Fundamental Ethereum White Paper PUBLISHED – Get It Here



  • ciskocisko HollandMember Posts: 35
    separation of church and skate
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Hi ZUIJ,

    Flying back to Calif today at salt lake airport now. The osg white paper contains a pretty good argument on why science and politics are different. But I can give you a quick explanation here.

    In science, you build an intellectual model of how you think nature behaves (called a hypothesis) then use the scientific method to test and see if your hypothisis is an accurate representation of reality. If it is, then you can use it to build technology and accomplish goals.

    In politics, you imagine how you want the world to be. Then use use police, taxes, laws, prisons, etc to force everyone into your plan. That's why politics doesn't work. It's detached from reality.

    Open source government is a scientific explanation of how society works. Then it uses those scientific ideas to improve how society is managed. To do this eeffectively, you have to use the Sci method constantly.
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Hi Cisko,

    Nick is in the ballpark. Open source govt is a scientific explanation of what various key social terms mean: terms like freedom, coercion, justice, slavery, etc. Once you know precisely what these terms mean, you can build management into social nets (especially tge ethereum platform) that, for ex, increases freedom and decreases slavery.

    This implies huge potential for platforms like ethereum. A profound reorganization of human civilization is possible.

  • ethereumnickethereumnick Member Posts: 49
    chasosg said:

    In science, you build an intellectual model of how you think nature behaves (called a hypothesis) then use the scientific method to test and see if your hypothisis is an accurate representation of reality. If it is, then you can use it to build technology and accomplish goals.

    chasosg said:

    In politics, you imagine how you want the world to be. Then use use police, taxes, laws, prisons, etc to force everyone into your plan. That's why politics doesn't work. It's detached from reality.

    if (($hypothesis != "imagine how you want the world to be") && ($experement != "use police, taxes, laws, prisons, etc" )) {
    	// Show chasosg correct
    	echo 'chasosg wins'
    } elseif ($hypothesis == $intellectualModel) OR ($scientificMethod =< $confirmationBias {
    	// Show chasosg incorrect
    	echo 'chasosg not wins'
    } else {
    	// Throw
    	echo "Anosognosia suspected please consult reality check... except you can't because rationality is not available to this function ..  error redo from start"
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51

    Did you mean to comment here? I just see some code. If you mean to comment maybe it failed.

  • ethereumnickethereumnick Member Posts: 49
    if you don't code then it may not make sense? but it should if you read it with this key:-

    != means "does not equal"
    == means "is equal to"
    && means both must be true
    OR means at least one must be true


  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51

    Got you Anasognosia video which I've stated watching. Looks interesting. Will finish watching in morning. Meanwhile, I got an email from a guy -- Michael Thuy -- in Antwerp re osg paper:

    I’m reading your great work “OSG White Paper”.
    I would like to create an ePub from it (ebook) so people can read it on tablets and phones more easily.

    I tried to use the text from the pdf, but this leaves lots of wrong page breaks etc.

    If you would like me to create this ebook (did this a lot in the past), I would need the text in a more “raw” format.
    Off course I will send the pub first to you so you could distribute it (don’t want to create a coercive gain ;)

    I’m sharing the PDF as much as I can within our organisation (the city of Antwerp’s public services).

    kind regards, Michael Thoy

    me again...
    I answered him, saying I'm working on the ebook but haven't rights cleared all the photos yet. Also, I wanted to publish this exclusively to the Ethereum community, first.

    Going to publish to the Reddit Technology forum tomorrow which has 5.2 million members.

    I'll re-read your post with the key you sent. (Haven't coded since collage which was back before the American Civil War.)

  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51

    Okay, that's pretty funny...

    We've developed a lot of ideas here of dapps to implement osg technology. Some of them I'm going to publish in my next osg paper on IP. Others, we'd like to create ourselves. Maybe we should talk sometime if you'd like to work on one of these projects.

    When I say "we," I mean I'm not the only one working on the osg project. I originated some of the fundamental ideas and I'm the best writer. But here in California, where I'm at, there are mathematicians, physicists, and others working on osg. (I can't name all of them yet - some of them are well-known; you will have heard of them.)
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Okay, Nick, watched the Anosognosia video. I assume you're suggesting I'm denying reality. Well, that knife cuts both ways. It could be you who is denying reality.

    There's a concept a colleague of mine used to use when he lectured he called the "ideological immune system." We spend all our lives investing in our intellectual paradigms. When something comes along that challenges your paradigms, your immediate knee-jerk reaction is to say "that's bullshit." Reject it. Because then we would have to admit we're wrong. Just like your physical immune system rejects viruses, etc, you have an ideological immune system that protects your value system

    This is the problem that all people who do fundamental work face. There's a long history of one guy being right while the rest of the world was wrong. Pasteur, Gorgias, I could go on -- the list is endless.

    Look, OSG is at this point a grand hypothesis. The test for it is simply this: can it be implemented on Ethereum or similar platforms? That's the test. That's the use of the scientific meth. That's Eddington viewing the eclipse.

    So I know you're a smart guy. Rather than being a critic why don't you see if you can get some piece of OSG to work? Speaking of Eddington, that's what put him on the map. He tried to verify. You can be like him. Going along with the assholes in the bleachers gets you nowhere. You must be involved in Ethereum because you think it has potential. So create something new. Don't be a follower.

    Now, if you encounter some critical flaw that's another thing. But you haven't shown me any such critical flaw. Just saying "you're deluded" doesn't qualify.

    There was some guy from Spain who commented on the OSG paper a while ago. He said, "sorry but your fundamental assumptions are just wrong." Then he said he deleted the paper from his computer. I replied: "can you give me specifics? Can you show me in what way an assumption is wrong?" I got silence. He a guy whose ideological immune system is protecting his pre-established beliefs.

    Read the definition of "dogma" in my paper. You can be as clever as hell criticizing someone else's work and appeal to the gallery. That's what movie critics do. But in the end do their lives have any deep meaning? No.

    So I challenge you again: why don't you try to implement something? Or figure out a plan on how you might implement something? See if you can get something fundamental and revolutionary to work. If you want suggestions, email me.

    Now it's me being a bit hard on you. Sorry about that. But I'm not going to cave in just because I get critics. Everybody who does something important gets critics.

    By the way, I like your "poem in code." Except it refers out to an external video. I have a writing background. All stories, poems, etc are supposed to be closed systems.

    Anxious to see your reply.
  • ethereumnickethereumnick Member Posts: 49
    chasosg said:

    Okay, Nick, watched the Anosognosia video. I assume you're suggesting I'm denying reality. Well, that knife cuts both ways. It could be you who is denying reality.

    That is rather the point! Anosognosia all round. Thats why it's the throw condition, because I do believe in the natural limits of the physical world (which the scientific method helps us explore) but one of those limits are the bounds of our evolutionary aparatis. We are just too burdened with systems designed for troops of fewer than 150 hominids to encompass the vast complexity of the civalised condition. I really want to warn against methodological individualism .

    The following paragraph is an extract from a book that I have been writing for many years (Dyslexic and busy) since 2006 now that I thing about it.

    What we objectively know and what be subjectively believe are not related to one another in the solid causal relationship that we are compelled by neurology to act upon. There is a far more profound subjective uncertainty bound within the objective certainty of the measured and the codified. Until we all embrace our own responsibility for our anxious attachment to true belief, we will each be excluded by the other from an experience of untroubled faith. As long as our personal convictions require expression or affirmation from the external world to sure them up we will experience the frantic firing of the amygdala. Unlike the disingenuous expositions of solipsism, determinism and theism this position can be expressed in the internal and the external world simultaneously without contradiction or sin. By dissolving the boundary between the self and the other, such that the internal and the external come into alignment, we can embrace the subjective and the collective interplay of truth
    If you want to read more than that excerpt then find it here ----but I wont leave it there for ever because the site is in flux.

    You say "Everybody who does something important gets critics." so take my interest in your work a flattering that it is important. and Keep on keeping on!

    you say "why don't you try to implement something? Or figure out a plan on how you might implement something? See if you can get something fundamental and revolutionary to work."

    So in answer to your challenge above I have linked you to the internet archive copy of the website I set up in 2008 to describe ethereum and what we could run on it. I know it's mad ramblings but I was working alone and I never did get it off the ground. because of reasons. Those writings should keep you entertained and I hope that the archive will let you know where my implementation of ethereum will take us. If science evolution and the gods are with us.
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51

    Sorry it took so long to respond. My is keeping me busy getting the house ready for holiday guests.

    On your first point: well, a lot of people have speculated about based social theory in anthropology, W.D. Hamilton's work, etc. but I think that's a dead end. The history of science tells us the most successful way to go is to base your work on physics. It's the strongest of all the sciences. If you can do that, you can't go wrong. Also, saying we're designed to exist in hominid bands therefore we can never have a successful complex society is defeatist. Why throw in the towel? There's nothing to indicate that achieving a stable durable society is impossible. "Impossible" means "that which would violate a natural law to exist." There's no natural law that disallows a stable human civilization.

    To say we've never had a stable civ therefore we never will is not epistemologically correct. That's like saying in the year 1900, "Man has never flown therefore stabilized powered flight is impossible." You just have to find the scientific explanation of what causes flight then use it to build technology that does it, as the Wright Bros proved.

    As to methodological individualism (you keep giving me terms that are hards to type), only the first fundamental constant of OSG talks about human behavior, and only does it in one general sense. It's not like the concept is being continually warped by the behavior of each individual. And OSG is not concerned with the behavior of individuals -- it's concerned with composite. Like in physics: you can say "I know the water will boil at a given temp." But you can't predict which molecule will be the first to go.

    On your excerpt: obviously, you think a lot. But there's a lot of concepts to unravel in that one paragraph. I've found that the hardest kind of writing to do is to explain complex (or high) ideas simply, one at a time. That's what Isaac Asimov was so great at. Your excerpt is a small chunk to go on, but I'll look at your stuff more closely then get back to you in a couple days.

    I grew up around writers -- when I was a kid, I'd go to Harlan Ellison's house and he'd show me how to write. After that, I lived and worked with Theodore Sturgeon for 10 years. George Clayton Johnson has also been my mentor for a long time. (If you don't know these names, they're are all famous sic fi writers -- look them up.) My whole life I've hung out with phds and writers -- so it's sort of in my blood. If you've been working on a book I might be able to make me suggestions on how to organize it (I wouldn't want to change what you're saying, however, at all.)

    Finally, I have a question for you re: your speculation on Ethereum but I'd like to talk to you privately sometime about that. Maybe we could exchange emails.

    I'll take a closer look at your stuff and get back in couple days.

  • ethereumnickethereumnick Member Posts: 49
    chasosg said:

    saying we're designed to exist in hominid bands therefore we can never have a successful complex society is defeatist.

    Yes in deed you are right and if I ever hear anyone especially me! saying such a thing I shall remonstrate with them.
    chasosg said:

    To say we've never had a stable civ therefore we never will

    I never did!!! (please read that in a squeaky MontyPython voice )
    I did say ... we cant "encompass the vast complexity of the civilised condition" which is not to say that the civilised condition does not exist, but to put it in words that Richard Findmen might have used "If you think you understand civilisation you don't understand civilisation."

    And just to make sure that's not taken as directed at you chas I'll quote the copper in Mary Poppins and say "No not you personally sir!"
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Good. We agree. Civilization is an open system.

    Another way of saying it in OSG terms is the amount of property (4 types) always expands as long as resources to do so are available.
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Short comment this time because someone earlier today accused me of being "verbose."
  • ethereumnickethereumnick Member Posts: 49
    edited November 2015
    I get that too. :/ We are a bad influence upon each other.
    I get the feeling that either, we are holding forth with an audience of interested lurkers, or we are spamming this forum with 'arguing on the interwebs'. I for one would love it if others waded in or at the minimum Private Messaged Us to encourage or discourage us from continuing this debate.

    I'm asking you dear reader to respond! Obviously I feel that this is a crucial topic, and though @chasosg and I are engaging in the theatre of small differences perhaps it is an entertaining debate? Or perhaps you wish we would stop?

    Either way and even if you can't Code Ðapps, which implementations you choose to use may change the world!
    Post edited by ethereumnick on
  • segovrosegovro SpainMember Posts: 30 ✭✭
    chasosg said:

    Have to disagree with your analysis. I never used the term "core self." I think what you're referring to is the 4 kinds of property: biological life, IP, human actions and tangible results of human action.

    Can you give me a specific example of how the analysis is wrong?

    There's very little extant material on the nature of property. Historians never talk bout it. Neither do anthropologists. Psychology is a soft science. You find most stuff on property when you read the history of law. Not even the philosophical encyclopedias have much.

    I'm glad you commented but can you give me an example instead of just an assertion that the "analysis of the core self" (which is a term I don't use) is wrong?

    My field is scientific epistemology and was very careful in the construction of this material. Examples please!

    There is nothing like "biological property" for humans. May be for a bird. A bird can sustain the life of his body alone. Not humans. Human is social by nature. It is the animal whose childhood is longer. And then it remains social forever. Not even your brain can survive without communication with other humans. In fact, all your thoughts are embedded in a social social context, even when you think mathematics. Your brain is composed by relations with other people, and what they think about you that you think about them that they think about you. And, the same, you form part of the brain of others.

    Take your body today. Its made out of potatoes grown by others, milk collected by others, and so on. Robinson Crusoe never existed, and would not survive.

    You cannot take decissions about your own body without having an impact on others, at least your inmediate relatives. They all care about your health, will help you managing your health and you follow for sure.

    What remains about "biological property"?

    All you article, for my reading, is just a further abstaction of the neoliberal individual market player, alone in the market making the best sales and buys of his/her property's.

    If this is not pure ideology, come Lord and see.
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Hello Segovro,

    I didn't know if I would hear back from you. Thanks for this clarification of your argument. I can answer this -- here goes...

    You're saying there's no such thing as property in nature. I agree. That's right! Property is not the identification of a natural phenomenon, it's a social convention.

    Evolution in nature is the story pure brutality. Lions eat gazelles, big fish eat little fish. Nature is a might-makes-right world. There's no such things as morality, justice, or property in nature. It's kill or be killed.

    But we humans have sentience (i.e., intelligence, volition, self-awareness) and we are social animals. We're a weak species physically; our evolutionary advantage is our brains. We survive by living in social groups and using the division of labor.

    In order to facilitate living in society -- especially a giant civilization like we have today -- we have to have a concept of property. We agree that your biological life is your property. So are your thoughts and ideas. So are your human actions (you have to be responsible for your actions). And so is your tangible property. Four kinds of property in all.

    Property a social convention. And a scientific definition of what property is and is not can be used to create technology that more efficiently facilitates our living in society.

    You might argue that if there's no such thing as property in nature, then there's no such thing as property. But that's a false argument. That's like saying since there's no such thing as airplanes in nature, airplanes can never exist.

    Furthermore, because of our human nature, the concept of property is constrained. If you want to create a stable and productive society, there are not a hundred different ways to conceptualize what property is -- there is only one. That's what the OSG paper is all about. It explains the definition of property using operational definitions and explains how to technologize it. (In scientific epistemology, operational definition is the strongest form of definition.)

    Your argument also contains another fallacy (sorry about that). You say, in effect, because humans are interdependent, there's no such things a (biological) property -- you can't tell where one person's property starts and stops. Your idea here IS a concept of property but it has been shown to be an unworkable one. It came from Proudhon, the French philosopher, around 1842. He was against the concept of property, completely. He wrote the slogan "property is theft." He wrote a book called "Warning to Property Holders." He, to say the least, didn't like the concept of property. But he wasn't like Karl Marx who also wanted to abolish the concept of property and instead wanted central control. Proudhon advocated pure mutualism, He wanted everyone to absolutely equal in what he called "dignified poverty." (He grew up very poor and hated rich people.) But purely mutual societies are impossible. They just don't exist. All human societies (including communes) naturally develop power structures. (I once lived in a commune; I watched it happen.)

    The interdependence among people that you describe doesn't negate the concept of property, it upholds it. You can't develop a stable, complex society if people aren't able to act in their own self interest. The former USSR and Mao's China are proof of this. The best you can get is a military dictatorship (also unstable).

    We're at a turning point in human civilization right now. The rise of digital technology is causing a total reformation of human civilization. If you want to build a stable civilization, there's no advantage in deconstructing the concept of property. You have to scientifically figure out what property really is and you have to turn that data into new social technologies. That's what the OSG white paper is all about.

    Download the paper again and take a look at it. If you think through the scientific arguments I think you'll be surprised. And you might become very optimistic about the future -- especially the future of Ethereum
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51

    I've decided not to collect email addresses in exchange for downloading the OSG white paper. If you'd like to download it just go to this site:

    You can download it directly from there -- no email address required. I would appreciate any comments on the paper, however.


    Chas Holloway
  • ciskocisko HollandMember Posts: 35
    I've read the first few chapters and so far it's great. I'll continu to read on..
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Hey Cisko -- that's great! Looking forward to your comments.

  • hergonhergon Member Posts: 1
    OSG is not for intellectual lightweights. It's simplicity is deceptive. Remember Occam's Razor! The simplest explanation that covers all bases is the correct one. Do NOT confuse "simple" with "easy". It will not be easy to implement OSG principles in the real world because of the enormous intellectual inertia and years of pseudo-explanations of the proper role of "government" (small "g") vs the coercion imposed by statist philosophies. Most "libertarians" don't even get it right. Freedom is a technology. It follows scientific principles of epistemology and logic, and it has NEVER existed in human society, despite some valiant attempts, like The United States. The people on this forum have the potential capacity to forge that technology, and become very wealthy in the process. (Hey, even John Lennon, who wrote the socialist anthem "Imagine", reveled in his millions unabashedly...even the Chinese know is is "glorious to be rich".) Why is it that trivial inventions like Pop Rocks make millions, while the great innovators (like Tesla) die penniless? Maybe if great innovation was lucrative, we'd have a LOT more of!
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Hey Hergon -- great points.

    You're right: simple does not mean easy. The definitions of the main concepts in the OSG paper are simple. But they're not easy to understand. People tend, I think, to look at them once and think they understand them -- but it really takes a while. You have to keep thinking about them and let them sink in.

    And yes, you're right -- freedom is not a movement or a cause, it's a technology. Once you understand what freedom is and how it works, you have to build a technology to achieve it. That's what Ethereum developers can do. They can create actual freedom for the first time in human civilization. And you're also right that freedom has never existed in human history. We're living in a very interesting time in which freedom can actually be realized for the first time.

    I ate a whole bag of pop rocks once. I thought my head exploded.
  • ciskocisko HollandMember Posts: 35
    edited December 2015
    Just some notes:

    All your base are belong to us!

    "Tracing the right of property back to its source, one infallibly arrives at usurpation. However, theft is only punished because it violates the right of property; but this right is itself nothing in origin but theft."

    Qu'est-ce que la propriété? ou Recherche sur le principe du Droit et du Gouvernement

    In the end, all things belong to earth
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Hi Cisko,

    Sorry about the delay getting to your comment. My wife was in hospital. She's okay now. Was a scary week, though.

    You're quoting Proudhon. I deal with him in the OSH white paper. He was a contemporary of Karl Marx, but the two hated each other. Marx wanted centralized control of everything; Proudhon wanted pure mutualism (which is impossible).

    Yeah, Proudhon hated the idea of property. He coined the slogan "property is theft." His 2nd book was titled "Warning to Property Holders."

    I'm not sure about the point you're making -- it appears you're defending Proudhon's point of view? Sorry, the guy's just not in reality. There are a couple sections in the OSH white paper where I deal with him. Read them!

    Proudhon's ideas are, in the end, incoherent. People remember him though because he was good at writing slogans. And about slogans: this is one of the basic failures of most social commentators. They don't know the difference between a fundamental concept and a slogan. For ex, the foundation of some people's thinking could be a slogan like "freedom isn't free." They try to base their thinking on slogans because they're memorable little phrases. But in science, you have to base your thinking on actual fundamental concepts.
  • ciskocisko HollandMember Posts: 35
    I don't mind at all for any delay of comment.

    What a difficult week it must have been. And glad to read that she's ok.

    It was during the time of the France revolution.

    Still busy with a lot of things and one of them is still your paper OSG, sorry. But at first glanse, I really like the ideas I found in there.
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Great! Glad you're getting into OSG.

    Yeah, it was a rotten week but much better now. And yes, Proudhon wrote his first book I think in 1842. 1848 was the official revolution year -- revolution spread all across Europe. That was also the year Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto, which became the foundation of the communist movement, and Bastiat write The Law, which became the foundation of the modern Libertarian movement. They say in that year revolutionaries were writing pamphlets and tracts everywhere.

    It was one of those times when it was obvious that the old order was dying fast and a new order was about to be born. Just like today!

    That's what's cool about OSG. It gives Ethereum developers the tools to really change the world in a fundamental way.
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    To Ethereum Developers:

    Here's the link to download the OSG white Paper without entering your email address:

    I appreciate any comments or suggestions on the paper. Thanks!

    Chas Holloway
  • ciskocisko HollandMember Posts: 35
    I wonder, what do you think of the maya dreamspell?
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    Hi Cisko,

    I don't know anything about it. I had to look it up on Wikipedia. But here's what I can tell you in general:

    OSG is a scientific idea, and the purpose of science is to build technologies. So OSG ideas can actually be built and implanted on the Ethereum (and similar) platforms.

    Things like the Mayan Dreamspell, astrology, numerology, etc. interest people because they are systems of thought. It appears that through all of history humans have been attracted to systems. Mythological systems, mystical systems, religious systems, games, hermetic systems, and so on. I think people like this stuff because it gives them a way to organize their ideas. But there's a difference between systems and scientific thinking. The rules of science are much more strict. For an idea to be scientific it has to conform to observational reality.

    I have a writing background. I've written sic fi stories, TV scripts, worked on movies. So I can get into imaginative modes of thought. But I know the difference between imagination and science. I enjoy both, by the way. In fact, I've been working on OSG (which is pure science) for so long I'd love to take a break and do some purely imaginative stuff for a while. (That's not possible for a while because I've got to finish this white paper on the nature and management of IP first.)
  • chasosgchasosg Member Posts: 51
    I was just reading Reddit (r/technology) and saw that "Open Source AI" has debuted. OSG is fundamental to that endeavor, as well as to Ethereum developers.

    I'm going to start a new thread here soon to make some announcements about this and some other issues.
Sign In or Register to comment.