Capture resistant - Revision history

Sensorica-wiki: /* True commons */

2023-03-07T17:00:39Z

True commons

Sensorica-wiki: /* True commons */

2023-01-23T22:23:50Z

True commons

Sensorica-wiki: /* True commons */

2023-01-23T22:10:20Z

True commons

Sensorica-wiki: /* True commons */

2023-01-23T21:59:42Z

True commons

Sensorica-wiki: /* True commons */

2023-01-23T21:28:53Z

True commons

Sensorica-wiki: /* True commons */

2023-01-23T21:28:39Z

True commons

Sensorica-wiki at 21:28, 23 January 2023

2023-01-23T21:28:25Z

TiberiusB at 18:25, 31 March 2022

2022-03-31T18:25:04Z

TiberiusB at 18:24, 31 March 2022

2022-03-31T18:24:55Z

TiberiusB at 18:24, 31 March 2022

2022-03-31T18:24:42Z

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 See also [[nondominium]] - a concept applied to material assets in the OVN jargon.
 [[Category: Asset]]
 [[Category: Resource]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:23, 23 January 2023
Line 25:		Line 25:

	We can make a distinction between ability to copy a file and making a file recognizable for being the genuine copy. Look into [[NFT]] - web3 creature, unique digital asset. This is the distinction between a perfect clone and something that tell you that one copy is special.		We can make a distinction between ability to copy a file and making a file recognizable for being the genuine copy. Look into [[NFT]] - web3 creature, unique digital asset. This is the distinction between a perfect clone and something that tell you that one copy is special.
		+
		+	The requirement here is that if you decide to work on a clone (not the genuine one) you essentially take yourself outside of the group / network.
		+	But we can model a digital asset in many other ways.
		+	Take for example my social graph on Facebook. It is an asset, I can nurture it, augment it, leverage it. But my social graph is not the file containing the content storing all my conections and all my interactions with them. It's the totality of live connections that I have with all the other people on Facebook. I can copy all my data from Facebook and put it somewhere else, but in doing that I don't copy my social graph as a living asset. I cannot take my Facebook friends with me, the interaction stops, that asset collapses (ceases to exist) if I clone the data.
		+	So perhaps a digital asset is not modeled by a file. A complex of things can make up a digital asset
		+
		+	On [[Holochain]], perhaps a digital asset is a hApp, not a file.
		+	In that case, can we make it shared by default and unenclosable, and even make it less prone to be cloned to prevent unnecessary redundancy?
		+	That would not exclude private digital assets, but that's a different use case.

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 : I see the possibility of forking as in making a copy of the data as a problem, in today's open source ecosystem, even if you're able to link to the original data and be able to trace back. This leads to the fractioning of development efforts and creates a lot of confusion, creates a lot of noise in the system. Sometimes there are hundreds copies (or slightly different versions) of the same electronic design or 3D model, stored in different places, and that generates a lot of work to figure out which is good, safe, which has been tested, etc. Moreover, having different digital assets representing essentially the same design makes it more difficult for interested agents to find each other and collaborate. It is much better to have one unenclosable digital asset representing a design (or family of designs) shared by everyone interested in it, with clear rules of engagement. A fork would mean creating something very different, a different specie, not another member of the same specie. The problem with the current Internet is that is makes it easy to copy. That's a great feature, but applied in our context is a bad feature. We need to find a balance between the ease of forking and the necessity to keep things together. What I call true commons in my text, is a digital asset (resource) that no one owns and that no one can capture (close, control). There should be no point in duplicating that. Often people make a copy because someone else controls the asset (individual or platform), just to make sure to have it, in case it gets deleted. Often people make a copy because they want to control future development, impose new rules.
 See also [[nondominium]] - a concept applied to material assets in the OVN jargon.
 [[Category: Asset]]
 [[Category: Resource]]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 Proposed by [[Tibi]].
-It is a digital [[asset]] that no one owns, anyone has access under a given set of rules (to modify).
+It is a shared by default digital [[asset]] that no one in particular can unilaterally control (ex. no one owns), anyone has access to it under a given set of rules (to modify, improve, expand and even fork, in some circumstances).
 From a [https://discord.com/channels/958787927423467581/971783318137880606/1067189793554968696 post on Discord] by [[Tibi]]
 : I see the possibility of forking as in making a copy of the data as a problem, in today's open source ecosystem, even if you're able to link to the original data and be able to trace back. This leads to the fractioning of development efforts and creates a lot of confusion, creates a lot of noise in the system. Sometimes there are hundreds copies (or slightly different versions) of the same electronic design or 3D model, stored in different places, and that generates a lot of work to figure out which is good, safe, which has been tested, etc. Moreover, having different digital assets representing essentially the same design makes it more difficult for interested agents to find each other and collaborate. It is much better to have one unenclosable digital asset representing a design (or family of designs) shared by everyone interested in it, with clear rules of engagement. A fork would mean creating something very different, a different specie, not another member of the same specie. The problem with the current Internet is that is makes it easy to copy. That's a great feature, but applied in our context is a bad feature. We need to find a balance between the ease of forking and the necessity to keep things together. What I call true commons in my text, is a digital asset (resource) that no one owns and that no one can capture (close, control). There should be no point in duplicating that. Often people make a copy because someone else controls the asset (individual or platform), just to make sure to have it, in case it gets deleted. Often people make a copy because they want to control future development, impose new rules.
 [[Category: Asset]]
 [[Category: Resource]]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 From a [https://discord.com/channels/958787927423467581/971783318137880606/1067189793554968696 post on Discord] by [[Tibi]]
-: I see the possibility of forking as in making a copy of the data as a problem, in today's open source ecosystem, even if you're able to link to the original data and be able to trace back. This leads to the fractioning of development efforts and creates a lot of confusion, creates a lot of noise in the system. Sometimes there are hundreds copies (or slightly different versions) of the same electronic design or 3D model, stored in different places, and that generates a lot of work to figure out which is good, safe, which has been tested, etc. Moreover, having different digital assets representing essentially the same design makes it more difficult for interested agents to find each other and collaborate. It is much better to have one unenclosable digital asset representing a design (or family of designs) shared by everyone interested in it, with clear rules of engagement. A fork would mean creating something very different, a different specie, not another member of the same specie.
+: I see the possibility of forking as in making a copy of the data as a problem, in today's open source ecosystem, even if you're able to link to the original data and be able to trace back. This leads to the fractioning of development efforts and creates a lot of confusion, creates a lot of noise in the system. Sometimes there are hundreds copies (or slightly different versions) of the same electronic design or 3D model, stored in different places, and that generates a lot of work to figure out which is good, safe, which has been tested, etc. Moreover, having different digital assets representing essentially the same design makes it more difficult for interested agents to find each other and collaborate. It is much better to have one unenclosable digital asset representing a design (or family of designs) shared by everyone interested in it, with clear rules of engagement. A fork would mean creating something very different, a different specie, not another member of the same specie. The problem with the current Internet is that is makes it easy to copy. That's a great feature, but applied in our context is a bad feature. We need to find a balance between the ease of forking and the necessity to keep things together. What I call true commons in my text, is a digital asset (resource) that no one owns and that no one can capture (close, control). There should be no point in duplicating that. Often people make a copy because someone else controls the asset (individual or platform), just to make sure to have it, in case it gets deleted. Often people make a copy because they want to control future development, impose new rules.
 [[Category: Asset]]
 [[Category: Resource]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 31 March 2022
Line 15:		Line 15:

	[[Category: Asset]]		[[Category: Asset]]
−	[[Category: ~~Ressource~~]]	+	[[Category: Resource]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 31 March 2022
Line 15:		Line 15:

	[[Category: Asset]]		[[Category: Asset]]
−	[[Category: ~~Resource~~]]	+	[[Category: Ressource]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 31 March 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:


−	[[Category: Asset, Resource]]	+	[[Category: Asset]]
		+	[[Category: Resource]]