Did you finish reading the post?
Yes.
I would like to hear more critical or other feedbck from you on this.
My feeling is that the more decentralized authority becomes the more representational it will become. So in that regard @matrix-8's proposal is an interesting one. However depending on what level an issue becomes then one would have a greater degree of separation from ones representative than one does now with the elected representatives in government.
One would start out in the lower level of 8 individuals. One that you had chosen would be sent to the next level. They would then have a part in choosing the representative on the third level. No one that you had choosen would have a part in choosing the next 5 delegates. That sounds more broken than the present elected representative in most claimed to be democracies.
My goal is to seek non-representational (or direct representation) governance. As we approaxh the age of AI replacing many in the labor force, we could turn governance into an industry. For example anyone partipating in legislative voting could recieve financial rewards. My personal preference is to have no one represent me but myself and to allow AI and machines to free up my time (and others) enough that our full attention can be brought to bare on matters now decided.by central authority.
Thanks for your reply.
That is not necessarily the case. My understanding is as follows:
The representative from your 8-PAC in level 1, would sit in 8-PAC on level 2 (and leve1 1 members are able to observe through video and audio the level 2 meeting - and send text messages to the rep during the meeting). If the rep fails to follow the agreed upon line he/she can be removed and replaced by another even in the middle of the meeting.
The same applies for level 3 meeting (and the rep from you group might be the one selected as rep for level 3), and so on right to level 11 (if entire population has joined.
@matrix-8 will likely confirm my understanding and shed more light
@acidyo I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this too, especially with your research and development into reputaion.
It is still decentralized representation with even more people involved than the straight up elected rep which you can monitor, tweet and howl at the moon. My feeling is that once at level 3 one would no longer have the ability to recall unless it happened to be someone from your original eight.
It seems more sensible to me to work towards direct representational governance. The tech is just about there for it, it is just a matter of tax slaves not having the needed time to attend to it.
The following iswas written by @matrix-8 and sent to me by e-mail. He's asked me to post it here:
"Here I want to talk about Reputation and possible Sybil Attacks. Especially at the beginning of our venture, a bad guy could spend the time to create a whole network of nonexistent Participants – and get rewarded as if they were real. But, that Value stolen would be almost negligible until the M-8 Platform had accumulated a large number of Members. Presumably, by then we would be able to root out any Sybils.
There will be continual periodic evaluations of one's Peers in their 8-PAC's. Anyone found to be fudging will receive a black mark on their Reputation; and superior activities will receive gold stars. Both positive and negative reports will also reflect back on their Recruiter. Any time anyone interacts with any Member on the platform, the person's Communications will be tagged from 1 to 100 with a numerical grade reflecting their Reputation. And when things really get rolling and Members start to join in Goal Groups that impact the Real World – everyone will be expected to pony up their percentage of the costs involved. In this CauseFunding aspect of the M-8 system, Sybils will be immediately obvious – when their portion of the costs don't show up. (Or, if someone wanted to maintain the Reputation of one of their Sybil entities, they could pay the extra quota for their imaginary Member. In this case, no real damage would be done to one's Peers.)
You can take this with a grain of salt – because I am quite ignorant regarding programming. But, I think that edicted's biggest problem--in his blogs on Reputation--is that it's difficult to guard against the random banditry of Strangers. And in the M-8 system – we're talking about family. You trust your family; you're wary of Strangers. The founders of the M-8 system are going to be a fairly worldly and savvy group. I think we will be able to institute state-of-the-art protections for ourselves. Over time, a person's Reputation Quotient would be their numerical grade times the number of years they've been around. Someone who's grade is 75 over a 10 year period would have a higher quotient than a newbie's 100 for only six months: 750 vs 50. "
Sybil Attacks were somewhat my concern when suggesting the introduction of an optional CAPCHA sustem.
It seems to me that until sentient activity is verifiable in a digitaluzed matrix-8, then one could play with the valves and levers all day long without being ever certain if one is monitoring bot traffic or not.
Just because there is a sentient precence does not exclude them originating from some sweat shop somewhere. That is where the reputation scheme would have greater weight. Its benifits would only.be exerted if a verified sentient is at the wheel; driving the traffic so to speak. 😎