탐색: 메타커런시 프로젝트를 찾아서 10 - Ceptr Revelation 읽기

※ 본 게시물의 목적, 취지, 이력에 대해선 맨 밑의 비고를 참조(Please go to the bottom to see the purpose, intention, and prior history of this typed reproduction of an original─& incomplete─contribution by the MetaCurrency Project).

3.6 Fractal Sovereignty

(Still to write / expand:)

─. Cells & DNA… distributed governance. Currently political gridlock of group vs. individual and no ability to self-represent, trust/run local copy.

☞ Basic thing about fractal sovereignty is that there is mutual sovereignty at every layer and level. So it is possible to provide for mutual sovereignty at every layer and level. And because receptors are possible to structure fractally, you get this pattern of fractal sovereignty.

Mutual sovereignty: Something that is not currently available to us because we don't have the tools to embody this power dynamic between groups and individuals. The group maintains the order or rules of its domain and for peope to participate in that domain they have to participate according to those rules. But the individual is not subservient / subjugated─their liberty is not subjugated by the group in that since the architecture in Ceptr for these patterns involves every individual running and holding their own copy of the groups' agreements encoded in a receptor they always interact through their own copy.
Which means they always have their own history and records and copies of anything they've contributed when those assets are digital. [S]o the individual can revoke or remove their participation at any point while still keeping the value they contributed to the group.
1. What that allows for is a shift in the power dynamics around which most of our politics is polarized around the power of groups vs. the power of individuals.
2. Allows for the individual to say “Hey this group no longer works for me!” If they can't adapt, or if they're stuck [on] going in a direction you don't want to go I can go off in another direction and take my toys with me. And invite any portion of that group to come along as well. (Hey I'm forking and changing the rules in this way, and I'll honor the status of anyone else who wants to come with me.)
3. Prevents the group from control[ling] individuals' assets. The individual controls their own assets, but they're also shared by anyone who has a copy of those group's receptors.

☞ Network runs via sharded distributed synchronization [주]§

Imagine if Wikipedia was hosted by having all the users host five pages. You'd have a couple hundred redundant copies out there, and you could retrieve any of those pages that were nearby. But the hosting load would be very low. It would allow you to have a massive high-volume site without centralized hosting infrastructure or a centralized organization.
Ceptr allows receptors to be configured to use a DHT style storage with a configurable levels of redundancy or data integrity and insurance so that data can be shared in this way. But it's a modified version of that way in that you also have not only whatever randomly assigned portions you get by hashing but additional portion as well of whatever you authored as well. So you always keep your contributions.

[주]§. Mi Tar의 코멘트(2016년 7월 11일): Why not just build on top of IPFS? See my longer take on this question.
Arthur Brock의 답변(2016년 9월 23일): Because IPFS as it says in its name is a FILE system. It is not optimized for dynamic data frequently changing state. The whole thing is designed around content addressability which breaks the address every time content changes. IPNS at least so far, doesn't really solve this problem either. And it isn't structued for the layers of coherence that receptors have.

☞ Instances of distributed receptors as Mirror Neurons

Distributed process rather than distributed consensus. Much smaller scale consensus can be used to validate integrity of distributed process.
The model is: Trust your own code.
There are structures that can be able to check the integrity of the code that you are running against the hashes in the compository so you can be sure you're running the exact code everyone agreed to so you can know that at least your instance is secure / valid / working so you can relate to yourself as an authority. So an application based on levels of data assurance can validate your process through random of hashing through a high level of other peers (high level of 80-90%).
This approach is actually scalable and the way that nature does it.
IRL We don't store global ledgers of every sentence being spoken and have to get consensus about their validity to store them. Instead we carry the processes for generating and understanding language. [check crypto for (maybe) a reference]

☞ Synchronization messages comprehensible by means of shared dictionaries / scapes.

☞ Local identity ─ proxies as entanglement?

※ 독자 메모: 여기까지가 3.6 소절의 끝이고 3절 전체의 끝이다. 다음 차례는 제4절,

제4절, The Sovereign Accountable Commons

( ... ... )

※ 비고(This Reader's Remark): 메타커런시 프로젝트(MetaCurrency Project)의 개념과 역사에 대해 탐색해 가면서 아울러 현재와 미래에 걸쳐 동반 탐색자의 출현을 기대하는 공개적인 탐구용 게시물(A personal exploration to learn about something related to the ideas of the MetaCurrency Project and its history, having some hope to find some people interested esp. in Korea though).