The interest of anthropologists drawing similarities between evolutionary biology and market economies. Cross-pollination/ cross-genetic lines or horizontal transfer of DNA between species vs. the open source environment. Different cryptocurrency developers exchanging code ("DNA blueprints") and adopting it. Bitcoin is rapidly progressing. Concepts of basic income.
Identity and reputation works best in small communities. They are difficult to scale without collapsing. We can scale reputation but should we or do we want to? Rigid mechanistic reputation systems don't have the the flexible human capability to forget. Scaling consensus through collaboration. The problem of control by the few.
Transcript
[AUDIENCE] Referring back to what you said before about evolutionary biology... This is something I have been looking at, actually. There is interest from many people and you can draw the similarities. There is quite a lot of work being done in anthropology.
[They have found that] evolution occurs more when... there is cooperation, not competition. The greater the level of cooperation between certain species, the more evolution occurs. If you draw that parallel back to digital economies and Bitcoin, going forward I think there will be...
two types of currencies, and I wanted to know what your feedback is. My vision is that one will be like the Bitcoin model, where it is a rival game. Either you [do the proof-of-work first, or I do], and it is trustless. Like the Chicago School way.
Then I think there will be another model where you have identities and associate some metrics for reputation, where people interact with each other. I think there is a need for a cooperative coin as well, for a relationship economy. I just wanted to know what your position was about it. [ANDREAS] Yeah, that was very clear.
There are two things in what you said. First, cooperation is a very important part of evolution. One of the concepts I didn't talk about was cross-pollination or horizontal transfer. Modern biology [recognizes] that evolution happens through horizontal transfer of DNA between species, and across genetic lines, not just parents to child.
We take genetic material from viruses, viruses take genetic material from us and give it to bacteria... There is an exchange of blueprints for successful systems, jumping from one species to another. I found that really interesting. There is a very close [parallel with] the open-source environment, where cryptocurrencies have grown up.
One of the important traits of this new internet money is that it is all open-source. If somebody comes up with a good idea and writes an implementation, that "DNA" can be copied by someone else and incorporated into their system. I think we shouldn't underestimate how rapidly Bitcoin is progressing, how much it is changing, [including] in some of the higher layers above it. When you have a talented team of developers, they can adopt good ideas from other systems...
and run them on top of a billion-dollar economy, that creates a very interesting environment. I think we will see more cooperation, not necessarily with the currencies, but between implementations... through their open exchange of "genetic material." Now, regarding consensus algorithms that are more cooperative versus competitive, I think consensus systems like that have some interesting work being done, for example incorporating basic income. That is a different political perspective than what Bitcoin does, but these ideas will evolve over time.
Identity and reputation are a double-edged sword. They work really well in small communities... up to a couple hundred people, and that is part of our social makeup. But if you try to scale those reputation systems beyond a certain point, they start collapsing.
Those systems actually become problematic. I have talked about this before, but it is something that I feel very strongly about. Reputation systems require infrastructure within a society of humans [with the capacity] to forget. Forgetting is a feature of human reputation systems.
When you have a small society that is capable of forgetting, but you [decide to include]... a mechanistic realm that strips those very human characteristics, it becomes a very rigid and inflexible system. We already see this on Facebook and other social media, structures with very rigid systems of reputation, collaboration, and social interaction guided by algorithms written without accountability. A very small number of people can control enormous populations.
I am not sure that is a good way to go. Collaborative consensus systems are great ideas, and they will evolve, but whether they can also scale... is another question. Do we really want to have reputation at scale?
We can, but should we? Do we want to? A bit broader perspective. Thanks for that question.