Ethereum-like blockchain as A.I. for governed economies that maximize median human happiness

zawyzawy Member Posts: 26
Indistinguishable obfuscation allows for non-readable but executable contracts on the blockchain. This allows for companies and governments (DAOs) to exist on the blockchain without letting the outside world know how they "operate" or "think" or "have in mind" (as in the real world). Indistinguishable obfuscation also allows for people to be physically identified and held accountable by the DAO with no other participant ("citizen" of the DAO) knowing who they are.

I have felt some regret that M of N methods may be the only way to tie the syntax of Ethereum, etc to the semantics of the outside world, and in particular to our main interest, human society. However, verifying blockchain itself is based on a type of competitive M of N method. M of N logic can be made Turing complete on its own when systems of them are "wired" together in a minimally sufficient way, which at least requires feedback and memory. But by not being as simple as 2-input universal NAND gates (which can be made Turing complete) and having more inputs, M of N is more directly and fundamentally fault tolerant and used extensively in recognizing patterns, even at an expense of probabilistic error. Bayesian and neural networks can be logically re-expressed as M of N networks. I believe in a deep equivalence between smart A.I., evolutionary processes, and governed economies, and that M of N methodology might be fundamental to decision-making in these systems. Part of my reason for believing this is because multiple-input AND gates with a threshold of activation (M of N) is the basic way of modeling neuron activation from inputs, as in Numenta's CLA. So a network of contracts working together on an ethereum blockchain via M of N can be made into a real brain solving real problems.

Rather than "wasting" the computing power of the blockchain servers as in bitcoin, the computations can be used to solve the problems presented by the network of contracts that are ultimately getting their primary M of N inputs from the real world.

There should be a nested hierarchy of contracts and M of N contracts (nested hierarchy of DAOs), with each level consisting of contracts and M of N contracts competing for system resources as represented by the currency. M of N contracts would be ties to the external world and to each other as seen in the neurons and in genes, both of which are optimization-seeking algorithms.

"Votes" running parallel to the currency are usually used as a check and balance on the currency, preventing it from accumulating in a few hands as in democracy, and designing contracts themselves. But the network of contracts should enable systems much better than democracy.

When tied to a currency that represents the total available resources falling under the jurisdiction of the DAO legal system of contracts, the DAO system of contracts can be designed to evolve on its own to make more efficient use of the DAO's physical world's resources to achieve the goals of the agents (people) in the DAO. The DAO system of contracts is an A.I. algorithm that seeks to optimize its goal(s). Key to this is that there is an implicit model in the "brain" (the system of contracts) of the physical matter under the jurisdiction of DAO and the energy that it has access to which can move its matter. Currency represents the DAO's available energy to move the DAO's matter. Matter-based commodities can represent stored energy as energy was used to get that matter. The DAO's physical and energetic assets should have a percentage of those assets devoted to CPU "energy" that supports the blockchain in order to run the model and optimization to decide via the contracts what is done with the rest of the energy and matter in the physical DAO. Energy is CPU time. Matter is memory bits.

Competing, non-compatible DAO systems of contracts with different currencies invites destructive competition for non-agreed upon goals. Religions are an example of this type of DAO. People all over the world should be capable of working together for a commonly agreed-upon goal. I recommend maximum happiness per median person. The problem is defining and measuring this. If agreement can't be reached, then the most POWERFUL system of DAOs will evolve rather than the ones with the "happiest" people. Since humans are outdated compared to our machines, this is not what we want. Skynet is not a joke. It is already here as evidence by the fact that we seem to be in the midst of Earth's 6th great extinction period as a result of our economic machine being more powerful than biological machines, and not really concerned about biology's continued existence. Without a top-level DAO world government limiting the competition, we should be prepared for real war and more brutal economic competition for happiness and food. The world government should not let us be too lazy or local "viruses" will develop. Utopia is now technologically possible with world-wide communication to prevent war and reach optimum agreement. The fewest smart people with the most machines economically displacing everyone is a skynet in disguise. "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist." Or rather, he comes in sheep's clothing and programmers do his bidding in the name of "better" and "faster" with the belief that the economically displaced will always find more "useful" work. No, human muscle was replaced in the great depression by farm and factory machines. Now human minds are being replaced. The only thing we provide now is "desire" for the machines, and that will not last unless we cooperate to cheat the goal of evolution which is to find energy to efficiently make physical copies which find more energy to more efficiently make physical copies. If you like this goal of evolution, then program away to replace as much of the biosphere as possible, as fast as possible.

We use functioning democracies (arguably this does not include the U.S.) or advanced vote-like communism (arguably like China, whose government is economically empowering the people out of a fear of a USSR-like breakdown and real fear of the people themselves) to prevent kings and oligarchies. The purpose of 1 vote per person is to prevent legal power from being accumulated in the hands of a few white Christian wealthy men, as occurred in the past. By giving more power to women, blacks, non-Christians, and the middle-class (via progressive tax of the 1950's), democracy is able grow faster and overthrow other systems of governing via economic power. In evolving artificial intelligence methods this is seen as a redistribution of computing resources if a few agents are acquiring too much computer power and thereby settling on a specific solution that may not be the optimum solution. In biological evolution species-diversification is regarded as healthy in finding future solutions to the survival puzzle. The puzzle is really about acquiring as much energy as possible to make as many DNA-base pairs as possible.

The legal network of contracts should have a goal as defined by the citizens. I propose maximum happiness per median person. Maximizing GDP or even average GDP per person are awful measures of success. So there should be extensive measures of the system-wide happiness that can change the contracts (laws) when success is found or faltering. The currency itself is an example. The currency represents the system's total economic wealth, as measured by a weighted basket of the currently available commodities. The currency would expand and contract with the commodities, preventing bubbles and crashes, assuming there are no loans other than stock-like investments where the "loaner's" skin is on the line in the success of the venture instead of requiring the safety of collateral (no anglo-dutch banking...follow Germany's lead). The would be no money created from promises to repay debt, as we do in anglo-dutch mortgages.

It is necessary to prove the existence of specific people who are behind the contracts. This is mainly needed for voting, even for product reviews. This does not mean real identities should be public, but only that the contract system itself should be aware of individual "IP addresses". But an IP address is not enough because to be really useful, a person should not be capable of assuming multiple identities at the same time, which could result in multiple product reviews for your own product. Some will want at least a portion of their cyber-identity (not necessarily their complete cyber or any of their physical identity) to be public in order to build trust as in name brands, selling stuff on ebay, getting a job, and dating. In order to do all this, a physical device(s) is needed. It has to be capable of not being reverse engineered and have the DAO as the issuing authority. There should not be any storage or transmission of your unencrypted identity outside of the device. Your body, the device, and a password are needed to interact with the DAO. It should be capable identifying a physical individual based on multiple bio-signatures before they can interact with the system of contracts. This is getting pie-in-the-sky partially because it needs indistinguishable obfuscation.

The ultimate goal of life is to extract energy to make copies. Although this increases entropy system-wide, the copies are a local increase in real physical and informational order (negative entropy) that is the foundation of what we perceive as "good" about life (a la Schrodinger's paper "What is life?). Energy is converted to copies instead of being locked up in potentials or converted to waste heat. This is a rapidly growing re-interpretation of evolution.

I have mentioned indistinguishable obfuscation in keeping DAO contracts secret from some or all. However, I think it should all be open source so that DAO's can "steal" ideas from each other. This might even apply to "companies" etc within the DAO having contracts subject to the DAO's higher-level laws that are competing with others at the same level. No IP, no patents. This might be extreme.


I was trying to summarize, restate, or better state the above with the following, but I seem to have failed.

1) The goal of this technology is to help people work together for more mutual maximum benefit, aka to improve our governed economic systems (DAOs), which includes open source projects that use reputation and consensual currencies.

2) There should be a top-level world-wide DAO with a single currency to optimize everyone working together.
3) DAOs should be nested in a hierarchy and competitively evolve at each level to compete for achieving local and top-level goals. An example hierarchy: family, community, city, province, country, world.

4) This forms an optimization-seeking algorithm (aka A.I.). Examples that use this competitive nested hierarchy include the brain, the biosphere, Numenta's CLA, advanced Bayesian networks, and our current governed economic system.

5) Laws are contracts between the DAO society and the individual.
6) DAO's at each level should compete to gain citizens.
7) Citizens should compete to join DAOs.
8) Each one for all and all for each one.
9) Money is ultimately the legal power to use energy to move matter. It should be normalized to all the assets under the legal control of the top-level DAO at hand.

10) A basket of commodities has been universally agreed upon to be the ideal currency, from Hayek to Keynes, and promoted by Benjamin Graham. The reason it is best is because commodities are the basic inputs to everything society does. Commodities are the fundamental units of energy and matter that the society has access to. By forcing the currency to expand and contract with the commodities, bubbles and contractions are automatically prevented. How it expands and contracts can be used to redistribute power to seek a better society-wide outcomes. Contracts such as wages and prices based in the currency remain valid over time (no inflation or deflation).

11) However, non-inflation is good only if debt-based money creation is outlawed, especially anglo-dutch collateral methods. The loaner should have skin in the outcome of the investment, not remain unconcerned via collateral safety. Inflation is a way to slowly erase old debts. Debt cancellation is crucial to keeping power-structures under pressure to evolve rather than keeping more and more real workers enslaved to more and more debt. Derivatives on bitcoin are a mortal sin if they simulate debt-based money creation by counting bitcoin as collateral.

12) Non-money-based DAO's should ask themselves "What are our basic motivational inputs that can define our currency?" Pride and Recognition? Helping others? If there is no competition for improvement via legal power, then no currency is needed.

13) Without personal identification, i.e. a required joining of all your actions in the DAO, a large amount of "statelessness" is being added to the DAO. Anonymity between participants can be kept when and wherever people want to keep it, but it is just not a functioning DAO if the DAO itself can't identify all your actions, holding your cyber-identity accountable, and not allow the same physical person to assume a multiple identities at the same time. Starting over as a new and forgiven identity seems feasible if not needed.

14) I emphasized voting, but it may not be needed. Leaving and joining sub-level DAOs may be the vote that is cast. For examples, employees do not generally vote in a company, but the company tries to do what's necessary to keep good employees.

15) taxing is not required to add legitimacy to a currency as modern monetary theory would have us believe. It is just a method of redistributing wealth in order to achieve a DAO's objectives (which everyone should generally agree are "good" or they should join a different DAO).

16) I'm saying "DAO" but I really do not want the "Autonomous" part to imply "without citizen control" or "fixed". I view even the "Distributed" as only added to enable security and trust to the existence of the contracts.

17) Ultimately the goal of economics is to replace the biosphere with more efficient machines as Earth's 6th great extinction episode continues unabated. Our blind economics "recognizes" solar cells powering electrical motors is ~ 2,000 times more efficient (in terms of photonic Joule input to movement Joule output to move matter to make copies of the machines that acquire and use energy to make more copies) than plants powering muscles and that neurons have to move ions that are about 30,000 times heavier than the electrons our CPU's move. Biology is woefully outdated and currently provides mainly just "desire" for the economic system to organize and act.


  • zawyzawy Member Posts: 26
    edited June 2014
    In all the above I got carried away with the word "contract", unless contract=algoritm in "Ethereum-speak". I did not mean to imply each algorithm on the blockchain would only be requiring certain behavior of participants and checking outside data sources. The algorithms will be checking each other, and sometimes (if not frequently) via M of N like a Bayesian network.

    BTW, a Bayes net is not what I think of as A.I. They usually only do pattern recognition like most "A.I." methods, including Numenta's Grok CLA. When I say "A.I." I mean capable of complete brain-like activity which means pattern recognition, modeling the pattern generator, identifying and testing the model's INPUTS to improve and simplify the model Occam-razor style, then AFFECT the inputs model to get patterns that are more profitable in terms of internal desires. It may also mean changing desires when needed. In short: not only recognize, but model in such a way that enables changing the observed patterns for personal profit which usually means acquiring energy to move energy to make physical copies of oneself.

    In 5) above I meant to say "currency" is an example contract (algorithm) between the citizens and the DAO. It is special in that the citizen gets to use it to apply an "energy input" to whichever algorithms in the hierarchy of nested DAO's that he chooses. Otherwise, the citizen reacts to the DAO's algorithms in order to increase his currency. He spends his currency (pro-active) in order to improve his circumstances, or to benefit the DAO. In the latter case he is a capitalist who may get rewarded again. The DAO only has so much "energy" it can apply during a time period that is on the scale of the time it takes to change commodity production. In real economies, that's about 5 years. To take a limiting case, if you run out of commodities, everyone can spend all the money they want, but nothing will get done. The other extreme is being flooded with commodities but not having any currency. They burned food in the fields in the great depression as a result of this. Money must track the real-world supply of commodities in a DAO.

    Companies, open source projects, and many other organizations have an internal social currency that is strongly disconnected from money, and yet they operate within an economic system, and may or may not ultimately be interested in money. So there might be parallel currencies in the parallel social-DAO's that could be on the blockchain, but not disconnected from each other. I guess I'm just describing a non-profit. But maybe most DAO's do not need to be nested or connected to a world-wide economic DAO. They might have obvious goals and methods that are implemented with simple and fixed algorithms, not evolving A.I. like I've described, and not needing a currency. If they have a currency, I do not have a good idea of what they would be like, but would like to repeat they might might benefit from using the blockchain implementation of the DAO to define and measure goals and currency. Competition for improved operations may or may not be present.

    Maybe open source projects are sometimes an emotional substitute for the lack of a peaceful and friendly economic system backed by a currency whose acquisition could be felt as a good goal. The utopia of world-economy I described could promote friendly companies that are not always keeping everything secret from each other and the outside world as a result of cheating and being engaged in zero-sum. Remember I said the top-level DAO's goal is human happiness, cheating evolution by avoiding brutal competition, and working together. I am trying to show how the blockchain can be used to promote the ultimate in a world-wide tribal community, not how it can help corporations fight each other in zero-sum, destroy the biosphere, and make everyone so stressed and unhappy that some of them turn into open source programmers in search of a tribe doing good work for free because there is no currency they can work for and feel good about.

    If we do not want to be human-centric and wish to promote memetic evolution without regard to people, then the goal of the DAO should be to increase energy acquisition and for conversion of matter into copies of the DAO to continue the process.

    Notice that I said we want to increase MEDIAN human happiness rather than average. This prevents a few people from being measured as intensely happy and everyone else sad. It promotes an even distribution of the happiness.

    Democracy was invented to "rob" from the unjustifiably rich via laws and taxes in order to help the middle class (and any race, color, sex, or religion). This enabled larger armies of more well-fed middle class who did not feel cheated. It increased the supply of commodities that enabled a larger war machine. But without oppressors, we are running as fast as we can towards biosphere collapse as the fossil fuels (if not certain metals) run out. Technology has not increased happiness in the U.S. ever since the transistor was invented. Technology that enables breeding will not be able to keep up with breeding. There is an awareness something is dreadfully wrong with the government and our economics. "Free trade" and a strong dollar were the swords by which we enslaved South America for commodities and Asia for labor. It cost us our industrial base. Luckily the fossil fuels have not yet run out to bring us out of our stupor. This remains humanity's most enjoyable hour, but with 10% of all humans who have ever lived being alive today, I can't help but think the anthropic principle's doomsday argument applies. Why would we be so "lucky" as to be the generation that sees the end of humanity? Answer: because right before the population collapse is the most likely to have been a human capable of witnessing it.

    I've described a framework that can solve all our problems, but I have not described specific programming other than to emphasize the definitions of currency and goals are important, and that proper governing is key to intelligent success of the marketplace, not a parasite. "Free market" under basic rule of law optimizes each transaction without regard to system-wide problems such as monopolies, pollution, resource depletion, and biosphere collapse. The invisible hand is way too blind. But there is no solution as long as society allows unrestricted breeding. Stress and starvation to the point of inability to breed will remain endemic.

    For many generations, the industrial world was led to believe technology would solve humanity's problems. It's not true. Excepting health care, we never needed advanced technology or fossil fuels to be happy. We have just needed to work together and not breed too fast. The problem is that the fastest replicators replicate the fastest, without regard to others. I do not see a solution. I see a problem only because I want everyone to be able to be happy.
    Post edited by zawy on
  • StephanTualStephanTual London, EnglandMember, Moderator Posts: 1,282 mod
    zawy said:

    There should be a top-level world-wide DAO with a single currency to optimize everyone working together.

    I'm trying to think of something I'd disagree more with, but I'm struggling :)

    The beauty of ethereum is that the existence of one system does not preclude the existence of others, e.g. CommunistDAO can have 300 millions users whilst AynRandDAO can also have 300 millions users - both running on top of the ethereum network, without having to ever interact with each other, should they choose not to.

    And you could have 10,000 CommunistDAOs, all the same, or all slightly different, and you could have NaziDAOs or GreenDAOs or IlikeTurtlesDAOs and that's a good(tm) thing.

    A top level DAO is possible - if someone builds it and if the underlying DAOs agree to join : this is the way it should be.

    TL;DR: ethereum is featureless and doesn't/will not discriminate.
  • zawyzawy Member Posts: 26
    edited June 2014
    I did not mean to imply a world-governing DAO would require anyone to join or prevent outside DAOs. But where standards and monopolies are needed, they will form. We can't have multiple sets of roads competing for toll-paying customers. People scrambled to get windows installed, despite its failings and brutality. Countries have been forced to accept the dollar which has given the U.S. the ability to print excess money (economic power) as its use in a growing world economy expanded. The U.S. "had" to print to keep it from increasing in value 1000% from the demand side since 1970 (judging from M2 charts). Things in the U.S. will get bad if this process reverses (it's been a 70-year bubble, beginning with end of WW2).

    I see speakers on this topic looking at the economic side from the ground up, talking about particular contracts instead of the bigger picture, except for mentioning DAOs. There remains a lack of ideas of what a government and economic system should look like, even going to the extreme of thinking economics and government should be disjoined. Government adds the missing system-wide A.I. to economics. It used to be called "political economy" to emphasize that the politics was needed to optimize (economize) the maco-results of the marketplace. "Free market" used to mean increasing governmnt to free the marketplace from "rentiers" (monopolists such as land-owners charging rent and bankers charging interest, both of which did no useful work in exchange for their increasing wealth). Milton Friedman bastardized the phrase "free market" to mean nearly the opposite. Along with "free trade" propaganda, this was used in order to push the Washington Consensus (via the World Bank and IMF) against the 3rd world which had commodities and labor we needed to get for free. The U.S. was mostly unconscious of what it was doing. It was simply seeking what was most profitable for itself. In the absence of a top-level DAO, it created its own. It is an example of the results when intelligence and planning ahead are not applied at a top level for the benefit of both sides.

    I expect the blockchain-blind valueless piecemeal path will be followed, as you describe. It must start this way. People will get good at making contracts and then simple, local DAOs before they get good at DAOs working together and being nested and hierarchical. But I do not expect a lot of success since XML and Java are not as pervasive as initially hoped-for. Piecemeal is the path the non-blockchain world has followed, and so the top level of world government and exchange has been designed as it has been needed with things like treaties and accepted standards (USB, SI units) and protocols (TCP/IP). We've seen the result: good here, bad there. I expect the blockchain to follow the same path and therefore not solve anything anymore than the transistor did. I am at least partially wrong in that the median standard of living in the world seems to be getting better since 1950. Hopefully this is partially the result of the transistor (which, more than any other single thing, has culminated into the internet) rather than from fossil fuels barely outpacing breeding.

    By "single currency" in that sentence, I did not mean to imply anyone is required to use it or join the DAO. I also did not mean to imply sub-DAO's inside or outside this world-DAO would not have their own currency that may not even be convertible. I cringed myself when I wrote it, wondering if my ideas had an error, or if there was a logical error in the way I was expressing it. There may largely be a semantic problem in our "disagreement" due to my choice of words in a short sentence. So you see I do not disagree with what you're saying, except to say that if we plan ahead at a top level instead of bottom up, the outcome might be a lot better than past outcomes.
    Post edited by zawy on
  • zawyzawy Member Posts: 26
    Crypto-anarchist thinking and zerocash seem to approximately be the opposite of what I am describing. I am not familiar enough with crypto-anarchist thinking of the 1990's (that laid the foundation for bitcoin) to say I disagree with it. But this "opposing" ideology is more "genetic" in thinking in the sense that evolution did not have end-goals in mind as it started piecemeal (base pairs, DNA) to work long and hard to achieve a durable biosphere. Security was implemented as needed. So the individual in the crypto-anarchist and libertarian thinking is the fundamental unit that receives ultimate power and security from larger systems. This does not prevent people from joining DAOs. Wei Dai said it "forbids" government which I think means no forceful power should come down from above (the DAO) to enforce anything on the individual, and that by having the ultimate in anonymity and therefore security, the individual does not need and should not expect or hope for security supplied by a higher power. But if it allows for safe and secure unlimited breeding, what prevents biosphere collapse? If the individual is not taxed, how are police paid and roads built? Is there no such thing as bad externalities or harmful monopolies in crypto-anarchist and libertarian thinking? A fixed-supply currency has always been a way to apply force by a ruling class of wealthy, although competing currencies may solve this. Debts not being erased as needed has never resulted in a successful society. New kings erased debt to overthrow previous power structures (lords). The kings came to power from the people due to excess debts to lords. Jews enjoyed Jubilee, a debt erasure every 50 years. Imagine post WW2 without debt erasure. Similarly, anonymity is not usually used for protection as much as it is used to commit crimes against others. Zerocash with Zerocontracts seem more frightening than exciting.
  • zawyzawy Member Posts: 26
    edited June 2014
    To clarify, I have suggested "mining" be mining for more optimum solutions to the problems that the DAO's "ask". For example, the DAO could be designed to issue more currency if the "miners" discover a set of contracts (algorithms specifying the laws of the DAO) and their use of physical world resources (via capital investment via algorithm output that not only measures the external world, but directs it) that results in an increase in the median human happiness of the citizens of the DAO. This means the successful miner discovers a more efficient way to produce or utilize commodities for the happiness goal. The devil is in the details of determining if a miner was successful. Ideally the DAO algorithms should be written like partial differential equations in the sense that the modeling of the physical DAO and its goals (questions) would be well formed and nearly indisputable as being the right model and questions to ask, but very difficult to analytically solve for optimality. This should sound a lot like the puzzle set before a bitcoin miner, except that the solution has a real-world benefit. The miner would take a portion of the expect profit immediately rather than waiting on happiness measurements to come back from the population, but this assumes the science of economics and happiness are so well known that the feedback from observation and changing of the model are not needed. People have mentioned all this computer power should be used for something profitable. But that's beating around the bush. The profit should be from the miner helping the DAO who in turn helps the miner, not an external question that is unrelated to the DAO that the miner's goal in life is to support, and vice versa.
    Post edited by zawy on
  • StephanTualStephanTual London, EnglandMember, Moderator Posts: 1,282 mod
    I think we'll just agree to disagree as I think you have the right intention (maximizing human happiness) - we just differ as to how to achieve it. Once again there's nothing and no one in ethereum preventing you or others from building what you describe. The reality is that Ethereum could as useful to Galt's Gulch as it is to The Venus Project.
  • zawyzawy Member Posts: 26
    I assume you mean you differ in some details of the governed economics I describe because I did not say Ethereum should be limited in what it does.
  • zawyzawy Member Posts: 26
    edited June 2014
    This is getting closer to being a decent summary of what is more readily considerable by people looking for ideas on how to design DAOs on Ethereum:

    The DAO would seek to optimize defined goals which would determine how the assets under control of the DAO are distributed. As citizens of the DAO increase the "quantity" of the defined goals, coin is generated and given to them. This would mean the coin has stable value in terms of the defined goals such as a fixed level of happiness per median person. If the real world assets under control of the coin do not increase at the same rate, then it would appear existing coin holders lose value, but that is not the case if coin holders' goal in life is to increase the median happiness per person and they agree with the the way the DAO measures it and distributes the resulting generated coin. In effect, commodity generation and utilization improves in a way that generates more happiness per median person, and in this way the coin does not lose value relative to commodities. This is even more accurate in avoiding inflation and deflation than tying to a basket of commodities because commodities can be used more efficiently than in the past. Measurements come into the blockchain DAO via M of N oracles. Control exits the blockchain DAO more distinctly. The devil is in the details of designing the DAO and getting people to like it. A problem is that coin holders who are not continually contributing will want the measurement of "improved commodity utilization for happiness" to be underestimated so that those making the improvements in utilization are not fairly paid even as everyone is benefiting from their work.

    This is distinct from the other 2 possibilities for how coins are related to the DAO:
    Each finite-supply coin is normalized to the assets that are under the real-world control of each DAO. Or the coin can be tied to a concept of stable value such as a basket of commodities, from M of N oracles.
    Post edited by zawy on
Sign In or Register to comment.