The Umlaut

Banning Uber (or upholding laws that restrict market-entrants such as Uber) is just another example of banning "Walmart Scotch." Recommended: http://theumlaut.com/2014/04/30/how-net-neutrality-hurts-the-poor/

Namecoin, Ethereum and Open Transactions come to mind. Maybe the future is much more evenly distributed and we all make a living by offering energy and computing power to those services? Why did PGP never take off? I would love to set up my own "miner" for it to play its part in a truly decentralized and secure Email service. Open source as the "business model" is key in that scenario. I don't have enough energy nor am I smart enough to actually create those kinds of services but I do feel stuff like that is the way out of this mess. Interesting articles on topic: "Enter The Blockchain: How Bitcoin Can Turn The Cloud Inside Out" http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/22/enter-the-blockchain-how-bitcoin-can-… "Can Namecoin Obsolete ICANN (and More)?" http://theumlaut.com/2014/02/05/namecoin-icann/

A slightly related article I read recently about how should we evaluate the claims of people much smarter than ourselves. i.e. in this specific article the example is if Krugman makes some claim about economics should we just accept them as he is probably leagues ahead in terms of knowledge and expierience in the subject. http://theumlaut.com/2013/03/13/paul-krugman-is-brilliant-but-is-he-me…

Interesting comparison between Bitcoin and the internet. The Umlaut published an article outlining a similar theory: (http://theumlaut.com/2014/01/08/bitcoin-internet-of-money/) using the same terminology (transport layer) and describing Bitcoins as the "internet of money". I noticed an interesting comment on the O'Reilly article: "The second problem is that we have yet to expand bitcoin beyond the control of virtual assets. Virtual assets do not physically exist and therefore it is the ability to represent these assets within multiple computers across the network which give bitcoin its decentralized nature. These virtual assets also have to have real world value to everyone, without value, there exists no economic incentive (block rewards and transaction fees) for securing the network through computation." This analysis of Bitcoin as the "internet of money/finance" is kind of reminiscent of the "internet of things" movement, that, according to inept marketing departments, is guaranteed to revolutionize our lives in short order. Do we have the need/infrastructure in place for an "internet of money" or an "internet of things" to emerge? Do these terms even hold any weight? Would love to hear any opinions.

I haven't heard the label stoichiocrat[1] before, and Google search only finds this HN page. Do you know if many others share these views, and if they've ever been implemented? It's easiest to think of rules in a black and white, opt-in or opt-out way, and I hadn't considered the probabilistic option. [1] Without knowing the words, I think you mean "stochiocrat", which would be related to "stochastic" and probabilistic. Google found one result for this, but it didn't provide good context; I think it was referring to how Venetian Doges were elected [2]. "Stoichiocrat" would be more related to "stoichiometery", coming from a Greek word that can mean "element". [2] https://theumlaut.com/mechanism-design-in-the-venetian-republic-bbedc3…

And I'll tack on a mention of an explanation of Moldbug and his movement from the perspective of an economish blogger Andrea Castillo. AKA me. https://theumlaut.com/2014/07/29/a-gentle-introduction-to-neoreaction-…

While it doesn't tackle the benefits of decentralization, I really like the arguments in this article: http://theumlaut.com/2014/01/08/bitcoin-internet-of-money/ Basically, the benefit of the internet was that it was the first "open" telecommunications protocol (as opposed to telephone for example), which allows for permissionless innovation. Applications (i.e. Facebook) can be built on the internet without approval of any central party. Bitcoin is an open protocol for "ownership." We're not even beginning to scratch the surface of what applications can be built upon it. (chopped up for brevity:) "Internet applications, such as email and the World Wide Web, are defined in protocols implemented on devices at the edges of the network, like servers and home computers, not in the guts of the network: routers, switches, hubs, and exchange points. The lower layers of the Internet can be completely oblivious to the specific applications that are in use; they just focus on getting packets of data to the right place. ... If Sir Tim [Berners-Lee] had to explain to a telecom executive what hypertext was in 1990 before he could create the web, it may never have happened. If we had to rely on telecom companies to provide video calling, it would probably be more expensive and inferior to the video calling services we have today. ... The permissionless innovation and devolution of power fostered by the Internet may be obvious, or nearly so, in retrospect, but not in advance. From…