I recommend taking a look at the internet computer which has similar goals.

https://dfinity.org/

It has its own language. So you have to rewrite everything anyway.

We could introduce a simple virtual machine language that can execute the primitives a vast majority of distributed apps require and a simple secure runtime that limits arbitrary communication with other machines

The problem is with view layer. No vm will have access to browser Dom. There's already a web worker api that can be used to execute funcs, but we'd like to give users ability to script react components. I can see how to separate html from state logic, and jail that logic to web worker, or a vm. The problem, who's gonna learn some weird api to write those components, and who's gonna rewrite all components available on npm.

I would run the VM/interpreter on every node in the P2P network. You could run untrustworthy code this way.

Only if you choose to run it.

Perhaps you have a UI where you create a room of people and the people in the room you can communicate arbitrarily with. So you can't create random sockets with websites and steal data. You can't open files either. Only query the distributed database.

When I say virtual machine I don't meant a heavyweight virtualbox virtual machine which is processor instruction set virtualization.

I mean a simple while loop interpreter that executes bytecode and performs operations according to a virtual machine specification. Python is implemented as a bytecode interpreter.

I wish V8 engine was easy to import and use as a library with the ability to provide a context to the virtual machine to specify what symbols are valid. Unfortunately it's as complicated as Nodejs is to embed. Plain old JavaScript or Python is safe as long as you cannot import file APIs or start processes. Essentially as long as you cannot import any API your code is isolated.

If you want safety you have to re implement quite a lot of the browser or language stack as languages aren't embeddable safely.

''There are already a lot of code quality metrics, that code can simply be filtered by: support of versions of language, presence of documentation, syntax quality, not to speak of test coverage, testing pipeline definitions, stars, collaboration metrics, pull requests, community activity, comments on code, etc., that I think, can indicate a lot of issues, unless there is an intelligent malicious actor, that knows all that, and intentionally introduces security vulnerabilities, for which such community vetting and reviews would be useful. However, I think, this could be achieved by a more discretionary starring and following decisions by the renowned engineers. Maybe a special kind of badge could be introduced, that is only usable by the community members of certain track record, and only after provided reviews.

I agree. What I envision is a low code builder available to non devs thru browser, to script modules in a low code way. Most will be drag and drop, but there will be some simple js funcs. A testing system can be introduced later. The problem is, the low code opens door for much wider range of people, with plenty more bad actors. If we make hoops too narrow, we defeat the purpose of accessing that wide range of people. I'm mostly concerned about intelligent bad actors, the cheaters, after your wallet types. A low code system lowes that intelligence threshold, unfortunately

Thank you. So, a vm would run on a central server? We are designing a serveless architecture, with kernel code coming from cdn, bc is the database supplying modules as scripts. Do you suggest running a vm on client system? Maybe. Perhaps they would have to spend a few mins to cash vm code.

// vetted community modules //

There are already a lot of code quality metrics, that code can simply be filtered by: support of versions of language, presence of documentation, syntax quality, not to speak of test coverage, testing pipeline definitions, stars, collaboration metrics, pull requests, community activity, comments on code, etc., that I think, can indicate a lot of issues, unless there is an intelligent malicious actor, that knows all that, and intentionally introduces security vulnerabilities, for which such community vetting and reviews would be useful. However, I think, this could be achieved by a more discretionary starring and following decisions by the renowned engineers. Maybe a special kind of badge could be introduced, that is only usable by the community members of certain track record, and only after provided reviews.

Currently, there's no way to run user scripts in the browser environment. It's possible to jail scripts into web workers, but not anything that manipulates Dom, like react components. Perhaps, a clever way can be found, but it def would lack performance and would be disconnected from the rest of node ecosystem. No one will be willing to rewrite npm modules to fit that standard. Also, there's never gaurantee that a back door will not be found defeating the whole jail scheme. This is where browser tech is standing now. Perhaps, there will be a native browser sandbox at some point.

Bitcoin solves this problem by producing a simple virtual machine which can execute a limited subset of instructions and cannot interact with other computers. Ethereum charges gas money to run code in this virtual machine - some portion of an Ethereum transaction is removed or spent executing the code.

The Java virtual machine has a bytecode that has limited access to the host machine. Any machine access has to go through APIs.

We could introduce a simple virtual machine language that can execute the primitives a vast majority of distributed apps require and a simple secure runtime that limits arbitrary communication with other machines. So you have a built in inbound and outbound firewall for security. You could endorse which machines the code is allowed to talk to. It would hide socket or HTTP programming from the app. Generally speaking most distributed apps need streams and a distributed database. The streams are for talking to other computers and the database is for executing data queries.

The problem is to be useful you kind of need low level access to a machine such as microphone and speaker interfaces. The browser should be solving this problem but in my experience the APIs are dreadful.

Running untrustworthy code is a different problem from querying untrusted sources of data. One is easy to verify - just mark the source of bad data as untrustworthy and do not include it in calculations. You could have a button next to every piece of data to indicate the data's source. So you can easily block or filter out a server's data with one click.

I suspect some form of virtual machine can be created to limit the primitives of data processing for arbitrary code execution. If you had a simple language that can do mathematical operations and call out to a limited runtime. Read-only SQL queries can be safe to run. Write queries such as delete and insert should go to the app host server. You would have communication partners be limited in the runtime so arbitrary traffic cannot be produced. You may want to tie loop execution to data queries so arbitrary busy loops cannot run.

I wonder if the formula for voting on this thing is an average of everybody's percentages.

Someone says 40% another person says 60% should go to the money contributors. The average is 50%.

Repeat for each contributor.

Security, precisely. There's no way to run a community module safely. The only way to ensure security is a system of peer review. The traditional security model is a system of proprietary boundaries. Alla's, those proprietors proven not to be trustworthy, for the scheme lacks transparency. I'll start a separate thread on the subject and would really appreciate to hear from others, but I see the solution in developing a bc economy where reviewers are paid for their services and part of the economy, ensuring quality of code. Of course, there's an issue of quality of reviewers and their reviews, and on and on.

Perhaps, bc can be part of a solution. It can serve as an escrow service, regulated by contract. The tokens are not released till everyone is in agreement. It's just an impartial arbitrator. Exactly how it's services are used is a different subject, but it def would take humans and additional structure outside. I agree that by itself bc is not the solution, but it can be a part of solution. A set of typical solutions can be available to communities to follow.

I think the ideas of Kademlia are still relevant today.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kademlia

A distributed key value store can be the basis of a storage backend such as a SQL database. I have demonstrated use of keyvalue storage as SQL backend on https://GitHub.com/samsquire/hash-db

I don't want to use this to share big files like copyrighted music and films but as a backend for apps like 0oo.li or DAOs.

One problem of Kademlia or distribution is security. We have a problem of bad actors and spammers. So we need some sort of web of trust system so your app isn't overloaded with spam. We can achieve this by verifying hosts by marking them as trusted and then we see their content. This way nobody can force you to store spam. If you see spam, you unverify the server and your view goes back to nonspam. Everybody hosts their own information.

Yeah, this is definitely an important category, and a link. Will have to describe a few ideas here, that are on other places or within the mind.

Perhaps we need to break ideas up into more subproblems.

Then each person can have an inbox of work representation.

We need physical spaces for colocation. Presentations of our work. Value cross referencing.

If I could do a quiz and fill out words I am interested in then maybe I can be joined with people who are looking into the same ideas.

Perhaps we need additional interactions possible with categories Mindey. Like "I support this" and "I am interested in working on this"

// If you were to teach someone to imagine and create something from nothing, how would you do it?

"imagine, synthesize, prototype" -- is technically equivalent to:

• imagine: random number generation
• synthesize: feature extraction
• prototype: constrained combinatorics

All these things computers can do, and so, I think, the AI will be able to do. However, when it comes to learning, then, what this means, is that, for example, "imagine" part -- is the one that is highly-dependent on the initial conditions (the original experience and unique combination with environment) of that entity (a pseudo-random process) that the imaginator is.

They say -- bring the right people in the right place, and they will create magic. I think, imagination is not teach-able, but nourish-able -- there can be various factors, like eating, activities, communications (questions!), heuristics on how to select the right people and places to spark imagination, etc.

What you call -- "space, pause, mess" -- is probably just natural occurrences in life: explore, relax, engage. Who knows, maybe they associate with those beta, alpha, theta brain waves, the methodology how to change these states could be re-used for this integrative process. For example, it may be that shower, and riding on the trains, seeing landscapes, puts people into a specific brain-waves state, and then different other stimuli put them into other states of mind.

I should point out that some data may be movable once the create join statement has ran.

If a join existed for products.id and search.product_id and at insert time of products was inserted. A query for matching searches would run select Id from search where product_id = X

search.product_ID depends on products.id. they have the same value. The consistent hash for products can be: id. The consistent hash for search can ignore its own id and use the product_id. This would distribute this data to the same machine because the hashes are identical.

If there is multiple joins the this scheme might need to be more complicated. I think the fields can be concatenated and hashed.q

In my SQL database I introduced a statement called create join.

You tell the database ahead of time what fields are joinable fields.

create join inner join people on people.id = items.people inner join products on items.search = products.name

The database then checked on every insert and does the associated consistent hashing and node placement.

// prejoin data at insert time //

I think it's a reasonable idea, but how would this be done? There are many possible joins, in fact, suppose that the number of tables is the database is %%n%%, then the number of all table pairs that may need to be joined, is the number of %%k=2%% subsets:

$${\binom {n}{2}} = {\frac {n!}{2!(n-2)!}} = {\frac {n^2-n}{2}} $$

For example, if the database has 15 tables, this number is 105, and if there's 42 tables, this number is 861. Add the possibility that you need to do joins on different fields -- and the number of pre-computed joins may be even higher. Still, it seems reasonable to do it at insert time, as the joins would change and need to be recomputed or modified to on every insert.

I'm also thinking in direction of node graphs, like node-red, flow-programming, but haven't a chance to talk to you in person, also excited to read your topics here. So, would like to show you https://treenity.pro/?lang=en - it is system Im working on, like huginn, but more into ui/ux. And also available to build interface for the tasks. Let us talk in near future.

I don't know how NFTs store ownership in the block chain. But essentially this idea is about the mid level implementation detail of a distributed SQL database storage engine.

I find the idea of a distributed P2P database very useful I have a project where I implement a very simple SQL database and it supports distributed joins by distributing join keys to every node in the cluster. In this idea I take a different approach and hash the join key and use the join keys to do the node placement.

So everybody in the cluster gets a subset of the data. You need everybody to be online to do a query

Is it not what a distributed nft does. We agregating a project from many accounts. I like to call it composition. I do think composition is the problem to solve, not just for storage concerns, but to manage complexity

How can people learn to imagine and envision, refine the Visions? I'd say not everyone has such a skill. Even a simple question of "What do you want?" depends on a situation and point in time.

To me, envisioning is a process rather than a thing. Then, envisioning together is possible, when people go on the journey of discovering that Vision together. Here, co-operation does not need to wait for a perfection of everyone's individual vision, but rather a space where researching together is possible.

Usually, it is the executable, believable vision, that brings teams together.

If a certain world vision is sufficiently believable and valuable, and executable (=actionable in the true sense, not in the sense of exploration, but in the sense of implementation).

That vision, is usually provided by someone, usually, the people who have figured out the 'how', and shared an 'idea' that describes the 'how' in detail, and thus gives the believability to the vision. For example, the idea of landing a rocket back on its stand, is just an idea, but with the automated control principles, it is a believable idea to the people who can then have true cooperation on the basis of that belief.

Similarly, a whitepaper about how to create a decentralized computer, or a solar sail and high powered lasers, may make people believe that certain things (like decentralized governance, or reaching other stars) is possible, and worth working for. How this evolves further, often depends on the specific acts of communication: friendships, leaderships, co-working, etc.

Coming up with an executable vision is as hard as writing a good idea, however, it is something that comes up in each of our minds as hyptheses, that if we do something a little, something bigger is gonna result from that. :)

Describing the 'how' in detail can't be understated: one can explain an idea abstractly, thinking that one has described all there is to it, but others won't understand it until you describe it in steps of a process and what happens as a result -- then, their eyes light up, and they think "oh yeah, that's a great idea, let's do it!", and then a possible cooperation begins.

I think we need a new made up word which does not have financial connotations.

It seems profit is the worst metric for what we want to achieve as it results in short term thinking

We want the optimisation of happiness and equity. Theres a lot of work that people do that isn't directly monetisable but if people stopped a lot of people would become unhappy. We need to track this work too.

We get more of what we measure. This is why I posted the happiness index.

Profit as the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent, seems okay as a definition, however, not okay as the rational ultimate target of activity. Perhaps the ideal capitalist economy would be the one where everyone gets their reasonable profit margin, so they can sustain themselves, while providing something valuable to others.

However, the rational ultimate target of an activity can only be defined in more specific KPIs, because profit margins are transient -- one period's profit is another period's loss, and it may be planned loss, like saving fruits for the winter. So, ultimately, the success of activity mustn't be measured by profits, but in goals.

The achievement of goals can only be measured by metrics that measure distance to a goal. For example, if we want to become a space-faring civilization, we need to increase the number of people in space, so, a KPI like the number of people in space, and its long term growth (rather than periodic fluctuation), is what would be a meaningful definition of "profit" (if the economy would like to redefine profit as credit, and then reward "creditability" rather than "profitability").

Btw., profit in standard definition does not lose meaning, if one is working solo, even living alone makes sense to save at times, so profitability as measure of the amount saved (obtained, but not spent) in a finite period can be a useful metric, but never the ultimate goal, which is an long-term multi-KPI target.

A very real use-case of this language would be to overcome subvocalization, and become a speed reader.

I am also working on another project with a Knowledge architect....Stephen knows him because i introduced him, who is developing a knowledge system that can connect the individual to the group through symmathesy, mutual learning, and the software he has been developing for the past 15 years, based on realizing the vision of computer industry pioneer Doug Englebert. His first component is called Indywiki, and allows everyone to create their own personal knowledge wiki. How people interact in this network model is by connecting together two wikis. But the knowledge of my conversation with you is stored on y own personal wiki and yours as well. So yes, there is redundancy, but each mutual conversation is kept in each participating conversants own wiki, residing on his/her own server.

This allows us to track a conversation as it evolves through ever changing social networks. The meme moves its way through this dynamic social network, and with each social encounter evolves as well. This would compliment nicely with what you are trying to accomplish here. Gyuri Lajos is the inventor of this system and he invited me to be on the team for a hackathon going on right now but i missed applying in time. Nevertheless, I’m marrying my ideas of an open knowledge commons design I’ve developed about 20 years ago with his ideas to try to develop a framework for a new knowledge framework for humanity for the 21st century. Here is more info on our hackathon entry:

https://devpost.com/software/indywiki

It also compliments with the work of another colleague, Dr Roberto Vslenti, an AI scientist I collaborate with who is developing a system he calls WEquest to allow network needs to drive solutions and to then reward the solution provider. The idea is to setup a space for virtious cycles of compassion and serving others to be incentified. I think it would be fruitful to socially weave all these projects plus another project I’m working on, the Codo project, to create the system change superorganism.

In the Deep Humanity (DH) 21st century sense-making framework I’ve been developing to help humanity navigate the chaotic events of the Anthropocene, the human being is seen as a psycho-biological-cultural amalgam. The pandemic is making everyone realize the biological nature of each human being as a complex superorganism composed of billions of cells and trillions of microbes. All these vaccines and drug therapies, as well as masks deal with threats that are invisible to the naked eye. so are naturally deprioritized by our perceptual systems. It’s only our cognitive systems, supported by the accumulated knowledge of Cumulative Cultural Evolution (CCE) that we can even see the cause-effect relationship. But most lay people do not have the intuition and experience of a trained scientist in the field so are disconnected from it, and easier to manipulate with false narratives. Cognitive,cultural biases such as religious ones or polical ones create stories that can outcompete scientific narratives

There are wildly polarized views of the vaccination efforts that directly arise from the very same concerns over our individual wellbeing. This could be used to unite as, as it is what we call in Deep Humanity, a Common Human Denominator (CHD). There are many things any two human beings have in common. However, to qualify as a CHD, it must be salient for unifying. Many of those not getting vaccinated are abstaining due to concerns that the vaccines have not been fully tested and can lead to unintended consequences. Another narrative is conspiracy related and suggests nefarious control by capitalists or the government. Both of these are based upon real governmental and business actions that have proven harmful. Look no further than climate change caused in part by the deceitful messaging and lobbying of the fossil fuel industry.

The existence of both climate and vaccine denialism have their roots in another big topic of DH, progress traps - the shadow side of progress where unintended consequences of progress bring harm in the world.

Progress traps are very real and when decoupled from critical thinking or awareness of one’s own cognitive biases can lead us astray. This education, which is essentially the domain of DH praxis, is more important than ever, both to avoiding or mitigating future progress traps, and to reduce the polarization in the world that adds so much social friction that it causes dangerous socio-political delays at a time when time is of the essence.

From DH perspective, the concept of Interbeing is very fundamental ( Thich Nhat Hanh, Ubuntu) that each human being is taking two parallel journeys in life - that of the individual from birth to death, and the cultural, begun millions of years ago. Indeed, any beginning point is difficult to nail down for a species. The feedbacks and information flows between these two is an important framework to make sense of our reality. In the heart of the Stop Reset Go statement of rapid system change is this notion of complimentary change of both Human Inner Transformation (HIT) and Social Outer Transformation (SOT), which itself is an expression of interbeing. The heart feels, the mind thinks, the body acts and we manifest some observable impact in the world that is observable by another human being. From inner to outer, which can become another inner.

For the Stop Reset Go project, we are envisioning communities of citizens as the fundamental building block or unit of rapid, bottom-up system change. A physical community is large enough to have scale and capacity, but small enough to avoid bureaucracy and be responsive. Since we are developing a rapid system change strategy based on community / city scale where downscaled planetary boundary and doughnut economic indicators for each city serve as targets that citizens aim to achieve, DAO for each such community that is participating makes sense.

There can actually two intersecting types of DAOs, one defined by GIS coordinates and the other by specific planetary boundary/doughnut economic working group/subgroup. One is intra-community and the other is inter-community.

The big picture is to create a global citizen superorganism for rapid system change, based on the most accurate metrics possible, broken down into city-scale. It gamifies system change by turning big global indicators into parameters that are meaningful at community scale. If enough communities reach their unique targets to bend the curve of indicators back to a safe operating space, and if enough cities and communities do this, then we can bend the curve for the entire civilization back to a safe operating space. Effectively, we are chunking the big, vague, meaningless problem into a bite-size, concrete, achievable and meaningful problem that makes sense to citizens of a community.

Good idea about glossaries and links. A lot of times, by the time you done with glossary, not much left to describe. Can i use gfm format here. Can i link inside ssme doc, and have a glossary section? I dont do it simply for inconvenience. Thanks for suggestions.

I think competition is the problem. Its better to collaborate. Its more efficient by far, and takes care of all the problems you describe, and does not destroy people but upbrings everyone to prosperity. But, thats the wrong problem to be solving. You cant tell people, collaborate now. Not gonna work. Its the matter of changing dominant culture to a more sharing variety. I better stop here.

Ok. I do tend to get fixated. I reread your idea. You suggest that everything is broken down into structure, which is arrangements of funcs, and each func is documented, and it can be seen how the things are build by examining the structure. Funcs are easy to document. How these funcs fit together into structure is another subject, dont you think so? Just initial thoughts. But i do like the idea of trying to organize knowledge into a sensible structure, with layers, where one can traverse functional scopes to zero in on specifics. It seems like a good idea, but how would it be different from existing practice. Be nice to have a sample. I think you talking about breaking up knowledge in atomic peices, each with its description. Is that right?

// Any math experts? I need to classify a complete set of operands [..] atomic style

I think you'd benefit from experts in logic and symbolic reasoning, experts in ontologies and knowledge engineering, not so much from mathematicians.

[skihappy], I get a feeling that what comes to your attention, gets through the "prism" of your system that you're building, but you're not explicitly mentioning it, so readers won't understand what you're talking, exactly... so, could you at least mention subjects in your sentences explicitly, for example, saying those few sentences, like:

"In order to construct a knowledge graph that has (some representations and capabilities), we'll need A, and it get it, we'd need B, and C.",

Don't be lazy, contextualization makes thought.

// it'd be helpful to attach a dictionary to an idea

It's a great idea -- vocabularies per post, where users define what they mean with their words... because, my sense is that some people talk without much care what context they had taken one or other word from, and immediately assuming that others will understand them for what they meant. Though, I like to use hyperlinks for that: if you think one or other word will be ambiguous -- just hyperlink to definition. Hypertext was invented for that.

Project update: Thinking about a part two of the poem - what happens after the drop is in symbiosis with other drops (metaphor of when human thoughts mix with other humans thoughts as in collective intelligence) and how it relates to the Ocean. Thinking about the chaotic journey of creativity that leads to the whole bigger than its parts. Story lines to explore: turbulence, chaos, randomness, nonlinearity, ocean depth and ocean's coastline, fractals. Let's see how all these themes can fit into a poem part II!

It can be abstracted in different ways. Relationships can be modelled as particle entanglements, funcs, analagous to qm. Reactive funcs constraining the state. But then, a constraining func can be represented as an object, with props as two particle refs, and a symbolic operand. Thats a descriptor of a link in graph. Now we got graph, and we can build and manipulate it graphically, in a low code development system

Of course, there can be relationships between systems of particles, like many to many and one to many and all that. They are all entanglements. Any math experts? I need to classify a complete set of operands, to represent all ways to write constraining funcs, atomic style.

Thats an excellent idea. Thats the premis of what im doing. Ill create another thread explaining my approach. But yes, everything can be modelled with funcs. Funcs and differential equations are equivalent. Quantum mechanics can be formulated thru funcs. Our programming languages and qm are very similar, imo.

Hmm it'd be helpful to attach a dictionary to an idea, i.e. the meanings of DAO, NFT and other technical terms used in the description. Thinking - I'd like to share this idea with some of my friends who care about solving a problem of homelessness and housing, but they wouldn't be aware of technical solutions available. So to bring diverse people on the same page, a summary of technical jargon would be so helpful. :)

This puzzle relates to Application of Fractals in Society , Prototyping Systems and Templating Micro Communities, the main point of which is - interactions between members create a (eco)system.

Here I wonder if a minimum number of ecosystem members matters? We can drive inspiration from tetrahedrons and how they construct with one another into larger stable structures.

yes, theres no way around the state. Id love to know how members of the collective be assured of their ownership right. Asya, she donated that DAO sample, says they will form a land trust and sign community members as trustees. I dont know if shares can be recorded, but at some point we would have to start keeping our records,provided the state is satisfied. I rest my case for ignorance and lack of interest. Also, itll be different in each country. Thats why a network is helpful. There will be resources to solve these headaches, typical solutions provide by community, in form of code and recipes, and lawyers.

interesting read about title tokens. Very informative. Thanks. Im not sure how relevant it is to here. Of course land titles will be registered legally somehow. Maybe, those member shares can be registered as partial ownership tokens. Maybe, it can be another layer outside of gov record keeping, valid only within the community, or wider community net. Im not sure it needs to be recognized by government.An org can be registered with authorities as official land owner. I dont know. Those are legalities. Someone can figure it out. Ill just keep writing my code. Whats important, once we figure it out, we can code it as a type and everyone in the network can use it.

heres another idea. A place where people can introduce their budding and existing communities,in a bloging kinda way, live diary style, to attract donors and investors. It can be another tool. Create your DAO, your org structure, and get known, all in one day. Done. A group of friends can get organized around helping local homeless folks or some other needed community service, and get supported and create a community, and join a global net, and actually build a village close by. The word will spread and itll take off. We can solve homeless problem, for starters. Actually, i have a strong feeling, by the time last homeless is housed, many other issues, including global warming, will be solved.

yet another thought. People are best motivated by high moral goals. Freedom, democracy, community, sharing. That resonates. I propose to emphasise that,over potential monetary gaines. To create networks I see, we need to enspire with our visions. Then we empower by tools and roadmaps and examples. It almost does not matter if the roadmap will be repaved in some other direction. There are many ways to go. But we have to go in the general right direction. We can get something started, others will finish.

And another thing. When people do create these DAOs and orgs, they have little commonality and hard to link into a net of any kind. We really need some common tools,to organize on larger scale. Its not scalable right now. Thats a problem.

what about all those people, like [chronological] mentioned, those without land? How would they jump onto this intercontinental land-sharing joy?

They would work for shares,to live on the land. Of course, anyone would be welcome, but they would be expected to be useful. Its not different then joining a commune right now. You go there, get to know folks. They decide if they like you or not. But, if we have a common monetary system, and people earn credits for doing useful stuff, and carry reputation with them as online signature, the process will become much easier, and we will be much freer. Dollar is kinda nice in a sense its so universally accepted. This will create the same kinda freedom, but community added as a bonus. Also,people will protect their reputation, for thats their ticket to freedom. Thats more valuable then money. Money might buy a plain ticket to exotic place,but youll get bored in a week or two. Much better to come and join a vibrant community as an honored guest. Money does not buy that. Your reputation does. No more crime and cheating. Not worth it.

I dont have all the answers, just a vision. No one has all the answers. Future is murky. Itll most likely develop in a different way. Yes, im sure its not entirely new idea. So what? Lets find those folks and collaborate. The more the marrier. Thats the whole idea, good ideas spread like wilfire precisely cos everyone has the same idea. Whats missing is the starting seed, by the true dreamers. The true dreamers are those that create the structure, then other dreamers populate the structure and evolve it. The tools i mentioned are needed. Thats a fact. People want to build communes. Thats a fact. They dont have an easy way to create online org structure, its expensive and labor intensive. Once we have tools to help them, all kinda fireworks will start happening. This is just one scenario. Yeah, itll be different,in each locale. We can overthink it to death and plan to smallest detail, and none of it gonna happen by that plan. We need to build those tools. Thats all I know. And we need to build those tools not in a vacuum, but for specific use cases on the ground, but we can easily start up on the basics, then adjust in applications.