Topic: [ANN][CRW] CROWN (SHA256) | Platform | Governance | Systemnodes | Masternodes | - page 157. (Read 317079 times)

Just thought this would be a good time to collect everyone's thoughts on what would make it easier to operate thrones/nodes?

There are different resources which it would seem that Crown should develop in terms of installation scripts, and possibly also downloadable / torrents of images of installed systems with a checksum and where one would just need to know where to mount the image and how to create the crown.conf file...

The setup / support task is made more complex because the preference for the network would be to have a diversity of operating systems, cloud providers and home servers running thrones.  The goal is to create a diverse network which will be more complex to maintain - but should also be more robust over time.

Any specific thoughts / suggestions from anyone -- from newbies to folks running node businesses for Crown and/or other networks?

super moon soon!

Just another quick note which may end up being longer than necessary - but hopefully will be entertaining.

First, a confession.  I'm a business guy.  I love business -- and trying to figure out businesses: (1) why the people do the work, and (2) why they can sell something for more than they got it for over and over again, sometimes for years.  The woods scare me despite the fact that many crypto folks whom I respect live there.  The woods to me are an abstract idea from novels and movies -- not a real place to spend any time.  Bad things happened there to that girl in the red cloak and her granny.  So I got interested in crypto to start with because of the business implications.

But it wasn't the business opportunities that attracted me -- because I couldn't see what those would be.  It was the business risks.  The crypto platforms have the potential to blow-up many existing profit centers in the economy by lowering transaction costs -- actually almost zeroing them out amazingly enough.  At first my reaction to this was simply a reprise of Vezzini from the Princess Bride, "INCONCEIVABLE!"  And Fessig wasn't there to challenge my assertion, but my understanding of the crypto systems evolved and so has my perspective...

Now the task is to take what is merely conceivable and try to make it real.  This is the purpose of the framework which the team starts to introduce in the Crown Papers which will be released tomorrow.

One of the issues which is alluded to in one of the papers -- don't really remember which one -- is the problem close to my heart -- which is a profitable business in the crypto world?  What could it look like?

Currently there is one economic use of Crown - that is to use the coins for staking and "operating a network node" - the nodes are currently called Thrones.  The Thrones will receive both 45% of the block rewards as well as being able to allocate the Governance or Development Fund through proposals and throne votes.  So the thrones participate in the block rewards and will govern the evolution of the platform.

Economically, the cost of operating a throne will be driven by the marginal cost of compute power, which should decline over time... While the return to the Thrones will be driven by the uses of the platform and the uses of the token, which should increase over time.  So the economic profit of operating thrones should be stable and may structurally expand over time or at least be stable.  This is complicated -- but the basic economic design is that these "nodes" should have a natural and structural economic profit margin which (if uses are developed for the token) may expand over time rather than contract -- or at least be stable.  This is a cool structure if you like to make money running businesses...  no guarantee Crown will get there, but someone will and we hope we are among those who reach this point....

But the block rewards will end -- and that is a fact Jack, or is it? 

And this is another interesting point -- because what a platform might be able to do is to offer free services during the block reward period, but after then end of the block reward period begin to charge some small fee on value added items on top of the core services, like the freemium models so popular in tech-land -- or you could have other mechanisms such that a slice of the application "revenues" generated by the platform get recycled through the  "block reward system"....  so the number of coins would stop increasing -- block rewards wouldn't be new coins -- but the behaviors incented by the block rewards would still receive their incentive payments...

Simple, ideas... but probably important.  And if you are interested in how this all evolves, get involved.  The way for it not to become another dead-end dream is if we get more and more people helping build it, and operating nodes.

Thanks for the welcome. Like others here, I remain disillusioned/over invested in another project and was pleased to discover crown as it shares some similar ambitions. I ended up picking up a throne yesterday and look forward to more in the near future.

Yes certainly.  Is there a better platform on which we can chat?

Hello Chris,

thanks very much for your interest in Crown. Would you be able to PM me one or two books just to take a look at the structure and wording? Or at least part of some texts in order to see your thinking. After this we will discuss within our dev team and come back to you. Cheers! 

New signatures and Opening posts have been paid for.
Before I knew it, the fund was topped up again to 300k!
Preview of new OP graphics

Hello


I am a historian who researches the events/milestones of cryptocurrency.  I have published books over 2-3 years:

https://www.amazon.com/Mr-Chris-P.-Thompson/e/B00S5L3PVM/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0


Would the Crown community be interested in a history book (longer than the first year!) for your coin.  We can negotiate how we can proceed.  I normally require a community to donate at least 1 BTC to help fund the project.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards,
Chris

CROWN  Bounty Fund topped to 300K CRW

13Tp1G1QXzJkUEtYH9DuYaYv4eGEmxkVpa

Thank you for your nice donation LucD88!

Thanks for the kind words. Great finally seeing you here mate, welcome!

The only exchange, for now, is C-Cex: https://c-cex.com/index.html?p=crw-btc Stonehedge beat me to it.

https://www.privacytools.io/#kdl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#Czech_Republic

The simple formulation would be that if we want a system to be humane, we have to inject some humanity into it.

The key problem with many governance structures, and one can argue a key issue with many trade policies - is that they lack any concept of humanity or compassion -- but are motivated by a cold economic calculus, which is portrayed as a sort of competitive inevitability.  But we know this isn't true because the economic arguments tend to shift like sand in front of a brisk wind blown to benefit those in power.  

So we are all very familiar with the lack of humanity -- and this lack of humanity is much easier for us to imagine than anything else, because it has defined much of our history.  As Yuval Noah Harari points out -- we were not only the most imaginative -- but also the most murderous of the human subspecies and that was a key reason we are the only one left from the multiple species which existed 50,000 - 100,000 years ago.  

But the challenge is if we can step back and imagine something different -- not machines in control -- not anyone in control... but a system.. so not chaos either.  

My guess is that a segment of the population will go with the Facebook/VR model and collapse into code or virtual worlds -- and the virtual worlds will be cool, but the machines in virtual worlds will always be ahead of the human -- the human in virtual reality is effectively the mouse and the code or machines are the cat.  This is the structure of the thing -- and sci-fi has kind of glossed over the speed differentials between neurons and circuits, because it screws up the stories.

But another segment of the population will embrace solutions which cause the code to effectively disappear -- this is the model of the code not owning us and enveloping us -- but of the code enabling humans.  If we need a corporate exemplar following this strategy it is Amazon -- the Alexa interaction model is moving toward how we interact with each other, not forcing us to move into another reality...

Crown is functionally agnostic about this divide although I personally prefer the latter model.  But Crown would play a role either way -- as VR comes of age, you may not entirely trust Facebook's or Microsoft's servers, or some people may want to create their own worlds.  And if they live where it is difficult to have a bank account, but easy to have an imagination -- they could create that world in Crown.  From a purely business perspective -- this is the arbitrage opportunity -- to lower the cost of entry into the cloud, both as a provider and as a participant.

And not in a narrow way - but with a general toolset, and a few simple guiding principles.

Another key is that platforms are great businesses -- but what if you introduced a general purpose platform but didn't run the platform as the point at which to try to extract profit?  What if you built the platform and just let the benefits flow through to the nodes?  Then you let the competition happen in how services where provided at the network end points -- not by charging tolls along the way.  Now, traditional businesses can't do this -- they are actually legally required to produce a return on capital for their investors... but open source projects can run this experiment.  And the way the experiment should work -- is that the same business which doesn't have to pay a "platform tax" or several platform taxes (Visa, Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, etc) will be more profitable while being able to charge lower prices -- so everyone benefits.  And the benefit comes from the absence of a need for the platform to produce a return.

What puzzles me about the Bitcoins folks is that Visa now owns large parts of that ecosystem.  And then the mining is in China and concentrated in a totalitarian state.  The currency has been captured on both ends -- mining and consumer... and captured by two of the largest platform tax entities in existence -- so it will be difficult for it to wriggle free.  In response to this issue there is a sort of cry, sounding almost like Golem chasing a golden ring... that the bitcoin blockchain is somehow sacred.  The one true chain.  

But if we look at evolution, nature iterates and so it's probably reasonable for the coin ecosystem to do the same -- iterate and experiment.  So that's what we're doing.

According to privacytools.io, the Czech Republic is one of the places where they can't make you cough up your keys -- that and Poland, which is where the CCEX guys are I believe.  I may be that the eastern European states, as a result of having been caught between great powers, have a better understanding of freedom than American or the UK, who may have gotten to comfortable with the advantages economic might has given them.  We see what may have been an obvious structural error in American creating a massive surveillance state which reports only to the president -- just as a logical exercise, this institutional structure then means that American freedom is then only as strong as the president wants it to be -- and any first grader could do that institutional analysis.

All different sorts of threads to pull together...

and more ways to screw up than there are to succeed -- but Crown will be an interesting experiment and we welcome everyone with a stubbornness of purpose, a willingness to work and anything more than modest ability to join the community and the effort.


 

I a so happy with the identity of the new website, everything getting ready for Monday, almost there. I hope we can get our crown.services domain holding get into business soon too! The question is, what is the future service for crypto? Ideas exchange, fair play domain exchange, moral values exchange or what do people need to exchange in order to get real value back and trade? Very hard question guys, no cyrpto project found the answer yet...

Any smart guys around here?  

Thanks for the kind words. C-Cex is basically the only choice. Hoping to change that soon.

My interest is peaked wit this project as I have a lot of respect for members of this community. Which exchange has the most liquidity?

Some interesting points in your ideas urban_idler. As protectionism and nationalism rises in the real world, the open economy will move to the code. This is already happening, just look at our team. This is the biggest opportunity for crypto. It will become a place where people will be able to do business and exchange the created values under an open, fair, efficient and free system making this possible for them.

We will hold strong and not back down on our moral ideals. The code is a good servant but a bad master as seen in the Robocop or Tron movies. 

https://www.tickcounter.com/countdown/12652/crown-core-update-release 

coin name worm yet?

this logic also means you want to run less, not more through the blockchain -- while enabling the p2p protocols and encryption services in a bitcoin or crypto node to do more -- but just not keep it on the permanent record of the blockchain.

worth thinking about -- because it starts to make ideas like a DAO look silly... my beginning data/computing ethics assumption has to be that it will be hacked -- and if it is then what happens?  well it's a permanent entity so the logical consequence is, well, what we already have an example of.  we have a logical proof of why the #2 crypto system isn't logically sound because it uses bad assumptions...

but I understand why folks get excited about that... it is the creation of the machine as a god, and this appeals to a lot of folks for whom machines have been more trustworthy than people.

and there is nothing wrong with the idea -- it's just logically impossible to implement reliably -- you have to make assumptions and abstractions that leak in a system that needs to be water tight.

okay, just a general data ethics question I have been thinking about in the context of how one might want to approach and engage the techno-surveillance state which has emerged in the developed world.

my gut is that an underlying principle should be that no data should be collected if it's existence poses an a-symmetric risk -- without reference to theoretical benefit.

the problem with the ethics of collecting data on people isn't the potential daily efficiencies -- but the periodic catastrophic risk.  the risk of the information being used in mass behavioral experiments with unwitting participants (facebook), the risk a foreign power will hack in and steal the data using it to undermine a domestic state (what all major governments seem to enjoy doing to each other), etc, etc.  This is before getting to the individual and personal risks.

this is an ethical problem which should be considered in the design phase of every software project.  the low cost of logging and storage has resulted in the retention of enormous amounts of data -- much of which is best forgotten -- for both the subjects as well as the entity holding the data. 

now some folks from MIT and other places have proposals for how we should be able to monetize ourselves and own our data and profit from the manipulation of our choices and lives.  it's a strange sort of idea which books have been written about (pentland) without stepping back to consider the ethics of this techno-indentured-servitude. 

I guess that is a future that we could build for ourselves -- but it seems like it would be more useful to step back and start thinking about how we would put together the amazing pieces of technology which we have, if we were to do it knowing what we know now -- with clear ethical principles which value humans, individuals and their freedom and creativity above all else.

I think that in terms of data collected you end up with a sort of "data architect's Hippocratic oath" which states that you will not design a system where the loss of it's data results in an asymmetric risk for anyone.... and then when you start to pencil this out it starts to feel like Kerckhoff's principle or Shannon's maxim... because what you have to assume at the design level is that whatever data you might collect will be hacked -- and then it may as well be open... You assume that the enemy knows you design and any data that you collect -- and you may collect less data on yourself and others... you collect just enough data to maintain stability, and nothing more.