Page 1 of 2
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:07 pm
Might be a silly question (or previously addressed) is there a sort of git implementation as part of the platform? GitHub is all well and good, but they were bought by Microsoft. Also, as markets develop/emerge decentralized a platform of software distribution is chiefly important in the creation and preservation of a free society. In post-industrial economies, the challenge is more on ownership and censorship which I can see is addressed in the primary implementation.
Again might by ridiculous to ask, but bare with me bc I'm sort-of in the "rogue sperm" developmental stage of programming.
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 4:25 am
Git by itself is perfectly decentralised. Github is "just" used as a convenient tool to host one Git repository (but every developer has their own complete repository as well) and for discussions on issues and the like.
We sign our commits using GPG (like upstream Bitcoin), which means that a compromised Github can't modify the sources in any way without us (or anyone else) noticing.
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:51 am
That's what I meant. GitHub (or any git platform) is a bottle neck for development. Currently the platforms are allowed to compete in the free market so its a bit of a non-issue in most post-industrial countries. However, what's happened in banking (state mandated central banks leading to fiat/fractional reserve, etc.) is what all governments attempt to do: that is to gain absolute power. Access to data is just another means a state can use to subjugate it's population. So, it is imperative to relieve this bottle neck with a decentralized platform.
For example, cryptocurrency exchanges are weak points in the space. Git platforms are just exchanges of development, rather than coinage. So, a distributive git platform can become "censorship-resistant".
Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:07 pm
Ah ok, so your interest is on a more abstract level. I thought you were specifically concerned about Github being hostile and compromising Namecoin development, not in general about any such platform centralising development.
While your concerns are (on this level) of course valid, I think they are much less severe than with exchanges or other infrastructure components. Git is already pretty decentralised, where every repository is "equal" and holds all the data and history (unlike centralised version control systems like Subversion). This means that if Github were to be shut down, we could publish all data again on basically any server or alternative platform we like. No data would be lost, and everyone could verify the integrity of the new repository through our GPG signatures. So it would be annoying, but could not cause any problems that couldn't be overcome easily.
That said, of course it would be interesting to think about building fully decentralised development platforms (especially of course for cryptocurrencies and other decentralised networks). So if you have any ideas in this direction, let us know (and/or start your own project)!
Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:24 am
I do have an idea. How familiar are you with the Austrian school of economics or people like Murray N. Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises?
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:14 am
Are you still with me? lol.
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:28 am
Yeah sure, just post your idea. (Ideally in a way that is understandable by every reader here (not focussed on me). I think basic Austrian economics is something you can assume familiarity with in the crypt community, although a not too deep one.)
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:02 am
I was trying to make this a smaller reply, sorry. This is mostly just conceptual bc I am currently very early on in learning C++ (like 2% through) and am not sure what is possible/practical.
I call it GitDucks (Git Digital Bucks). GitDucks is the network/client and it operates as a peer-to-peer Bitcoin scale. The first pair would be US bitcoin(USb):Bitcoin. USb (and any other iteration, ex. China bitcoin or CHb:Bitcoin) would be issued as a colored coin and unmineable, but it would only inflate as demand grew. For example, the initial issue would be 100k USb @ ~$1.00 (or 0.00015403 BTC) held by GitDucks and not by any user. If all 100k were bought, then GitDucks would create another 100K @ ~1.01 (or 0.00015557 BTC), etc. Once the 10% (~$1.10) hit, the inflationary amount would increase by 10x. Same @ 20% (~$1.20). If USb fell after a rally, at a certain point, the inflationary amounts reset to 100k. For example, if it was at 20%, then the price hit below 10% then the next inflationary amount would be 100k @ 20%.
Possibly as the currency inflates, every wallet's holdings would receive a small and proportional amount, kind of like a dividend. Which would protect user's holdings, if the Bitcoin price falls.
Also, the nodes that supported the platform will be required to lock 1k USb and will compete for transaction fees (which would be at a fixed rate). This would allow for all transactions execute equally quick so even a minimal micro payments payments can be expedited.
As USb is bought, GitDucks would 'hedge' the received Bitcoin proportional to USb supply so that every user would be able to get Bitcoin back w/a minimal loss if any. As the price rally'd, then the large amount of the hedge would go down allowing for the USb:Bitcoin price to move independently from Bitcoin based on market demand and that could allow for the mirror to move closer to the fiat in the native country.
Economically, GitDucks would act like what paper notes were to gold/silver coinage. Also, by allowing for different 'national' versions this will allow for a more malleable 'layer' to Bitcoin to conform to a culture. For example, in Mexico cash is king and the volatility and crypto's only digital nature would need something that has a 'physical' aspect (like paper wallets) that didn't have huge fluctuations. Furthermore, the nodes could be required to run a full Bitcoin node, which will help further decentralize the Bitcoin network, with a much lower barrier to entry.
This could end the federal reserve and nearly all central banking.
Namecoin comes in, in that the current git platforms all bottle neck with ICANN. ICANN (like in the history of central banking) can leverage it's power and be inducted back into the federal government and used to regulate data. Now for a user that has GitDucks, its not a big deal. But for an unbanked user in an oppressive government, they could prevent these gateways thru an ICANN partnership or something. So, Namecoin would best be suited to ensure that GitDucks cannot be barred.
There's quite a bit more nuance that I've thought thru, so let me know about any questions.
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2018 9:28 am
Thanks for the details ... but to me that sounds basically like a design for a collateralised stablecoin (e.g. how Bitshares work), and not related at all to decentralised Git hosting. Where did I miss that?
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:32 am
I see the similarities but what I’m proposing is quite different in many ways.
BitShares pegs a SmartCoin to an arbitrary value, ex. USD. A coin that is pegged to something like fiat is liable to the same fractional reserve manipulation. Let's say the pegged coin loses value bc of fiat inflation and the devs of this SmartCoin were to grant their users more SmartCoins to prevent loses, this would not protect users in any way. This is bc this inflation does not represent labor, demand, etc. making a pegged coin just a fiat currency on chain. Rothbard's “Angel Gabrielle” dilemma mirror's that exactly.
In the case of GitDucks, the Bitcoin iterations may or may not fluctuate, but if they do it’s because of market demand. Therefore, BitShares doesn’t empower the user but what the user places value in. In the case of a coin pegged to USD, it empowers the criminal organization of the federal reserve.
So, GitDucks is similar to BitShares in type, but vastly different in value as the mechanisms are polar opposites entirely
The reason why I think decentralized git hosting is important, is because what I’m proposing would become the enemy to central banking. The one ‘criminal’ that governments give no rest to are those that threaten their livelihood. Bc ICANN has a special authority to determine domain names, they have a special authority over all data. So, Namecoin can help ensure that ICANN nor any organization(s) would have the authority to stop its release/spread.