it can happen :

• no-vote, instauring the “not vote” method to change nothing. And it’s logically consistent.
• 10% decide to vote the type of vote : 10% of voting people are enough to change anything.
• 1 person vote : 1 person vote is enough to not change the rules equal to next :
• 100% persons vote : only 100% of persons can change anything.

In all cases, I decide, as an individual : I refuse other people to decide for me what can be the rules of my community and the rules of my money. If people “vote” to do anything different, they will do it by fork, because I will always be able to continue for my own with my historical branch, with all the people who agree the same road.

And so I can understand : all your rules are yours, and I don’t agree at all with them consistently with the Freedon n°2 of RTM economical freedom.

[demo]

@Inso

@demo

The logic states that a method in order to be selected as the preferable one, it must first respect its own self. So if we want majority to be our rule, in that case 50%+1 must vote in favor of majority. If we want unanimity to be our rule , all of us must vote for it. And so on, each proposed (and logical) method that may be used in order to extract a result from the plebiscite that is about to decide the selected method, it must primarily respect its own self.

Who decides this rule ? That the voting method should be chosen using the same voting method ?

Personally, I do not agree. I think the voting method used in my community should be chosen using Unanimity.

So, who decides this rule ? Is it you, on your own, who dictate this choice to the ones who would like to join your democracy ? How do you decide ?

Yes of course you can form a Democracy that is based on the rule of Unanimity.
But do you think it is fair the unanimity rule to be decided non unanimously?

This is what the rule states. It is a logical and fair rule. If you are not fair, or if you are not a logic person, you will not accept the rule, and you will form a parallel democracy of unreasonable and fools.

[Galuel]

@demo

Yes of course you can form a Democracy that is based on the rule of Unanimity.But do you think it is fair the unanimity rule to be decided non unanimously?

This is what the rule states. It is a logical and fair rule. If you are not fair, or if you are not a logic person, you will not accept the rule, and you will form a parallel democracy of unreasonable and fools.

Yes this is ok.

So Community(0) decide unanimously of the rules(0).

Then, no one will be able to break this without having Unanimity.

It is so, perfectly established.

[demo]

@Galuel

@demo

Yes of course you can form a Democracy that is based on the rule of Unanimity.But do you think it is fair the unanimity rule to be decided non unanimously?

This is what the rule states. It is a logical and fair rule. If you are not fair, or if you are not a logic person, you will not accept the rule, and you will form a parallel democracy of unreasonable and fools.

Yes this is ok.

So Community(0) decide unanimously of the rules(0).

Then, no one will be able to break this without having Unanimity.

It is so, perfectly established.

Yes in the case unanimity is voted by all, then you respect logic and fairness.
But if you require unanimity, you create a very small community.
A small community may be ok in some community cases, but it is a fatal error when talking about money communities.

[Inso]

I think you misread. Galuel means is that rules(0) does not necessary involve unanimity. Only that to change rules(0), you need it. But rules(0) can involve something totally different.

[demo]

@Inso

I think you misread. Galuel means is that rules(0) does not necessary involve unanimity. Only that to change rules(0), you need it. But rules(0) can involve something totally different.

In that case it is not Democracy, because rule(0) has been not been decided democratically.

[Inso]

Rules(0) were decided democratically by Community(0) using Unanimity process. But then, Rules(0) does not necessary contains Unanimity as a voting process.

[demo]

@Inso

Rules(0) were decided democratically by Community(0) using Unanimity process. But then, Rules(0) does not necessary contains Unanimity as a voting process.

Also it is not democracy because rule(0) cannot change in time. If a decision cannot change, this is not symmetry over time.It represents the point of view of the deads.

@demo

So we vote-decide the method, and then we start voting and extracting the results from plebiscites using that method. Each assembly votes its own WoT parameters in order to trust the other assemblies, so a Web of Trust of assemblies occurs, and the community is redefined as a broader one. As long as the community is redefined, the method in order to extract results from the plebiscites may also be redefined again, taking into account now the will of the broader community. This is possible, because the vote never ends and the plebiscites never expire, and their result is reflected immediatly into the code.

[Inso]

@demo

Also it is not democracy because rule(0) cannot change in time. If something cannot change, this is not symmetry over time.It represents the point of view of the deads.

Rules(0) can change in time using Unanimity only. But Rules(0) do not involve unanimity for any other decision than changing the rules of the rules. Is it OK for your “democracy” now ?

[cgeek]

@demo

A small community may be ok in some community cases, but it is a fatal error when talking about money communities.

Tsss … again and again, you don’t define what “big” or “small” means.

Bitcoin as a hundred thousand human users. This is already a “big” community to me, what is it to you a “big” one?

1.000.000 ? 1.000.000.000 ? Where is is defined?

[demo]

@Inso

@demo

Also it is not democracy because rule(0) cannot change in time. If something cannot change, this is not symmetry over time.It represents the point of view of the deads.

Rules(0) can change in time using Unanimity only. But Rules(0) do not involve unanimity for any other decision than changing the rules of the rules. Is it OK for your “democracy” now ?

“Rules(0) can change in time using Unanimity only.”
This is a decision that cannot change in time.