Curt Doolittle

Category: AI, Computation, and Technology

  • TECHNOLOGY: OPINIONS ON BTC, DIGITAL SHARES, DIGITAL TITLE Initial generations o

    TECHNOLOGY: OPINIONS ON BTC, DIGITAL SHARES, DIGITAL TITLE

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them.

    The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary.

    This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do.

    I’ve said for years now that :

    (a) the idea of title registry and fractional shares as a medium of exchange, itself is brilliant, but;

    (b) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design,

    (c) transaction processing time under proof of work is a bad design.

    (d) lack of posting (rolling up fragments into a single new share and retiring the old) is a bad design.

    (e) lack of federation and sharding is a bad design. (look we invented a division of journals and ledgers for a reason.)

    (f) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability,

    (g) ***I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses.***

    (h) hence the distributed nature of the technology which makes research and development by individuals and teams possible, and provides a cheap means of financial speculation on these technologies, is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc.

    I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance.

    I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges – this will solve the primary problem remaining with that thing we call ‘money’.

    I am thrilled that we might create something on the order of a gold backed fractional share reserver to remove fiat money from circulation as a defense against inflation, and restoration of the possibility of comparatively lossless saving.

    However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durability of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off. Two part keys have been with us since we cut tics in sticks of wood – literally since we evolved speech.

    I haven’t been wrong so far. It is very unlikely that I err.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 11:54:00 UTC

  • Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-

    Initial generations of any technology follow a nearly identical pattern of over-enthusiasm and over-investment by hobbyists reaching the same limitations and failing to circumvent them. The subsequent generations of technology put greater investment in the hard work of solving the limitations, and paying the high cost of reorganizing the entire model if necessary. This is why first movers do not generally make the money that later movers do. I’ve said for years now that (a) the idea itself is brilliant, but (a) proof of work requiring waste heat is a pretty bad design, (b) btc are shares in a vulnerable network and as such a token money substitute persistently retaining that vulnerability, (c) I predicted that centralized, monolithic versions of the idea using mainstream technology and maintained by the treasury and banking organizations will succeed where distributed systems will not, for the simple reason that the user interface for, security of, response time for, archival ability for, and insurability by an insurer of last resort capable of restitution of losses, will have all the utility advantages without any of the weaknesses. (d) hence the distributed nature is not as valuable as the fractional share and record of title, and all we are doing is free research and development for the state, and the private banking network, check cashing networks, etc. I am extremely thrilled by the ICO model and self issuance of fractional shares because it totally screws big finance. I’m extremely thrilled by the ability to create a portfolio of digital monies that can only be used for certain exchanges. However, I have zero faith whatsoever in the durabiity of any form of encryption, or any distributed software, until there is a firmware revolution – which is a long way off.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 08:36:00 UTC

  • THE MARKET FOR DRONE OPERATORS COWEN: Drones? SRINIVASAN: Underrated. COWEN: Why

    THE MARKET FOR DRONE OPERATORS

    COWEN: Drones?

    SRINIVASAN: Underrated.

    COWEN: Why? What will they do that we haven’t thought of?

    SRINIVASAN: Construction. There’s different kinds of drones. They’re not just flying drones. There’s swimming drones and there’s walking drones and so on.

    Like the example I mentioned where you can teleport into a robot and then control that, Skype into a robot and control that on other side of the world. That’s going to be something where maybe you’re going to have it in drone mode so it walks to the destination. You’ll be asleep and then you wake up and it’s at the destination.

    Drones are going to be a very big deal. There’s this interesting movie called Surrogates, which actually talks about what a really big drone/telepresence future would look like. People never leave their homes because, instead, they just Skype into a really good-looking drone/telepresent version of themselves, and they walk around in that.

    If they’re hit by a car, it doesn’t matter because they can just rejuvenate and create a new one. I think drones are very, very underrated in terms of what they’re going to do.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 17:15:00 UTC

  • WITH CRYPTOCURRENCIES – TWO

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610808/chinese-entrepreneurs-have-some-creative-responses-to-the-governments-crackdown-on-crypto/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-04-22&utm_campaign=Technology+ReviewPROBLEMS WITH CRYPTOCURRENCIES – TWO

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 14:54:00 UTC

  • ELECTRICITY AND THE VULNERABILITY OF GRIDS Power is power is power. When they ch

    ELECTRICITY AND THE VULNERABILITY OF GRIDS

    Power is power is power. When they chose Edison and central power (dc), over Tesla and distributed power (ac), they created the vulnerability of all central production: the ability to use a concentration of forces to take control (or destroy).

    He who can destroy a thing, defacto owns a thing.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 10:43:00 UTC

  • “The internet only survives because several hundred network specialists have agr

    –“The internet only survives because several hundred network specialists have agreed not to sabotage it.”— Maxim V Filimonov

    (Think about that a bit)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 08:01:00 UTC

  • Intuitionistic (Logical), Categorical (Mathematical), and Type (Operational)

    —-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields. We have philosophy that gives us intuitionistic logic. We have mathematics that gives us category theory. Then in computer science we have type theory”—- The scope of content in those few sentences is priceless. I’m trying to think of how I can deflate it into operational (scientific) language. (ie: Whenever you use the word ‘is’ – the verb-to-be in any of its forms – you don’t understand the causal relations.) a) constant relations (intuition) b) positional relations. (categories) c) dimensional relations. (types) d) symmetric relations (symmetries, externalities, consequences) (models) e) and then repeat at the next level of hierarchy. All we are ever discussing is constant relations in some number of dimensions until we produce new identities (a) that we can define relations between (b) so that we can construct descriptions (c) so that we can model outcomes (d). “Constant relations all the way down’. Apr 15, 2018 6:21pm

  • Intuitionistic (Logical), Categorical (Mathematical), and Type (Operational)

    —-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields. We have philosophy that gives us intuitionistic logic. We have mathematics that gives us category theory. Then in computer science we have type theory”—- The scope of content in those few sentences is priceless. I’m trying to think of how I can deflate it into operational (scientific) language. (ie: Whenever you use the word ‘is’ – the verb-to-be in any of its forms – you don’t understand the causal relations.) a) constant relations (intuition) b) positional relations. (categories) c) dimensional relations. (types) d) symmetric relations (symmetries, externalities, consequences) (models) e) and then repeat at the next level of hierarchy. All we are ever discussing is constant relations in some number of dimensions until we produce new identities (a) that we can define relations between (b) so that we can construct descriptions (c) so that we can model outcomes (d). “Constant relations all the way down’. Apr 15, 2018 6:21pm

  • —-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields

    —-”there exists a triangular equivalence in theory of computation between fields. We have philosophy that gives us intuitionistic logic. We have mathematics that gives us category theory. Then in computer science we have type theory”—-

    The scope of content in those few sentences is priceless. I’m trying to think of how I can deflate it into operational (scientific) language. (ie: Whenever you use the word ‘is’ – the verb-to-be in any of its forms – you don’t understand the causal relations.)

    a) constant relations (intuition)

    b) positional relations. (categories)

    c) dimensional relations. (types)

    d) symmetric relations (symmetries, externalities, consequences) (models)

    e) and then repeat at the next level of hierarchy.

    All we are ever discussing is constant relations in some number of dimensions until we produce new identities (a) that we can define relations between (b) so that we can construct descriptions (c) so that we can model outcomes (d).

    “Constant relations all the way down’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-15 18:21:00 UTC

  • Blockchain

    BLOCKCHAIN I am not wrong very often. I wasn’t wrong on this subject either. Blockchain is an inadequate solution, and frankly I haven’t been able to understand how anyone could think otherwise except for having been stunned by the shiny object of the gold rush. IMHO, all we are doing is conducting R&D for post-money fiat money. Why? Because it eliminates the middle-man between the treasury and the people AND it eliminates the state’s ability to *DEFINE PROPERTY RIGHTS*. Even better it eliminates the ability for originators to package and sell loans and then evade responsibility for them. Moreover, it eliminates the problem of check cashing services, and the hard-money-economy of the ‘bottom’. All these things are profoundly important. But the libertarian fantasy that somehow an independent banking system will emerge is as absurd as it always has been. In the end, we have physical actors transferring physical assets, or all we are doing is playing a simulation. And the government can always and everywhere intercede in the physical world – simply because it is so profitable to do so. They have both every incentive and every resource as well as the public good at their disposal. So, while I appreciate that the nerd community wants to obtain sovereignty – all we are doing is devoting our free time and energy to funding the replacement for current absurdly antiquated, third party driven, financial system. This is to say that Holochain is a good step forward. It is also to say that blockchain was … childish… in my opinion as a technologist and political economist. Fun but childish. (And yes I lost I think something under 20K on a blockchain tech investment – but I knew I would. I was helping a friend. ) I can’t quite see a fully operational holochain platform, and the language used in the space is profoundly obscurant, so I have to reserve advocacy until I am capale of doing it honestly. That said it’s much closer to the result. On the other hand a monolithic and redundant system run by the private sector under state contract directly for the treasury is how I expect the solution to roll out. And it is the people who sell the government on that solution that will make all the money. I’d do it but I’m too busy trying to make a revolution ….