Автор: Анкап-тян

In Defense of TON

Andrey

I received a detailed review of my answer about TON in the chat , and with the author’s permission, I am publishing it here.

if nothing but Telegram is required to use the coins

Yes, having Telegram will be a sufficient, but not necessary condition for using the coins.

But there will be a need for the ability to buy gram quickly and conveniently for fiat

I don’t think that buying Gram will be harder than buying popular altcoins like Ethereum, especially since the development team has enough resources to organize such exchanges. And considering that identity verification tools are already built into Telegram, this will be even easier from a regulatory compliance perspective.

why is it needed as money, since there are bitcoins themselves

  • Due to high transaction speed: 5 seconds are enough to “confirm” a small amount transaction, compared to several dozen minutes for bitcoin.
  • Even lower fees: a PoS rather than a PoW consensus mechanism is used, so block creators do not have to perform generally useless work calculating hashes (block mining), and end users do not have to pay for it.
  • Built-in support for smart contracts and the ability to create your own applications (services) based on the network itself (the project includes more than just a blockchain) and these smart contracts, accepting grams as payment for their services.

I would still prefer to keep my (long-term) savings in bitcoins, but for everyday use, grams are definitely more convenient. The question “why grams when there are bitcoins” sounds roughly like “why fiat when there is gold”.

Low emission rates

According to the white paper, inflation is expected to be (no more than) 2% per year (the number of existing grams will double in 35 years), through the emission of new grams as rewards for validators.

Indeed, the number of bitcoins is fundamentally limited, and inflation decreases with each new halving, but ultimately the work of miners will be paid for not by the emission of new bitcoins, but by transaction fees, which could lead either to their increase or to a decrease in mining difficulty, and thus, to the overall security of the blockchain.

Firstly, for the sake of high transaction speed, it is intended to keep a very modest number of nodes

It is intended to keep about 1000 validators creating blocks, and as many “full nodes” as desired, which, in particular, will be able to point out validator errors, which, if confirmed, will result in the loss of the deposit and the transfer of part of it to the full node as a reward (the remaining part is irrevocably “burned”). As Nikolai Durov himself writes, despite the large number of full nodes in the bitcoin or ethereum networks, they are privately combined into large pools, which ultimately leads to the fact that, for example, 75% of all new blocks are created by fewer than ten miners/pools. Since it becomes even easier to create pools under a PoS consensus mechanism (those interested simply chip in for a deposit on one server, which then returns part of the reward to them), validators correspond almost exactly to mining pools/large miners. So a system of 1000 validators looks even more decentralized than the current state of affairs in existing cryptocurrencies.

Moreover, at the protocol level, the validator with the largest deposit is prohibited from having more than the deposit of the validator with the minimum deposit multiplied by a certain constant L. Thus, the system itself encourages “pool” participants to choose not the largest validator, but validators with smaller deposits, maintaining decentralization.

If these funds can be managed without Telegram, then it is unclear what Telegram has to do with it.

Funds will be manageable using a set of tools as diverse as those for bitcoin—a “wallet” can be created using existing programs or even by writing your own. Telegram is only involved in that, firstly, TON is being developed by the Telegram team, and secondly, a light client for this entire ecosystem will be built into the Telegram app, which will automatically create a user base of several hundred million people. The network itself is planned to be renamed simply to Open Network a few years after launch.

And, of course, it is currently difficult to consider a currency that depends entirely on a single creator as decentralized

In principle, Ethereum also depends quite heavily on Vitalik Buterin. In fact, in the early stages (while the project is being “refined”), it is indeed planned that the deciding vote in the case of changes to some configurable parameters (of which there are many, by the way, to avoid hard forks) will belong to the TON Foundation, as well as owning the majority of validators. But this is ensured only by the amount of currency in the TON Reserve, which sells and buys grams (in exchange for dollars) according to a pre-set algorithm to reduce possible exchange rate fluctuations. As soon as the majority of grams are sold (which is actually equivalent to the project “taking off,” as the number of sales depends on the rate), the TON Foundation will lose its privileges.

Overall, the essence of the TON project is to create a platform for decentralized and (partially) centralized services that would be impossible to control from the outside—so, besides cryptocurrency, TON will have a built-in proxy system, for example, allowing the creation of tunnels like VPN and TOR and, if desired, collecting payment for traffic passing through them using the built-in cryptocurrency or a micropayment system. Services can provide their offerings using all the conveniences of centralization (more efficient request processing), while users will be protected from contract violations on their part thanks to decentralized smart contracts in the blockchain—and without any (government) courts. That is, the idea is to create a new market uncontrollable by states, and from there it will work itself out.

Have you heard of the TON project? Do you think the future belongs to new-generation blockchains, or will Bitcoin maintain its role as the primary cryptocurrency?

анонимный вопрос

The main factors ensuring Bitcoin’s current dominance:

  1. Network effect. A huge number of people own Bitcoins, and they didn’t receive them through an airdrop, but incurred costs to acquire them, meaning they value them. Since others value them, one can boldly accept payments in Bitcoins; they are liquid.
  2. Low emission rates. The Bitcoin mass increases slowly, meaning that in the long term, this money will at least preserve its value. Thus, Bitcoin is suitable as a store of value; there is no need to rush to get rid of it if someone happens to pay you in bits.
  3. Decentralization. To set up a wallet, you can choose from a multitude of programs or even write one yourself. To transfer money, you don’t need to ask permission from a single transaction verification center—there are several tens of thousands of nodes in the network.

These main factors are enough so that, should you wish, you could easily sell your goods for Bitcoins or, conversely, buy goods with your Bitcoins. Or simply hold bits and enjoy the price growth.

Gram, issued as part of the TON project, will be successful if it can satisfy roughly the same criteria.

  1. Network effect. This could potentially be very large if nothing more than Telegram is required to use the coins, and a ton of people have Telegram. But the ability to buy Gram quickly and conveniently with fiat will be necessary. If buying Gram requires first buying Bitcoins, then it is completely unclear why it is needed as money, since Bitcoins themselves already exist.
  2. Low emission rates. I haven’t looked into the creators’ plans regarding this, but if the growth rate of the Gram mass turns out to be higher than Bitcoin’s, then the price will likely decrease relative to Bitcoin in the long run.
  3. Decentralization. Here, as I understand it, everything is bad. First, to achieve high transaction speeds, it is intended to maintain a very modest number of nodes. Second, if a Telegram account is needed to manage these coins, it means the money is completely centralized: any account can be banned by the Telegram administration at any moment. If these funds can be managed without Telegram, then it’s unclear what Telegram has to do with it.

So I am quite skeptical about TON, but Gram can certainly be used as a speculative asset; hyperinflation definitely does not threaten it.

And, of course, it is currently difficult to consider a currency decentralized if it depends entirely on a single creator

Transhumanists doubt ancap

My post from the day before yesterday was reposted in a transhumanist channel, where they also posted a couple of remarks:

1. Transhumanism is closely linked to scientific and technological progress, and that requires huge financial injections; even states have problems with this, as sufficient funds for science are often not found, and under ancap, where everything will be decentralized, it could become even worse (I may be wrong, I am not as familiar with ancap ideas as the ancaps themselves), even corporations might lack funds, especially considering their drive to maximize profit. Building things like the LHC could be impossible under ancap, given the required funds and, essentially, the lack of profitability. And there wouldn’t be enough philanthropists for such scales. However, considering that under ancap, capitalists will gain access to the resources previously owned by states, this should give them more opportunities, although it’s still not a fact that it will be enough. 

Here I want, firstly, to refer to my old post about funding fundamental science under ancap, and secondly, to point out that transhumanism does not need things like the LHC: research in biotechnology, bioinformatics, and other transhumanist agendas does not require a super-concentration of resources on a single mega-project, which means that funding can be decentralized, gradual, and quickly transition from the fundamental science stage to the applied stage, with rapid implementation of results in business. As far as I know, the most expensive research in this field was the sequencing of the human genome; it was carried out worldwide for many years by numerous laboratories without disrupting current scientific activities, and this is still much simpler than building some unimaginably complex installation in one place.

2. Regarding cyberpunk, that is incorrect. Cyberpunk is not tied to the fact of the existence of states; moreover, cyberpunk often depicts states as having either disappeared or lost all power, with corporations taking their place. And it is under ancap that a cyberpunk scenario of the world being governed by corporations is more than likely. One could even say that cyberpunk often captures precisely the world of anarcho-capitalism.

I am proceeding from Oppenheimer’s definition of the state, that is, an organization that uses systematic, regular, legalized, and continuously applied “political methods” to extract wealth from the producing society. Cyberpunk corporations differ from corporations in current reality in that they are states in the Oppenheimer sense, they are simply extraterritorial. This system differs from anarcho-capitalism precisely by the legality of political methods, whereas under ancap they are marginal.

Political methods are not needed, buddy

How authors and inventors can earn a living without privileges from the stationary bandit (so-called “copyright and patent law”)?

Bitarch’s Column

1) Crowdfunding;

2) Volunteering by individual authors and voluntary gratuitous development by commercial companies to “pay back society”;

3) A non-disclosure agreement, where compliance ensures continued cooperation and violations lead to a refusal to provide new content (for example, a cinema enters into such an agreement with a film studio and undertakes not to release the film during the first week of screening; in exchange, the studio provides the newest films, and if the agreement is violated, cooperation is terminated);

4) Network effect — a pharmaceutical company develops and tests a new drug, other companies naturally begin to produce generics, but the first company has already gained sufficient recognition for the safety and effectiveness of the drug; accordingly, people are more likely to trust their health to it than to an unknown (and potentially dangerous or useless) generic. The network effect applies to almost all inventions.

5) A desire to change the world for the better. For example, Elon Musk fundamentally decided not to patent his developments in the field of electric vehicles so that they would become mass-market faster due to competition.

6) Cross-subsidization — a company may fund the development of an intellectual product through the sale of a physical good, since this intangible product may indirectly increase the value or create advertising for the physical good. For example, a CNC machine manufacturer may release a free CAD, thereby increasing interest in themselves and the chance of machine purchases.

7) Advertising, product placement — do you think actors in movies accidentally open a can of Coca-Cola or Pepsi?!

Addition from Ancap-chan

Of course, the list of monetization methods is not exhaustive, and people are constantly inventing new opportunities. For instance, selling achievements like “dinner with the author” is not exactly crowdfunding, but the creation of a rare resource out of thin air for which people are willing to pay, while they are not willing to pay for text, video, or music.

The most brilliant monetization method, in my opinion, is selling merch. People pay for the high honor of wearing advertisements for their favorite author or, say, a company — is that not a miracle?

I wouldn’t want to look like a cobbler without shoes, so I hope to eventually implement something more interesting within my own project than simply publishing a bitcoin wallet for donations. Here, everything is complicated by such a fundamental condition as maintaining anonymity, which is why I haven’t bothered much with all these things until now.

I will be glad if you share your thoughts on project monetization with me. The easiest way, perhaps, is to do it through the same form that you use to ask questions. And, of course, send bitcoins. This is especially important if you’ve never had any — buy some to donate to me, and you’ll have some left for yourself. The downward trend seems to have ended, which means a price increase awaits us; don’t miss this opportunity.

Donation wallet: 1A7Wu2enQNRETLXDNpQEufcbJybtM1VHZ8

Is it worth building ancap if it is not a fact that it will work?

And with transhumanism, everything will be fucking great.
It will happen soon, we just have to wait!!!
Everything will be possible there, everything will be a blast,
There, we probably won’t have to die at all.

…And justice for all

Under a state, you’ll be fucking exhausted waiting for transhumanism, but under ancap, it really will happen soon. There is a market demand for transhumanism, but state regulations slow its arrival. Judge for yourself: even harmless genetically modified plants are banned in a whole number of countries, let alone the modification of the human genome?

Again, transhumanism will open up cosmic expansion for humans, and it’s not so easy to draw state borders in space. This is also a strong argument for the state in favor of banning research into adapting humans to extraterrestrial conditions.

In short, it’s possible to imagine ancap without transhumanism, but transhumanism without ancap—only in cyberpunk. Cyberpunk is exactly that kind of fiction where the main fantastic assumption is the preservation of the state upon the arrival of transhumanism. Granted, in most examples of the genre, these are no longer territorial states, but a cockroach-like system of extraterritorial protection rackets, but their essence doesn’t change much.

As for a society where there is no need to die, I have no particular fears. In essence, the only institution that would wither away in such a society is inheritance. And we didn’t really want it anyway. On the other hand, the individual planning horizon could grow significantly, and that is always a sign of a healthy and prosperous society.

Work on translations

Recently, Sergey Ankapov contacted me via Facebook direct messages, inquiring about my ability to assist in organizing the translation of Franz Oppenheimer’s book “The State.” Unfortunately, I didn’t know any translators who were free enough to join the project. And just yesterday, I found out that not only is a translation planned, but also a print edition of the book, and fundraising is underway for this. I know that many people value print editions specifically, so I consider it my duty to inform you how you can help the project. Most of the amount has already been collected; all that’s missing is you.

Also, recently, as part of the “Hyde Park Library” project, the book “The New Autocracy,” which thoroughly dissects the modern Russian political machine, was posted. The book is recommended by Ekaterina Schulmann, who participated in its creation. An activist was found who decided to take on the translation of the book, although the idea of translating a book about Russia, written primarily by Russians, from English into Russian seems a bit strange to me. Regardless, he is assembling a team of like-minded people to tackle this work collectively.

And for dessert. I have begun working on the translation of David Friedman’s book “The Machinery of Freedom” — the most fundamental work on the doctrine of anarcho-capitalism. Unfortunately, the pace is quite slow, as time for work on the project is allocated on a residual basis. I think this can be changed. In the near future, I will create a section on the website where I will post the English text by chapter, and as the translation progresses, I will add the translated parts there. Anyone who wishes can take any untranslated fragment, send me the translation, and I will edit it and add it to the site. Your donations will also be very helpful: practice has shown that I work with significantly more enthusiasm when I see that you are willing to pay for what I produce.

The book will be translated based on the text of the second edition released in 1986, with additions published in 2014 that have not yet gained widespread recognition.

Is it permissible to cover others’ treasures?

Look, check this out. I have a friend who works as an admin (sort of) in a restaurant. She’s a seasoned user herself. People are constantly leaving “stashes” there, and being experienced, she naturally spots them and takes them for herself. Then the guys show up and get disappointed.

goldstein

“Zakladki” (dead drops) are a genius technology for creating a logical break in trade and logistics chains when acquiring prohibited goods. Anya packages Boris’s goods and hides them wherever she deems appropriate, receiving a reward from Boris for every hidden stash. Vera transfers bitcoins to Hydra and receives an algorithm for finding the stash. After confirming that the stash has been found, she instructs Hydra to transfer the previously deposited bitcoins to Boris. All of this is further reinforced by dispute mechanisms, reviews, penalties for Anya from Boris for poor stashes, and other ingenious mechanics.

At every stage, all participants face risks. Anya can be caught with the goods. Vera can be caught with the goods. Vera might not find the stash. An unfound stash might be relocated, or a refund might be denied, which means costs for either Boris or Vera. Finally, Boris might be an undercover officer, and his reputation will depend on how quickly Hydra bans his shop.

Naturally, because possession of a stash entails state sanctions, it is legally ownerless. Anya, Vera, and Boris will all fiercely deny any connection between themselves and a piece of substance attached with a magnet under a table, and will disclaim any ownership rights to it—if asked by the state, which is formally the guarantor of private property rights on its territory. Dasha, who finds someone else’s stash, will deny her ownership rights to it no less fiercely. She was simply cleaning her assigned area, found some junk, has no idea what it is, mechanically put it in her pocket, and forgot to throw it in the trash.

Nevertheless, Anya, Boris, Vera, and Hydra sincerely and with full justification hate Dasha, and all the more so the more systematic her activity is: she increases costs across the entire chain, thereby contributing to higher prices for an already expensive product. If Vera or Anya catches Dasha, they will not doubt for a moment their right to use violence against her.

Such, in short, are the customs of this very peculiar market, where everyone proudly bears their own risks, yet everyone, guided by their own selfish interests, does everything to ensure the market continues its uninterrupted operation, multiplying the wealth of all its participants. Even Dasha.

After all, Dasha also has her boss, Fyodor Ovchinnikov. He is not involved at all; he sells people delicious pizza. And by clearing the pizzeria’s territory of dangerous stashes, Dasha helps reduce his risks. If Dasha reported this to him, he would say thank you. But in this system, all chains of cause and effect are broken, so Fyodor will never know what he owes to his brave admin.

P.S. Usually, I use an English sequence of character names to describe such mechanisms, but “zakladki” is a purely Russian technology, so today I have every reason to show some patriotism.

Help Dasha find the stash

Insult the authorities – earn a bitcoin

A video with an interesting initiative has appeared on the “Dobroum-TV” YouTube channel. Anyone who wishes can, downloading and printing a flyer, distribute it in the mailboxes of an apartment building, verifying this action with a video recording, and then send the resulting proofs via direct message to a specially created Telegram account, and receive a reward in Bitcoin at a price of approximately 10 rubles per flyer.

Of course, you won’t make much money from such work, because small-batch printing will eat up most of the reward. The feeling of moral satisfaction received is far more important.

Those who enjoy this activity can also have fun by pasting anarchist stickers. To do this, you need to contact a special Telegram bot, which ensures anonymous communication. You will be provided with stickers; all you have to do is complete the quest of creatively pasting them in various unexpected places.

Finally, you can also take your own initiative to decorate your city with various creative works, from graffiti to tombstones for Putin, or set up a fund to pay for such activities. The latter is especially convenient if you are physically outside Russian jurisdiction but do not agree to simply passively observe what is happening in your homeland. A government that legislatively prohibits showing disrespect toward it looks especially funny and ridiculous, so why deny yourself the pleasure of having some fun?

How will a country without a state represent itself to other states?

Choosing a private representative? An armed population is great, but tanks, planes, and missiles—who sells them, who buys them, and consequently, who stores them? And obviously, how does a private individual profit from this? Donations? Or will they offer to protect a certain part of the population? Quite strange. Military personnel will go, for example, into various PMCs and become mercenaries, but what about deterrent weapons? A private individual will be paid from the outside, and that’s it. Kaput. Cosmopolitanism is cool, but this scenario is quite real. Again, terrorist attacks carried out for the purpose of intimidation, or due to disagreement with the population based on certain criteria. Who will investigate them? Private security organizations that engage in security activities? People who are interested in what happened? Quite likely. What about firefighters, who are supposed to arrive after the fact? They arrive, but the homeowner is gone, or simply doesn’t exist because the plot of land is a wasteland. Let it burn? Will the city saved from the fire pay them via donations? “Donations” is a crude word, but essentially, if people aren’t obligated to pay for it, they will more likely pay into insurance, and the insurance companies will handle it? Consequently, each insurance company will have its own ties with firefighters, etc. Okay, I answered that myself. But as for weapons of mass destruction and heavy military equipment, it’s still unclear.

Royal hacker

It is quite difficult to answer such broad questions, so I will focus on the very first part.

Indeed, there is a rather peculiar service that seemingly only a state can provide to a person: the service of representation before another state. States do not consider citizens of other states to be subjects of treaties. They negotiate with other states, while citizens and companies act as objects of agreements. This applies to trade tariffs and regulations, visa regimes, and the extradition of criminals. How can the market respond to such rudeness?

Fortunately, states can make decisions regarding foreigners not only in a bilateral but also in an autistic mode. For example, issuing an order that products receiving certain certificates are not subject to customs duties. This means nothing prevents the company issuing the certificates from working with influence groups in those countries that are of interest as a sales market. Similarly, some consortium of travel agencies could work with lobbyists regarding a visa-free regime for buyers of certain tour packages. In general, the task looks difficult but solvable, although it seems more likely to me to obtain visas by purchasing some convenient citizenship (and the more wealthy apatrides wanting to travel there are in the market, the more various small island states will compete for them, and due to the volume, the price of the matter will quite quickly drop to a quite acceptable level).

It is more difficult with the pursuit of criminals. I once wrote about the functions of a prison under ancap, arguing that the criminal needs it primarily as a refuge from retribution. If a criminal has the opportunity to flee to the territory of a state, they effectively receive the same refuge, just without being locked within four walls. On the other hand, the state in terms of protection is a prison for the poor. That is, protection exists, but it is purely nominal. So, if someone hiding on the territory of a state manages to be discovered (which is a quite feasible and legal task for private detective agencies, which they can perfectly perform on the territory of a state), then one can either enter negotiations with them or deal with them in one way or another, since state structures are unlikely to be able to or want to protect them. Finally, one can threaten the criminal not with retribution, but with deportation to the state whose citizenship they acquired to cross the border, and there they can be judged by a state court. A mediocre solution, but threatening to hand one bandit over to other bandits for retribution if they don’t compensate for the damages is more or less permissible.

The rest of your long question is mainly devoted to issues of the use and sale of heavy weaponry. Nothing prevents a private company, operating on stateless territory, from producing weapons and legally supplying them to the territories of states if appropriate contracts are concluded with buyer companies (defense ministries can also act as such). Of course, national armies usually follow standards, and if a specific tank model has been adopted for armament, pushing through a procurement decision for another model is quite a hassle. But these are issues that are already being solved without state patronage, so under ancap, arms companies will handle this—they aren’t children.

As for the purchase of heavy weaponry by some hypothetical ancap PMCs, I personally do not believe in the market justification for such purchases, but I cannot provide clear arguments. Perhaps a few PMCs on stateless territory will go all out; after all, a tank biathlon is a quite monetizable show, something to keep them occupied in peacetime.

April 12

They say that in the past, in the USSR, it was a nationwide holiday, but now it has lost its drive and in many ways has acquired the mood of “Sorry, Yura, we fucked everything up.”

No. The state fucked everything up. The “market” gradually crept into space, and once the market arrives somewhere, it settles in seriously and for the long haul. At first, private companies simply held contracts for state space companies. Then they started buying satellite launches from state companies. Then they learned to launch satellites themselves. They are just about to launch the first human. They have already launched a lunar expedition, albeit unsuccessfully.

Private space exploration is happening unobtrusively. In some places, it is the whim of a billionaire, in some it is the donations of enthusiasts, and in some it is a normal profitable business—and this, of course, is the most solid basis for expansion.

All of this applies to Russia as well. So S7 Space, Dauria Aerospace, or some other Russian private space companies will certainly enter the bright market paradise. And Roscosmos will simply die.

Happy holiday!

And the romance of space isn’t going anywhere. Starman sends his regards to Yuri Gagarin.