AURUM (by alaric)

My recent thoughts about bitcoin reminded me of earlier thoughts I'd had about digital currency.

Cryptographic digital currency is a way of transferring value without trusted third parties being involved in every transaction, but within a closed domain, it's easier to go for a trusted party and cut out all the crypto maths. Which is why we have printer credits managed in a central database when we use a shared printer. We may use a digital currency to buy a credit, but once we have credits, we're happy for the owner of the printer to just store our balance in a database and decrement it whenever we print.

And within a company, complex processes are used to transfer money in and out of the company's actual bank account, but budgets within departments are usually allocated by just asking somebody to update a spreadsheet. Money moves within the company using easier, faster, simple methods than bank transfers, writing cheques and letting them clear, or exchanging cryptographic keys.

It's the same story for "ulimit" mechanisms in computer operating systems, and language-level sandboxes, that allocate budgets of things like CPU time and memory space to software running in a computer.

So, when I set out to design AURUM, the resource limit system for ARGON, I decided to make a unified abstraction across all of the above. A process has a budget, which contains arbitrary amounts of arbitrary resources; and it can subdivided that budget into sub-budgets.

That's just an accounting system, though. It needs to integrate with actual resource managers. For something like CPU time, for efficiency, the scheduler probably wants a nice simple machine word reserved for "jiffies in the budget" attached to a process context in a hardcoded way. So the AURUM system probably needs a handler for "run out of jiffies" that takes more from the actual AURUM budget and "prepays" them into the process context - and when the process' balance is requested, knows to ask what's been prepaid and not yet used, so it can report honestly. If the process is stopped, any remaining balance needs to be put back in to be re-allocated to the parent process' budget. And so on.

Similarly, interfaces to actual electronic banking (spend money in a budget by causing an actual bank transfer, or bitcoin transaction, or whatever to happen), and interfaces for incoming budgets from external sources (a bank account interface that fires off a handler when an incoming payment is detected - with that payment as the handler's budget so it can then allocate it appropriately), and so on, can be built.

And a power-constrained mobile device might have joule budgets - and operations such as driving motors, transmitters, and lights might use them up. That would be neat for handheld computers and deep space probes, which can then run less-trusted code in a sandbox with controlled access to expensive resources.

That's all well and good as a way to manage finite resources in a system, but the next level is to take a step back, look at the system as a whole, and see how this facility can be used to do other cool stuff.

This leads naturally to the semi-forgotten discipline of Agoric computing which seeks to make marketplaces and auctions a core tool to solve resource allocation problems. This has scope within an ARGON cluster, if it's shared between multiple organisational units, which can then use budgets purely within AURUM to manage their shared use of the computer resources and to contribute towards its upkeep accordingly.

But, more excitingly, with mechanisms like Bitcoin allowing for money to be transferred across trust boundaries, it starts to become practical to think about allowing our computers to participate in economies between them. What if my desktop PC and servers rented out their space disk space, CPU time, and bandwidth to all comers? And with the money they accumulated from doing so, in turn rented offsite disk space for their backups, and when I gave them a particularly tough job to do, hired some extra CPU and bandwidth to do it, dynamically? Without me having to hand-hold it all as the middleman, pulling my debit card out to pay for resources... If I wanted to do lots of resource-intensive work I might put more money in from my own pocket to give it more to hire extra resources with; if I tend to under-use my system and it makes profits from renting out spare capacity, then I could take cash from it from time to time.

I guess the first step would be to create standard protocols in AURUM for things like auctions and commodity markets, to facilitate transferring between different 'currencies' such as CPU time, bitcoin, fiat currencies, printer credits, disk space, and the like. And a standard interface to bank accounts, where balances and transaction histories can be queried, and transfers requested. A bank account in the context of AURUM would be a third party that holds control of some budget on your behalf, so it should look like an ordinary budget in every way possible. That would make it practical to have software that needs a given resource to find a way, through a registry of trusted markets, to convert them into the resources it wants.

That'd be neat...

Bitcoin security (by alaric)

I've been learning about Bitcoin lately.

It's an electronic currency. I've seen electronic currency before - in the late 90s there were efforts to create them based on virtual banks issuing coins. The coins were basically long random serial numbers which, along with a statement of the value of the coin, were then signed by the bank. The public key of the bank is published, so people can check they're valid coins issued by the bank. The idea was that rather than withdrawing a bunch of notes from the bank, you can ask the bank to mint you a bunch of these signed numbers instead; and anyone who sees them can check their value, and eventually, return them to the bank (which can also check their value in the same way) to get their account credited.

Read more »

Well done Britain :/ (by sarah)

As an expected but highly depressing result sorry but Britain but collectively we are thick as two short bricks or votes are tampered with either I concede is possible but I feel the first option is the most likely.

And so as always change is feared and people opt for a system that allows compound error via rounding up maintaining a two party system which has lead to MP's believing they can take the funny bone out of the population.

The worse bit is that those who actually think and reason are starting to think that they have been the stupid ones for voting - as if my generation wasn't stressed out and disillusioned enough as it is.

Interestingly I know to people who were vocal about voting NO and at least they did it because it was part of their politicial beliefs - I don't agree with them but I respect them. I feel that the voting has been done by panic and scare mongering and that most people have followed like sheep. But that's the thing isn't it - most people are sheep and that means those that aren't have to look out for the majority which is why I still went around reminding people to vote even when I knew they would vote against what I wanted.

I am getting that twinge again that makes me want to go into politics to sort things out - I'm not going to as it is extremely stressfull and I think it would be just too depressing.

p.s. (I really wonder if there is an age democratic here with how people voted after all don't the 'greys' heavily out way all the other democratics?)

Propaganda (by sarah)

I am starting to come to the opinion that propaganda material should be not banned but discouraged - people need to be informed of choices they do not need one opinion rammed so far down their throats that they can not think.

The way I would do this is by having a leaflet with the urls and library where abouts of the official material for each group/side/party. That way people can choose what to look at. There can bee a phone number for the house bound so that leaflets can be delivered for the parties they want to know more about.

Why do I feel this?

There were lots of leaflets and bill boards saying vote NO so much so that I struggled to keep the phrase out of my head - now I was prepared for this sort of thing but first time voters and much of the population probably didn't even notice the subliminal message sinking in. The YES campaign had similiar things I just didn't see as many. And to make it worse there was a vote NO leaflet in the polling booth which threw me so much I had to recheck I'd done the ballad correctly. Especially with having to put an x next to the choice you want - I always think eek I'm marking it wrong due to x being used to mark things as wrong on childrens homework.

Not everyone in the UK is literate and I've known people who assumed you put the x next to the one you don't want. But that is a differnet matter.

My point is that humans are highly suggestible creatures we are designed to live in groups with some sort of hirachy even if it is only in times of danger. Politicians like any leaders have to know how to tap into the getting people to do things systems it is part of their job. But the thing is with propaganda is that it becomes a game of money - which group can put out enough flyers, adverts and fuzzybugs.

Alaric asked me how having a website with all the information on it was different from a leaflet and I said the thing is you choose to look at the website with leaflets and TV they just sit there even if say they are on the scrap pile looking at you, getting their message to sink in.

Now the thing is I am looking for this sort of thing as just having a baby I know I am highly susceptable to being swayed (it's so you listen to the rest of the group on how to look after babies first time mothers are affected worse) this is why advitising is not supposed to target new mothers.

And yet all those little tricks Darren Brown knows for getting people to vote a certain way/pick a certain box are nothing compared to what the population receives with every election.

Of course the general issue here again is apathy and the fact that most people do not care or worse think they are not intelligent enough to understand or even worse that it doesn't matter what or how they vote everything will still continue to be crap for them. So the issue then is how to get the population motivated to vote without it being a war of money - ie those who can afford the most brain washing techniques win?

I don't really have an answer other than perhapse the leaflets should have been about using your right to vote rather than YES or NO.

Why I am voting Yes (by sarah)

Tomorrow is the referendum about the way we vote - I will be voting for change, voting for Alternative Voting or AV as it is known. Our current system is First Past the Post (FPTP).

Now AV is not the best system it has no proper weightings etc.. but the maths of the more advance systems is beyond a lot of people and if people don't understand they are not going to vote. As it is, lots of people seem to be struggling with this anyway.

The thing is I believe that AV is better than our current voting system because though it is called first past the post it isn't. No, it's not - we vote in constituencies which may not have representatives of all parties and people are voting in mind of which party is going to get one of their members in as Prime Minister. This is where the current system breaks down.

For a start you could have a situation when, say, in Labour seats the Liberal Democrats almost won and in the Conservative seats the Liberal Democrats almost won but though this means over all they or the Green Party or who ever is the thirds/fourth party they will never win. To me this is not first past the post - it's because we are technically only voting for our local MP so it shouldn't matter which party they are in. But it does.

If there were no parties as such this would be ok as the MP's would vote on what they, as individuals, thought was right and there would be no towing party lines even when they grate against the skin. Whether this would lead to a weak government or not is a thorny question.

What this means is that people go out and vote and say they really want to vote for that nice Labour Chap who also does things in that alliance thingy with another party but they won't because the Labour government was sinking and everyone felt it was time for a change and everyone knows that means you have to vote conservative, right?

That's the way it goes in this country; back and forth (of course in the old days it was Lib Dems and the Conservatives until Labour came up trumps).

Now, imagine the winners only had a small majority to get in and then they vote in their Prime Minister - well the result is one of compound error - you are rounding up and forgetting to take that into account before you more onto the next stage of the process. If our political system was a lab report the lecture would be demanding "Where are the error bars!". Of course it's not easy to have a Prime Minister who is only Prime Minister give or take 30%... but you get the idea.

First past the post secures a two party system in this country - something which the powers that be will not want to change (think about it) and I think this is shown most clearly in the leaflets that have found their way through the door.

They have all been "Vote No" ones and, though it says no tax payers money has been used to print them, I wonder who is paying for the time the MP's are spending on this? The objections on the leaflets made me roll my eyes - this like how much it will cost to explain it to people. Well you know most of that's already been done so that money is already spent.

Things like "only three other countries use AV". So something is new/unknown; that doesn't make it bad. Soap was seen as evil when it was first introduced into this country. People believed it washed the protective layer of grime off your hands so you'd get ill.

They say that Australia wants to get rid of it - but where are the studies to back the claim up? The leaflets treat the general public as idiots too - which unfortunately seems to be winning people over. I talk to people and they say they are voting No and just parrot what is on the leaflets. And we're stuck with people not wanting change; they just want tomorrow to be the same as today but with a bit more beer or chocolate please?

I had hoped that the internet and access to free information would alter this but of course we have an aging population so I may be waiting a while. Anyway I'm voting yes to AV because I believe that it is better than the system we've got - it will mean I get to vote more how I feel I should without panicking I'm wasting a vote. They say it will lead to more hung parliaments, but isn't that basically what we've just hand under FPTP anyway?