synereo - the decentralized and distributed social network

... tostudy

first spotted here on G+ where it is billed as:

"the world’s first fully-decentralized social network."

The White Paper -- very detailed

Apparently crowd funded with bitcoins.

... and, er ... whatever happened to diaspora ? ... maybe still active, see pods

Most active "pod" seems to be the Eeuopean one ... even so ... 5k active users is a drop in the bucket

5486

Comments

Eiamyme says

seth 2015-04-15 07:59:21 18237

Eiamyme 2015-04-15 07:55:03 18237

Wonder how they eliminate the need for IP's & ISP's & Servers

There must be some dependence upon the Internet.

i don't think they do eliminate that need. Where did you get that?

When you use the word "decentralized" you imply something, eh ? What? Exactly what needs to be decentralized? What are the usecases for such a thing & why? Who & what kind of people want such a thing? Darknet? I'm just asking - don't want to argue it. Maybe later.

Seth says

Well the internet is decentralized in that ("ideally") there is always a path for messages to flow irrespective of anybody's ownership or control of the underlying hardware. This feature makes it extremely resilient ... i don't think the internet has ever gone down (notwithstanding local outages). It also permits the assumption that anybody can say anything to anybody else.

That is not the case with Facebook. Facebook owns the hardware and sets the assumptions under which messages can flow from person to person on its network ... it sets the rules under which a person can communicate.   Whereas a decentralized network, like synereo or diaspora, attempts to allow communications without anybody owning the medium or controlling, or anybody setting the assumptions inherent in the communications.

Ideally a decentralized communication system has no government. Anybody can communicate to anybody else with no central authority interfering.   The down side is that there is nobody to prevent evil ... the up side is that there is no government (or other entity) to restrict individual communication for its own purposes.

My own interest centers around my assumption that we have a sort of intelligent collective human mind growing which is supervening on the Internet.   Ideally that mind should not be under the control of any peculiar faction, be it Google, Facebook, the Obama Administration, the Caliphate, or the Koch brothers. Right now, at least in this country, the mediums of communication seems to be mostly in the grips of a few M$M broadcast channels, Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, twitter, etc, and perhaps the NSA.

*Assuming* that there actually is a intelligent global human mind growing, wouldn't it be better, if it were controlled by us humans individually as we freely interact? Or can you yourself choose a better top down government that should be imposed? Then of course, why should be use your peculair wisdom to choose the top down assumptions and control ... why not Joe Smuck's or Alum Almani's. No, nobody can choose the top down government ... so i say let us control our own individual communications as we freely interact with each other.   When it comes to a intelligent global mind, I opt for the resilience of decentralization.

Seth says
a wave to the dark side ... tracked from here.

Seth says

seth 2015-04-25 10:14:55 18237

i recieved the following email from synereo. i don't know what it means.

more here and some videos about this network that nobody owns.

Seth says

this article might shed some light ... found it off of comment on their network via rededit

Seth says

#slack apparently i am on the network.

Seth says

seth 2015-04-25 10:47:35 18237

this article might shed some light ... found it off of comment on their network via rededit

source: ceo of synereo

DK: AMPs can be used to amplify the power of information flow on the network. Investing AMPs in a post makes it propagate beyond its organic reach and increases it priority, making it more likely to appear in the stream of more users. Users seeing AMPed content in their streams receive a portion of the investment AMPs as compensation for their attention.

The AMP coin carries some properties that bitcoin doesn’t. For one, AMPs have an inherent value on the Synereo network, being able to “purchase” attention. Attention is - and will always be - a scarce commodity, and so there will always be a demand for it. AMPs also increase in effectiveness as the Synereo network grows, with each AMP allowing a post to receive more attention from more users.

... so you purchase attention

Mark de LA says

Some call it advertizement.

Seth says

seth 2015-04-25 10:53:04 18237

seth 2015-04-25 10:47:35 18237

this article might shed some light ... found it off of comment on their network via rededit

source: ceo of synereo

... so you purchase attention

...

Synereo is designed as a framework for managing the attention economy. Synereo optimizes your ability to achieve your goals, social or otherwise, by shaping both inputs and outputs of information in ways that reflect your own estimation of value.

...

Mark de LA says

seth 2015-04-25 11:34:50 18237

seth 2015-04-25 11:19:38 18237

this perhaps explains the how the purchace of attention works ... bit different than advertising

also covered in the white paper under the heading "Synereo and the emergence of a social consensus"

i have for a time envisioned a communication system where what bubbled into people's attention was based on trust rather than money. this appears to be a strange variation on that ... well worth a detailed study.

I prefer more that what bubbles into my attention is what I choose to grant my attention to. LOA has one term alignment which fits the idea. OTOH, the other side of the modern coin is memetics - whatever appeals to selfie or physical survival of host & its progeny.

Seth says

seth 2015-04-25 11:19:38 18237

this perhaps explains the how the purchace of attention works ... bit different than advertising

also covered in the white paper under the heading "Synereo and the emergence of a social consensus"

Seth says

seth 2015-04-25 11:09:30 18237

mark 2015-04-25 10:57:43 18237

Some call it advertizement.

WTF ???

posted on April 1 st

Seth says

mark 2015-04-25 11:53:20 18237

seth 2015-04-25 11:34:50 18237

seth 2015-04-25 11:19:38 18237

i have for a time envisioned a communication system where what bubbled into people's attention was based on trust rather than money.

I prefer more that what bubbles into my attention is what I choose to grant my attention to.

Of course ... absolutely ... i am the same way

.

I assert that (same?) thing like this ...

source: Seth

I, and I alone, can move and feel this little patch of the universe and must suffer the consequences of that movement. I do not choose to deligate that responsibility to a standardized wisdom or a person (or entity) who does not even know, or care that I exist. Please ma, i would rather do it myself.

... Now i am sure you would say it in detail in your own words quite differently ... and would even pick holes in the way i say it ... but i think the end result is pretty much the same. It is a declaration of sovereign individuality.

But i am talking here about a "communication system" among individuals ... like for example Facebook, G+, twitter, and the internet at large. What is the process by which specific things bubble up to your attention within these media? For example, yesterday this 18237 buttled up into your attention, and then you made your famous contribution above. What are the assumptions already inherant in these media that control what bubbles up? Can we improve those assumptions?

Seth says

toread

source: podcast

In this episode of The Future Thinkers Podcast:

Every-day applications of Ethereum
What are the benefits of decentralization?
Architectural vs. Political decentralization
Blockchains and Torrent networks
Decentralized vs. distributed networks
The problems with Bitcoin, and how Ethereum is solvng them
Automating away managers and middle-men
Ethereum and the near-zero cost ecomonies

...

Seth says

an interesting discussion

.

perhaps technology can provide an alternative to wealth (or momentum) creating a power to control others

Seth says

incidentally the "Golden Rule" is not a law ... there are no consequences imposed if you do not use it ... except perhaps Karma itself, but that is another story.

Oh sure and all, would we can presume it would be best if we all followed that rubric ... a big presumption indeed. The problem is that the instinct for self preservation almost always dominates any care for others. That apparently is human nature. So trying to imply that this uneforceable rubric is better than relying on the rule of law, is to piss into the wind.

Seth says

(;-)) 2015-08-21 08:39:47 18237

seth 2015-08-21 08:30:26 18237

source: ...

Threefolding sees economics similar to the blood & breathing systems of the human body. [snip] I prefer to extricate economics from the political & re-balance it so that the balance of capital & how & what is produced is closer to the people who do the work instead of silos & pyramids. Evolution is still going on.

... me too

. I especially like seeing our economics as the blood and breathing of an individual body.

source: ...

Some in society would pretend that the brain or limbs of the body could hate the blood system in your scenario.

... not me

. I love commerce

... the distribution of food

... and merchandise

... and even large industry and what makes that work. Many references can be provided. I've done a bit of that myself

The dominance of money in politics ... well now, that is something to hate

... perhaps we need to change the constitution in our country to de-escalate that.

Last sentence is in grave error & illustrates the brain hating the pulse. Bottom up not top down. Hillary recently expressed that humans can't be trusted & need laws to behave the way she wanted them to. The correct way is for what's inside the human to get expressed in the right way & balance. There will always be assholes, but being an asshole will become a recessive trait eventually & spin off in a different direction than human being, imho.

There is no "brain hating the pulse" going on when we makes law and enforce them with practical consequences. that is just the manifestation of story (or thought or planning and calculation) over the fickelness of emotion. it is necesary for the sustainance of life.

i too was surprised that Hillary said the thing about changing laws being preferred over chancing hearts in the context in which she said it. Fact is, however, that emotion cannot be trusted, especially the emotion of a mob. In the greater society and even within our individual selves, sometimes it is better to stick to a story that you know is going to work ... rather than go with a fleeting emotion of the moment.

Seth says

(;-)) 2015-08-21 09:45:56 18237

seth 2015-08-21 09:40:14 18237

(;-)) 2015-08-21 09:14:28 18237

[snip] I'm surprised you take the authoritarian path given earlier predispositions. The Golden Rule, heart-chakra etc will outlast all others. The ultimate authoritarian is working itself out here in war.

I am taking no authoritarian path here. I just am acknowledging the usefulness of making laws (stories, thoughts, calculations, plans) and sticking to them ... as applied to self and as applied to society.

The concept called "authority" is quite distinct from that.

Why are you switching, a use of consequence enforcing laws, with a notion of authority?

Laws are enforced by police & the force & the authority of same.

Well "authority" is a natural language word and you and everybody else are free to use it just as you want.

I can, and frequently do, reject "authorities" that you trust, and i do so with no consequences except perhaps having to suffer your negative emotions. But when i try to walk away from police questioning me on the street, i suffer the consequences of being thrown in jail. For me the distinction is stark.

Seth says

(;-)) 2015-08-21 10:00:17 18237

seth 2015-08-21 09:50:51 18237

Yep fuck the golden rule & go for gangs, mobs & democrats ..

sorry i cannot follow you from here to there ... seems that you are just throwing out irrelivant associations of words to construct the illusion of practical thought ... or more likely to obstruct it.

Seth says

(;-)) 2015-08-21 10:48:45 18237

seth 2015-08-21 10:40:54 18237

(;-)) 2015-08-21 10:35:26 18237

seth 2015-08-21 10:33:02 18237

(;-)) 2015-08-21 10:26:09 18237

seth 2015-08-21 10:20:19 18237

(;-)) 2015-08-21 10:08:28 18237

Fuck the Charter for Compassion too!

(sarcasm

)

Well, not me. I love caring for others just as i care for myself.

The point is nobody has figured a way to implement practical consequences in our society when people instinctively don't give a shit about others. In fact some LOA memes appear to say that is irrelevant. They say you are quite independent of others, in charge only of your self, and need not concern yourself with the business of others. That is what i am thinking about in this item with Nathan.

Remember the mote in the eye thingy(biblical look it up). GR is an internal guidance not an external one, Hillary notwithstanding.

Yep GR is internal guidance with no external consequences ... apparently we are in agreement.

You added the no external consequences I did'nt .'. no agreement.

Well do you know of any external consequences of not following the Golden Rule?

Well , if there are no external consequences why bother to do it? Maybe read the Charter of Compassion or something.

Well good question and good point. There are external consequences to you when more people do it ... and when somebody does it to you, there are external consequences to you. But If you do, or do not, do it to others, there are no externa consequences to yourself. There is kind of a paradox of numbers here. The part to the whole, the individual vs his society, ... strange how a thing like the Golden Rule gets all up in that dilema.

Seth says

(;-)) 2015-08-21 10:58:40 18237

seth 2015-08-21 10:51:53 18237

(;-)) 2015-08-21 10:34:14 18237

seth 2015-08-21 10:30:12 18237

(;-)) 2015-08-21 10:17:29 18237

Yep, spungy-mungy has reduced this conversation to basically nothing has been said. Yea folks social media is just a giant selfie.

or is it that i am drawing quite distince (and understandable) distinctions and, what is being reflected in you, is your own confusion about them ?

And, of course social media is a giant selfie ... make the best of it, i say. You like the tits ... ok i do too ... the trend is to show more and more cleavage ... i like it ... don't you ... why shuld women hide their charms? Even denise is changeing her wardrobe ... i could show pictures but that would be breaking her confidence.

... missed the part about social media being a selfie, I guess. OR IS IT? NAH!
Anyway when those in the executive branch refuse to enforce the laws then even the laws are worthliess like immigration laws & anything the big "O" doesn't like. Like Hillary & her classified personal server etc.

strange that you say i "missed the part about social media being a selfie" ... when i actually said it almost exactly the same way myself, "And, of course social media is a giant selfie".

I guess your "OR IS IT? NAH!" is you hiding saying anything of substance behind a cute reverse irony of your own titilation.

But i say it with no irony intened. Social media is the formation of societie's ego. Crap on it all you want, want something different if that is your stick ... that is why i say, "make the best of it" ... or "make it the best you can". Or piss on yourself ... not caring here ... not my business.

Yeah, when you are hiding in your own Egoo Quicksand pit take a selfie & see what you look like to someone besides yourself.

hmmm ..... i am confused here .... who are you talking to me, ...... or yourself?

And yes absolutely! When considering egoo and mirroring behavior is it difficult not to get confused.

synereo - the decentralized and distributed social network

Tags

Comments

See Also