I admit that it’s not well and neatly ordered, and that I shouldn’t have been too political in the document… But note that it’s just a document that describes the rationale behind reaching to the conclusions that I did… It’s not a whitepaper (at least not yet), so things are ambiguous and misarranged at the moment… And so it’s best to clear all ambiguation here on the forum. Thanks for doing the same (pointing out the ambiguations), @matslats, how else would I know what strikes and what doesn’t. And for the technical parts, I guess it will make sense to read it from bottom-to-top (i.e., once you see the implementation, things will make sense, even the things prior to the implementation section, or at least that’s what I hope happens)…
Anyone can mint vril-onus pairs. Vril being an asset to behold, onus being a liability (as in the
balance sheet). Every amount of vril is backed by a “vow”
I don’t see how that can be out of order. (Perhaps it should have been a single sentence though…)
I guess we can both co-exist; for some use-cases where people wouldn’t want redistribution be executed while transacting, Vril can shine, whereas for most others in which the community consensually decides to let wealth be redistributed with the peers, Resilience (or it’s future Holochain implementations) will shine… That reminds me of this great paradox: that people call the capitalists the powerful ones in a capitalist society, however what they do not realize is that those capitalists actually have little to no power in the real sense of the word; they are enslaved to meeting the needs of the consumers. Hence capitalism is better stated as consumerism! I guess the same will happen. What the people decide will be produced (and in the precise quantities), be it Vril, Resilience, Dollar, Btc, or even Gold… It’s all up to the people to decide, ain’t it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Denationalization_of_Money
In Resilience, as I mentioned, each individual is sovereign. Nothing is enforced by coercion. Those who do not want to redistribute wealth, can just not opt-in to the redistribution system. They can still use Ripple (multi-hop mutual credit) and transact with the same people who might also be using the redistribution system.
This is possible because the redistribution happens via the credit lines, but, in proportion to the tax a person paid. If you pay 0% (or have not opted-in, same result), your credit lines are bypassed. The tax being redistributed will pass via those who have contributed, only.
1 Like
So, no consensus. Resilience has no “community” with “consensus”. This was one thing I wanted as a property when I first came up with it or discovered it. No “community agreement”, only directly between individuals, and emergent effects from that.
Also, Holochain is overkill for it. And, if it were to use public-private key public ledger infrastructure, one built around multi-hop mutual credit would obviously be much better (also it works to begin with as it - Ripple - is a money system that actually scales in an “unenclosable” way. )
Who does it get passed to? Who are the end recipients of those small tax amounts?
The rule is, the tax is passed along as long as there are credit lines that can propagate it. Anyone without a credit line to them at the moment is measured as not having an income. They keep the tax. So it is guaranteed basic income. Not universal. At any hop, “conductance” of outgoing credit lines is evaluated, and tax split. Tiny amounts can aggregate, so propagation does not have to be with ridiculously small amounts.
I see… Yeah, sounds cool actually… I can visualize it in my mind… If only I had video-making skills, I’d have made a nice animation of what I’ve understood from your description. Really ingenious.
How does it prevent Sybil attacks then? Oh yeah, sorry. I got it. It being Ripple implicitly implies that the whole network is built of either similar “real” people or all dumb Sybil bots. Problem solved!
Thanks. Yes I came up with it between September 2012 and January 2013. First the propagation via credit lines, in September 2012. Then in January 2013, that each person decides for themselves to pay tax, possible because they only connect to the network in proportion to their choices.
The first, credit line propagation, because I did not want any central authority. The second, each person decides for themselves about tax rate, for same reason.
1 Like
Nothing much to sybil attack. You can fake incoming connections to yourself and cheat on your peers by stealing tax. But, those are people you know. So, it ends up as a trust-based system. (They also notice, indirectly, possibly or most likely, the strange lack of tax via you specifically, so some terror balance is there too if needed but I think trust is enough. ) Why it is also possible to run it completely private, with no public data at all.
1 Like
Yeah, just realized that. Really ingenious! It’s like killing two birds with one arrow.
For anyone possibly reading this not understanding Ripple (so not to you The-A-Man), “You can fake incoming connections to yourself and cheat on your peers by stealing tax” seems much worse for those who don’t get that in multi-hop mutual credit, Ripple, each person has relatively few peers. No “community” is cheated, only direct peers, a handful of people.
My thought too 
The big problem memetically for me is that no one understands Ripple so the gap to get anyone to pay attention to Resilience is pretty massive. Why I invented it 8 years ago but have not yet gotten it up and running.
1 Like
So I guess the splitance stops at a certain numerical minimum value? Is that hardcoded?
That’s the essential problem that Vril addresses, by the way… As there can be no consensus of what 1 unit means on a Ripple-like system, thereby requiring centralization of value-denominations. Traditionally, they pegged 1 unit with whatever 1 dollar buys. But that’s silly, I think. Don’t you?
Holochain and peer-validation that it enforces can help there… A Holochain implementation will really make Resilience way too resilient.
Just up to each person.
For valuation, I think it is possible it can emerge spontaneously. The thing keeping Bitcoin to 21 million bitcoin is an agreement, a spontenaous agreement might emerge even when it is not voted on strictly by majority vote like in Bitcoin or other fiat (majority vote currencies. )
It is overkill I think. Because the peers validating are the peers who chose to trust one another. They have no use of some third party they can point to and say “you lied” because they would both already know it was the case, and there is no outside party that comes in and enforces anything. It isn’t needed, is the idea.
1 Like
But something like it is possible, I just think it is overkill.