Below is a draft of a book that i have started writing. It will be the first book released from the Macrohard hub and will begin the process of enhancing the curriculum of 'legitimate illiteracy', the basis of an entire school that i have created, that everyone can school in.
By means of this book, i will incorporate 'legitimate illiteracy' with 'cryptocurrency', introducing is mix among participants of the Macrohard hub. Where copies of the books are sold, it will intimate the world about 'cryptocurrency' in a legitimate illiteracy way and proceeds from sales will go towards the evolution and sustenance of the Macohard hub. The Macrohard hub is currently located in the Philippines.
The video below, was recorded at the Macrohard hub and on it, i started the inception of this book:
I am trying to recover a bit from the passing of my dad. I didn't play my role as son enough and it haunts me. This book will be dedicated to my parents. By its means, may i make them proud a bit and heal in turn.
Your boy Terry
Chapter 6 - Creating Your Blockchain And Its First DAPP.
In this chapter, we will take you through the process of creating your own blockchain and DAPP. We assume that you have covered chapter 3 and now know what a blockchain or DAPP is and the relationship between both tools.
First, we will tackle the subject of ‘creating your own blockchain’ and later on, we will proceed to helping you in the process of ‘creating your DAPP’.
In chapter 3, we had kept the definition of ‘a blockchain’ simple, referring to a blockchain as ‘a chain of blocks’.
How difficult can ‘a chain of blocks’ be to create? ‘As difficult as 1, 2, 3!’
“Many times the answers lie in the ‘first simplest obviousest solutions’; many times we tend to attempt the ‘nth complexest solutions’ first”. @surpassinggoogle
Isn’t a blockchain a ledger of data? What then is ‘data’? “Excerpts of humans!”.
Regardless of how ‘flawless’ you may deem ‘a blockchain’, irrespective of how ‘perfect’ its innovators have modeled it to become, a blockchain would cater to ‘humans’. Aren’t ‘humans’ inherent in ‘flaws’?
What more? A blockchain’s ledger is public in nature, maintained on ‘distributed servers’, each one connected. Who operates these ‘servers’? Humans!
For a blockchain to iterate, it needs ‘governance’ and a set of rules which defines its ‘governance’. Who sets those rules? Humans!
There are tons of more questions to ask but we will stop at these.
Yet, answering these ‘simple-looking questions’ during the formulation of a blockchain model can impact the very ‘revolutionary potency’ of the resulting blockchain. Inversely, we are told that these ‘so-called complex innovations’ aren’t so complex afterall.
Simply understand ‘life and humans’ and you can understand any innovation that caters to humans!
Well, irrespective of how geeky an innovator is, the scope of his innovation is soft-capped by his understanding of ‘life and humans’.
It is no coincidence that today, despite the ‘decentralized’ and ‘public nature’ of blockchain, in spite of its accessibility to ‘every human’, a blockchain doesn’t cater to humans alike. It is no coincidence that ‘blockchains’ today still maintain ‘blacklists’ made up of humans. It is no coincidence that blockchains have governors upon governors. Blockchains still capture the context of human intention via a vote in the boolean of a vote. It is no coincidence that blockchains are still governed by the popular paradigm ‘code is law’.
Can only code what he perceives of society and well, we live in a painted world, needing some blur. Hence, the need for some ‘legitimate illiteracy’ in true understanding ‘blockchain’.
The world is novice to the true state of the world! @surpassinggoogle
But, isn’t ‘blockchain’ a revolutionary tool? Quite!
In the hands of humans, ‘blockchain’ can attain ‘revolutionary’ status and rank ‘great’, whenever used as a tool to ‘return value to humans’! Else, it can fade like technologies before it.
Indeed, a blockchain can be modeled to take cognizance of ‘humans’ alike. It can be used to return ‘value to humans’. This is where ‘humans’ come in!
“You who desire to ‘create a blockchain”, this is where you come in!
So, what paradigms will you apply in the making of your blockchain? Will your blockchain be fit for the humans that it hosts? Will it be predictive of ‘humans’? Will it favor bots over humans? Will it favor rats over humans? Will it lord it over humans; ‘code the law’? Will it emanate governors upon governors? Will it turn into a mere ‘reward-distributor’? Will it remove value from humans? Will relegate the position of money in society? Will it return value to humans? Will it maintain its unconventional properties? Will it become another ‘comfort tool’? Will it become an indispensable tool tangible to the evolution of humans? Will it be forgiving? Will its code break whenever it can’t stand humans? Will it be evolutionary? Will it be revolutionary?
Hahaha, more questions!
Perhaps the pertinent question once again is ‘who are you?’
And to create something that the world will make use of, have you come to know ‘the true state of the world’, that you may have found your place in it? Do you understand ‘life and humans’ or are you only privy to ‘life’ in certain worlds?
“A painted world is an unreal world!” @surpassinggoogle
Diving into the ‘technicalities’:
Will your blockchain have ‘computing capabilities’? What consensus mechanism will it use to validate blocks? Will it mine blocks? Will it be light-weight? Will it have room to scale? Will it incorporate fees? Will it reward participants? What defines a ‘soft fork’ or a ‘hard fork’? What fail-safe mechanism will it implement in the event of a hack? Can it interoperate with other blockchains?
Answers to the ‘technical questions’ above stem from answers to the question, ‘what is the purpose of your blockchain and what industry will it cater to?’
Leading us to other technical questions like;
Do I have to create my blockchain afresh? Can I start my blockchain from the code-base of another blockchain? Do I want a user-friendly blockchain? What features should my blockchain offer? Should people be able to create their DAPPs on my blockchain? Do I even need a blockchain? Can my projects run effectively without a blockchain? Can I incorporate my DAPP on an ‘existing blockchain’? Can I contribute to an existing blockchain to align it with my vision as opposed to building my own? What incentive-mechanism do I implement to ensure people participate in maintaining my blockchain?
To answer the above questions sufficiently, questions tangible to the evolution of your blockchain, it is important to look at the current ‘world of blockchain’ intently, to identify what truly exists of it in terms of ‘innovation’.
How has ‘blockchain technology’ fared so far? How revolutionary is ‘blockchain’? How popular has blockchain become? Can it scale? If it hasn’t scaled, why hasn’t it? What barriers has it managed to abate? What barriers has it managed to create? Who uses blockchain and how have they used it? How much ‘world adjustment’ has it stemmed? How many revolutionary use-cases has it stirred? What barriers mitigate against its acceptance?
We will now begin the process of looking at the world more intently, let us see what really exists of it, in relation to what currently exists of ‘blockchain technology’.
In the course of ‘peering into the world’, we will look at a certain blockchain called ‘Hive’ (potentially, one of the most revolutionary ‘blockchain technologies’ in existence), to see how it has fared. We have chosen ‘Hive’ in this case-study, in consideration of the fact that you are becoming familiar with it and because it is one of the few blockchains, built specially to ‘invite participation from the average user’.
Please note that as we ‘peer into the world’, we will blur some of its paint, using some ‘legitimate illiteracy’. Consider noting too, that according to a certain ‘legitimate illiterate’, one of the revolutionary applications of blockchain, is its use as ‘a CCTV into the true state of the world’.
To prepare you, let us quickly recount some details about the Hive blockchain. It is a blockchain built to cater to the sector of ‘social media’. There are only a few of these types of blockchains in existence. Others like it are ‘Steem.io’, ‘Blurt.blog’, ‘Whaleshares.io’ etc.
Hive offers you a blockchain that you can build a DAPP on. There are many DAPPs on the Hive blockchain for instance, many of which are ‘social media’ applications such as ‘hive.blog’ or ‘leofinance.io’.
Using these applications and users can earn the cryptocurrency called ‘HIVE’ for their efforts. The blockchain is maintained on a network of ‘nodes’ (referred to as ‘witnesses’) which are distributed across various geographical locations.
So far, we have mentioned Hive, it being one of the most revolutionary blockchains in existence. Hive refers to a blockchain, which hosts many DAPPs and has a native currency called ‘HIVE’. Typically, HIVE is used to reward activities which happen via DAPPs. Witnesses are rewarded too. Proof of stake.
Let us proceed!
At world level, humans continue to lose value. Perhaps, un-coincidentally the world itself has been modeled to ‘remove value from humans’, distributing this value as such to every other thing; things like ‘technology, careers, education, talent, knowledge, clout, money, luxury, crypto-kitties, bots, AI etc’.
In the midst of so-called ‘technological advancement’, the cycle continues.
‘Blockchain technology’, an unconventional tool possessing ‘revolutionary potential’, is gradually becoming ‘conventional’!
As a tool, it is becoming ‘a tool of governance’ or ‘a mere reward-distributor’; stirring of strife, competition and tension among humans.
The reverse can have been the case, where ‘blockchain’ is allowed to maintain its ‘unconventional properties’, where ‘blockchain’ is used as a tool to ‘return value to humans’.
Alas, ‘returning value to humans’ just isn’t how the world works; that over the course of time, the same ‘renown world-paradigms’ begin to be replayed on ‘blockchain’ all over again, leaving us with ‘blockchain’ that is static, under-explored, under-evolved.
The same ‘old innovations’ are recycled and replayed on ‘blockchain technology’, in a bid to ‘distribute rewards’ via it, reducing ‘blockchain’s potency in adjusting the world; relegating it to a mere ‘reward-distribution’ tool.
Then, ‘blockchain’ becomes known for ‘the price of its cryptocurrency’.
Staying underlyingly ‘conventional’, having been under-explored and under-used, ‘blockchain’ returns to the popular ‘code is law’ standards, the same standards that have governed most conventional innovations and technologies.
Let the ‘code’ govern humans!
On the Hive blockchain for instance, a blockchain built to cater to the sector of ‘social media’, the value of ‘social’ (human) interactions are assessed once again on the basis of a world-renown governing ‘boolean’ (i.e ‘vote/downvote’, a mechanism favorable for ‘bots’), further curbing ‘human capabilities’.
Humans are tied, then measured on the basis of how tight or loose their chain is. Uncoincidentally, ‘humans continue to lose value!’
In turn, the ‘blockchain-code’ governs ‘humans’ as blockchain becomes ‘the standard’; the ‘solution-bringer’, the ‘comfort-tool’, the ‘code is law’, the ‘governor’, the ‘reward-distributor’ etc.
The new quest? “The pursuit of a ‘flawless’ blockchain”.
Once again, ‘humans lose value’ even among themselves, preferring to compete or trample on one another, in pursuit of “the flawless blockchain”.
Alas, every ounce of energy and value goes into advancing ‘the blockchain’ (its code, its governance, its security etc), taking away from the value and energy that can go into tangibles like ‘social-interactions, human evolution, revelation etc’.
‘Removing value from humans’ is an inadvertent use-case for ‘blockchain’ today and this is no one’s fault as ‘the world is still very novice, to the true state of the world’ as the world is ‘painted’ and ‘a painted world isn’t a real world’!
Overall, ‘blockchain’ stops being evolutionary! Seeking ‘perfection’, it iterates and iterates based on the popularly ‘code is law’, which is fit for ‘flawless’ bots and unfit for ‘humans’.
Just when ‘blockchain’ can no longer stand these ‘flawed humans’, the code breaks; a ‘hard fork’!
Then, humans grow further apart, each one his way as they must pursue this ‘god’, for ‘the blockchain must be flawless’.
In the grand scheme of things, ‘blockchain’ can’t even scale.
“The Steem blockchain is better than the Hive blockchain. HIVE is better than STEEM”.
“You aren’t a Steem user, you are the enemy. You are a Hive user, you are the enemy”.
Once again, ‘value’ is taken from ‘humans’ and distributed to ‘blockchain’ as well. The cycle that permeates the world stays intact.
In the grand scheme of things, ‘blockchain’ loses all its ‘unconventionality’, becoming established mostly for its ‘reward-distribution properties’. Its success becomes measured in terms of ‘bulls or bears’.
Nevertheless, ‘blockchain’ is no ordinary tool When used in ‘un-ordinary’ ways e.g ‘in returning value to humans’, it isn’t so ‘ordinary’ after all, for ‘humans are un-ordinary’.
It is true that by today’s standard, even as the world is said to be advancing, humans continue to grow ‘ordinary’ and it is no coincidence.
‘A blockchain that rendezvous humans, is bare and immutable, has a reward-mechanism that incites humans to evolve incessantly’; that is no ordinary tool!
For instance, what do the likes of ‘Facebook or Google’ do exactly, to be capable of influencing the globe and holding it accountable? They rendezvous humans!
Providing users with seeming ‘comfort-tool after comfort-tool’, they gather humans.
Then, they can mine these humans collectively, taking control of their ‘mine’. What is contained in a ‘human’ mine exactly? ‘Identity, spirit, genes, response to stimuli, virtues etc’. Powerful stuff!
They get to know you more than you know yourself, in such a way that you aren’t capable of knowing anything about them. As a result, they influence you continuously and they can hold you accountable too.
‘Blockchain’ affords you the luxury of knowing about the world as much as it knows about you. It gathers people too, recording excerpts resulting from ‘human evolution’ and it does so in a public and immutable fashion. If you doubt the power in that, think thrice!
Alas, ‘blockchain’ isn’t so powerful by itself. ‘It is no god’! It is simply ‘a tool’, usable to ‘world-adjusting’ effect or ‘just a tool’.
We can use ‘blockchain’ as a tool to ‘mine our human’, as a tool to ‘return value to human’ and this is what we want to accomplish on ‘cryptoulogs.com’, introducing the art of ulogging to a ‘cryptocurrency’ world.
Indeed, ‘blockchain’ has provided us tangible ‘luxuries’ that never once existed. We haven’t explored the application of these luxuries enough. For instance, speaking of the concept of ‘money’, since the advent of ‘cryptocurrency/blockchain’, how many more ‘unconventional dynamics’ have we learned or explored in relation to ‘money’? Did you know that you can ‘own an entire bank’ now? Isn’t that ‘cryptocurrency-wallet’ of yours possessing the capabilities of a ‘bank’? And that so-called ‘money’ that we tend to elevate above ‘humans’, perhaps, ‘trampling upon humans’ to pursue; can’t one create ‘money’ today, by virtue of ‘blockchain/cryptocurrency’ and begin to gift it to humans instead? Etc.
As beautiful (unconventional and powerful) as blockchain technology is, note that many of the use-cases we have explored in relation to ‘the usage of blockchain technology (including Hive)’ till date, has been ‘a replay of popular conventional paradigms that we are familiar with by virtue of world-standards (painted world)’.
Even with regards to innovation, we have mostly replayed ‘existing innovations’ on the Hive blockchain, in a bid to distribute rewards. Isn’t it also possible to “replay existing innovations on blockchain”, while exploring ‘new paradigms/models’ in a bid to reveal untold use-cases for this luxurious technology called ‘blockchain’?
The Hive blockchain for instance (according to a recent post) has a blacklist of ‘74K accounts’ (perhaps applicable to another social blockchain like ‘Steem’). Aren’t ‘Blacklists’ also popular especially on ‘mainstream social media platforms’.
Ofcourse, there is nothing wrong with implementing it on blockchain but will I be frowned upon if i decided to try out “grey-lists” for instance, now that we have the luxury of ‘blockchain technology’? Will I be celebrated for this too or will I be banished?
**(Note: one basis for maintaining blacklists is “reward-distribution”, protecting the ‘reward-pool’ on the predictive notion that humans will pillage the rewards.)**
Now, let’s assume that indeed, over the course time, ‘hive.blog’ continues on garnering a reputation of being “just a reward-distributor”, will it out-stand the household names in the conventional ‘financial services’ industry? Will it not suddenly have lost its overall ‘potency’ (or outlook of potency) as a technology, most of which is underlyingly based on its unconventionality?
Where each code, each move, each blockchain iteration centers around ‘saving a reward-pool from humans’, aren’t we obliviously limiting Hive blockchain?
Subsequently, let’s assume that Hive wants to stand out and become a household name in the industry of “reward distribution”; can’t it? It very easily can!
Even so, how much more about the concept of “rewards” have we explored since the inception of the beautiful Hive blockchain? Will “money” form the basis of “rewards” all over again, like is popular with ‘mainstream enterprises’ where things like ‘blacklists’ hold sway? Will we explore some unconventional approaches to ‘reward-distribution’? How much more have we learned about “money” since we found Hive?
Can you see how our exploration of the blockchain impacts even the evolution of its ‘code’ or its ‘DAPPs’? Have you untold seeing the vast beauty of hive.blog or the Hive blockchain even in your interaction by virtue of its ‘current code’ in relation to ‘real human growth’ or are we constantly focusing on emanating ‘flawless code’?
Going back, since the inception of Hive’s ‘proof of brain’ reward-distribution mechanism, have we explored e.g the concept of a ‘variety of rewards’, where ‘money’ is a type of reward?
Assuming I went on to say, “HIVE is not money”, will I be frowned upon as ‘being a legitimate illiterate’ and bashed? Will you celebrate me for perhaps revealing another use-case for Hive’s ‘proof of brain’ and perhaps ‘blockchain technology’ at large?
Then, what when I say, “I own the bank, by virtue of my HIVE wallet”? Is that a very invalid illusion? Can’t a HIVE wallet enable ‘micro-payments, zero-fees, audits etc.’ similar to banks?
Have we explored Hive’s (‘proof of brain’) potency for ‘making micro-payments, rewarding ‘past deeds’, rewarding ‘value’ , rewarding ‘un(dis)talentedness’ etc’ or are we blatantly against it, because we aren’t familiar with ‘a world’ where these ‘seemingly unconventional paradigms’ are obtainable?
With ‘blockchain technology’, is it the popular “code is law” at play all over again? Can we now try ‘principles’ too? Can we apply some more context to ‘this law’, to allow room for blockchain’s unconventionality to hold sway?
Now, what if we agree once again, that “code is law”, is this particular ‘blockchain code’ for every(any)one or is it underlyingly barrier-ed once again for certain locations, like is obtainable on the mainstream internet?
Is ‘IP location’ becoming a huge “relevance” factor on ‘blockchain technology’ all over again? And if this is becoming the case, is blockchain a ‘standout’ afterall, when it comes to “decentralization” in the grand scheme of the internet? Won’t it gradually lose this unique value proposition too?
How many of the other beautiful layers of Steem have we mined besides “code is law”? Are we too centered on upholding “code is law”?
Yes, “code is law” but can’t code evolve, especially ‘blockchain code’?
How many unique use-cases for Hive have we tried? How many unconventional use-cases for Hive have we ventured into? Since the Hive blockchain offers users the ability of creating applications, how many unique Hive-born innovations do we have? How many unknown possibilities have we revealed so far, by virtue of the beauty of the Hive blockchain? How many new paradigms have we explored, even now that we have the luxury of the Hive blockchain?
What rare things have we revealed so far, (things unknown to the world yet tangible to their evolution) by virtue of this public ledger that we now have? How much more do we know about the ‘true state of the world’, since the inception of this tool called Hive?
Did you know that one other valuable use-case for the Hive blockchain is its use as a “CCTV into the true state of the world”?
Let’s digress a bit and touch on one feature available on ‘hive.blog’, the ‘downvote’ feature!
“Downvotes” for instance, isn’t this suddenly another ‘generic feature’ (depending on the vastness of its application) obtainable also on conventional ‘social media platforms’ like ‘Reddit’?
Why isn’t it unquestionable then, that someone may want to use the ‘downvote’ feature ‘in unconventional ways’ e.g “not use it at all”. In such a “decentralized ecosystem”, whereupon ‘everyone is allowed to participate’ such as that offered by ‘blockchains’ like Hive, why does its society still frown at unconventional approaches to using blockchain features?
That a user of “blockchain technology” may want to explore unconventional paradigms, is that too far-fetched? If it has to be ‘all about downvotes’ on ‘blockchain technology’ all over again, mostly in a bid to ‘distribute/curb rewards’, will this feature of the Hive blockchain attain its indispensablity in the ‘world of mainstream social media platforms’ as “a great tech feature”, a feature now unique to Hive?
Assuming popular ‘Reddit’ incorporates its own ‘reward mechanism’, what other unique value proposition will the ‘downvote feature’ of Hive hold? Have we found that out yet?
In what unconventional ways have we explored this particular Hive feature? How much have we revealed so far about the application of this feature? How much have we learned about ‘humans’ by virtue of the application/exploration of this feature?
Have we lost some of our ‘human capabilities’ in the face of this ‘half-a-boolean button’? How much ‘context’ of our ‘human action or intention’ can this simple ‘vote action’ capture?
If it has been that effective in capturing the context of our action, why does the ‘down vote action’ stir up more discussion in comparison to ‘the upvote action’? Is a downvote the opposite of an upvote? If there were no rewards, will people still be impacted by a downvote? Why so? Is the ‘downvote’ feature unique to Hive? If it is, can you highlight ‘10’ reasons for which one may want to ‘join Steemit to downvote’ as opposed to ‘joining Reddit to downvote’? etc.
Now, what if one decides to go the other route; ‘one of revelation’, exploring the usage of this feature in a bid to reveal ‘rare intel’ about ‘downvotes’ (e.g one decides not to use the downvote button at all but attempts to create or reveal fresh perhaps unconventional solutions); is it that bad after all? Should routes such as this be too far-fetched on ‘blockchain technology’, a tech that is still in its experimental era? Is there something to learn that that can enhance ‘the code’ when users are allowed to explore this ‘downvote feature’ more freely? Can it reveal a new unique use-case for Steem? Can the continuous exploration of this simple Hive feature stem forth a unique Steem-born innovation?
I have never used Hive’s downvote button!
Once in the far past and many a time altogether, the subject of “downvotes” has stirred so much fuss on ‘hive.blog’ and its counterpart, the Steem blockchain. Well, if you didn’t ‘downvote’ you may be bashed too! Instead of using this ‘simple vote action’ or staying stuck in the fuss around the ‘morality of downvotes’, I evolved my own route…
Having applied Hive’s blockchain technology as ‘CCTV into the true state of the world’, in the midst of the ‘downvote fuss’, I had put the resulting insight to use and I found another timely use for Hive, in ‘playing out an entire curriculum’.
I tried out ‘#untalented’ for a start (something a bit unconventional). My first ever ‘#untalented contest’ titled ‘Who are you’ (which started 3 years ago), received more than 1,000 post-entries, after which ‘#untalented’ grew in popularity.
Wasn’t I bashed for taking the unconventional route? Does there exist the automatic prediction, even by the innovators of blockchain that ‘someone from Indonesia (who is now expressing more freedom on ‘#untalented’) is a likely spammer’?
Away from this further fuss, did you know that i forged ahead and transitioned on to ‘#ulog’, months later, resulting in a Hive-born innovation and new form of content called ‘Ulogs’?
Type in the word ‘Ulogs’ on google.com and you will notice that ‘Ulogs’ is creating its own space on the entire internet search space.
I started ‘#ulog’ and after 6-months, the tag had seen some ‘50K posts, 179k comments and was used by more than 5,400 unique accounts’.
Now, let’s assume ‘Ulogs’ goes on to become mainstream, known by the globe as its own form of content similar to ‘Blogs or Vlogs’, won’t it have helped showcase Hive as an ‘indispensable technology’, revealing yet another unique use-case for it?
Am i a geek? No, ‘I am a legitimate illiterate’. What does this all show?
“Removing barriers to entry” is one testimonial (perhaps unconventional) use-case for Steem and blockchain technology overall. Just perhaps, we haven’t explored this beautiful facet of Hive. Perhaps, we didn’t know that the current Hive as it is, had this testimonial use-case.
Did I bash downvoters in turn? No!
Well, would you have known that in those early days, the ‘downvotes fuss’ gave Hive some stickiness too? That though people left Hive solely because of ‘downvotes’, they would usually come back to check out what’s new? Some tokens were innovated too, surrounding this ‘downvote fuss’. Isn’t all this simply ‘a painted world’s phenomenon’ on replay?
Did you know that certain minnow accounts went on to buying Hive, becoming whales solely to counter downvoters, pass out a message (perhaps a life lesson) and later on returned to becoming minnow?
Did you catch any revelation from all these?
What is more?
Perhaps, we focus too much on expensive code; on ‘attaining a flawless blockchain’, where blockchain is mostly used as a ‘reward-distributor, as a ‘governance mechanism’, as ‘a morality-upholder’?
Perhaps obliviously, over the course of time, we have began to use blockchain to further ‘remove value from humans’ distributing this value also onto ‘blockchain’, whereby ‘blockchain’ moreso than being ‘just another tool in the hands of humans’, is becoming the ‘solution-bringer’.
Just perhaps, we have obliviously begun adding ‘more barriers’ to ‘the usage of the internet’ using blockchain?
Now, imagine “adding more barriers” to ‘the usage of social media platforms’ using blockchain, won’t these platforms begin to have way more barriers (even complicated barriers) than mainstream social media platforms? Didn’t many of us once frown at the ‘many barriers’ present on conventional mainstream social media platforms?
It is no coincidence, that after years ‘since the inception of blockchain-based social media platforms’, we are back out on the likes of twitter, discord etc.
(Note: the premise of this publication applies to ‘blockchain technology’ at large.)
Perhaps it is time to look at these things. Redirect some attention to the ‘non-code aspects of blockchain development’. Perhaps, it is time to expand the premise for blockchain evolution.
May blockchain code be allowed to update more dynamically, for why should people fret/freakout/fuss every time blockchain updates?
While it may be for the geeks to innovate ‘blockchain’, it may not be for them to ascertain its beauty. @surpassinggoogle
How about targeting ‘grand decentralization’? Perhaps we focus too much on decentralization at a superficial level, which easily translates into “decentralization vs centralization”. Isn’t it obvious already that ‘man can’t rule man?
If we have to innovate and build entire complex blockchain(s) in a bid to predict human behavior so as to curb it, wouldn’t that be very limiting?
Perhaps we should allow blockchain to evolve dynamically? Perhaps ‘flawed oracles’ could work too? Perhaps ‘morals’ is broader than ‘good or bad’?
Speaking of Hive and how to scale its popularity to the levels of Reddit perhaps, there is long-term value in other forms of Steem-growth besides ‘development’ in terms of code?
With the advent of blockchain people are supposed to be better equipped to evolve, with access to a public ledger, an entire bank (Hive wallet), a community of reputable great minds etc. Are we suddenly going back to being cramped, where you can’t even tell your place in the scheme of Hive, for there are too many rules and now many more governors?
Do you know how many unique use-cases of Hive are still reveal-able, where Hive allows itself to become more inclusive; where the Hive blockchain updates more dynamically?
Are you grasping our earlier gist better now? Recall where we said that however ‘complex or genius’ an innovation or technology may appear, it will host humans and was created by humans?
Learning about ‘life and humans’ will enable you to understand and interact with tools like ‘blockchain’ to a grander effect.
Going back, one of the oblivious applications for the Hive blockchain, is its use as “CCTV into the true state of the world”. May you have known this?
Aren’t we in a ‘painted world’? May that not have been one subconscious reason for ‘having joined Hive’? “Running away from that paint”
Did you know that ‘blockchain’ can have helped “blur some of the paint”, especially the Hive blockchain?
Oh, doesn’t Hive teach ‘real life’ too? ‘A public ledger that rendezvous people from all walks of life and incites them to mine their human’, isn’t that even spiritual?
Where humans continue to consciously apply the Hive blockchain as a tool to ‘mine/evolve their human’, won’t they further tap into their shine and won’t the Hive blockchain begin to find its shine too? Won’t humans be able to live among humans better then?
If instead, we hurriedly went on to split the blockchain and humans fall apart, in a bid to create ‘that flawless blockchain’, won’t these blockchain host humans too? Are humans flawless?
What happened to ‘humans virtues’ and ‘exercising these virtues’? Should automatically relegate these tangible ‘human capabilities’, in the face of an easy-to-use ‘vote button’ (another ‘comfort tool’)?.
How strong is ‘a vote’ altogether? Can it represent us entirely? Yes, it brings comfort (a one-click action) but must one ‘call ‘911’ for each mosquito bite’?
Isn’t blockchain an avenue to try out other ‘reactions to stimuli’; an avenue to exercise our human virtues; an avenue to consciously ‘evolve our human’?
Did you know that these many testimonial use-cases could have existed for Hive and that some people (e.g legitimate illiterates) use Hive for these very things or do you auto-predict that people are here mostly to ‘distribute rewards’ or participate in ‘governance’?
Speaking of ‘governance’, the Hive blockchain has witnesses. Witnesses campaigned to, taking active part and earning rewards for their ‘block-producingh. As such the Hive blockchain has a ‘governance layer’, that the average user can participate in for free by a ‘vote’ action, where his vote is weighted according to the size of his Hive stake.
Yes, people vote witnesses (governance layer) for instance but do they need to answer to you? Do people need to explain why they voted?
And yes it is a public ledger but can you be that conclusive about people’s ‘intended participation in governance’ on the back of a static boolean vote action? Isn’t this public ledger possessing an anonymity paradigm too?
Why do we generally auto-think people will spam or people will cheat? Where we focus too much on those aspects of the Hive code for instance, may we not have circumvented some of the nitty-gritty
You who is an ‘upholder of morality’, are you a saint? And yes in your world, morals may be “good or bad” but did you know of the dynamics obtainable in many other worlds? So, can you truly create a blockchain that intends to cater to every(any)one? And well, if you made the blockchain suited for you and your world, do you allow its code to update dynamically (learn), whenever it encounters flaws and update accordingly to where it begins to take ‘cognizance’ of every(any)one attaining ‘grander decentralization’ or do you keep it static, bashing people who ‘try to explore a variety of actions on the blockchain’, resulting in tension? Or do hastily go on to a fork?
Isn’t blockchain being used obliviously to ‘remove value from humans’? Isn’t blockchain leaving its place as ‘another valuable tool tangible for human evolution’ and becoming ‘the law’? Isn’t “code is law” gaining too much prominence, relegating human capabilities within the premise of a boolean; “bot”?
All of this happens obliviously, when there is too much focus on ‘creating the flawless blockchain’. This happens when blockchain begins to become popular as ‘a reward distributor’. This happens when blockchain becomes ‘the solution-bringer’ instead of another ‘tool’.
Perhaps it is time to re-look at Hive again.
What actionable-plan can we implement today that doesn’t require additional code, can happen right here on Hive at an ‘almost zero cost’, involve as many people as possible, yet translate into ‘development’ for Hive?
It is simple…
While there is so much focus on building codes for ‘a flawless blockchain’, we lose touch with the ‘beauty’ that already exists. It is already obvious even with ‘blockchain technology’ at large, that there is too much focus directed at ‘developers/programmers’.
What Do You Think About Having A Large Funded DAO For Future HIVE development?
I will not talk on history here. 'History' can become negligible, where the DAO is put to testimonial use.
The impact of the DAO size (large or small) can become negligible, depending on how the DAO is distributed, what its use produces, the spread of the industries that it targets and 'barriers to entry' (with regards to participation), whether as a proposal-creator or as a voter.
The DAO can play more testimonial essences where used dynamically. There is still room for evolution and exploration of the DAO as it is, in terms of how it is dispensed and in terms of the parameters guarding its dispensation, things which can be tweaked dynamically even now, with some manual effort or tweaked via code in the future.
Altogether, HIVE DAO hasn't evolved enough to where it is engaging; to where it incites broader participation. This being the case, dispensation of the 'larger fund' is left in the hands of a few, potentially limiting the extent of its impact.
Comparing the DAO voting system to the content-vote system, while one system is engaging (dynamic), the other is quite static. Content-vote for instance, has value. A user cares about it a bit more because its potency can deplete/recover. A user thus is incentivized to engage it and maximize it. A return proposal on the other hand, can sit at extremely high heights and stay forgotten. At these heights, proposal creators quit before they even start. Voters retreat too because 'why vote on a proposal that appears to have no chance at succeeding'. This can also mean that 'many potential innovations, projects or initiatives never make it to 'the publication' stage'.
Altogether, the HIVE blockchain needs at least a revelation of as many unique use-cases as possible, whether these proposals are funded or not and the DAO can be applied directionally to this cause.
That aside, my point is, 'a large DAO can sit there all the same without being used'.
Being a new concept overall, the HIVE DAO and use-cases for it should be explorable; a bigger HIVE fund even moreso. It is big now; should it be static too? Should there be too many barriers to entry or the perception there are? Can there be more dynamism, now that the HIVE fund is larger?
With a larger HIVE fund, can other parameters be explored, with regards to its dispensation and consensus? Speaking of development, in the presence of a larger HIVE fund, can we now look at the term 'development' in a grander context than just 'better code'. Can we now spread 'dispensation' among a larger spectrum of industries?
Much of the code development has been done, can we consider the community at large now? Can we fund even smaller projects now; community projects now? Will many more people believe that they have a chance at getting funding now and can we use the DAO to incite participation at least? Will we direct the HIVE fund also towards stirring social growth.
As reiterated earlier, a very under-utilized aspect of HIVE is 'communities'. People don't need to create entire DAPPS now to contribute intensively to HIVE or to the blockchain industry at large. Right here on HIVE, people can own DAPPS.
In eventuality, people are likely to be able to distribute their tokens right on HIVE, using the communities feature. Many more dreams can be built now. Many more HIVE owners can emanate now. Many more unique blockchain-born initiatives can stem forth now? Will this be the case now? Will we allow this to be the case now, in the face of a larger HIVE fund?
If we direct focus on 'humans', return value to humans using the beauty blockchain provides us, perhaps that is 'development' too. Perhaps, that can translate into HIVE growth too. There is a lot that can be done with a large fund and not only in terms of code. Decentralization is that grand. I will stop here.
Having looked at our case study, it is obvious that the niche of ‘blockchain’ is very under-explored. This is understandable.
We have a big role to play in the untelling of ‘blockchain’ and revealing what it can constitute where it is used to its fullest potential.
Indeed, the actual creation of a blockchain is as difficult as ‘1, 2, 3’ but a lot of that process begins with the innovation of its model. Similar to how you would write a paper that defines your cryptocurrency, the formulation of ‘your blockchain’ starts with a paper.
We have contributed a paper to spark the motion!
In our paper, we exhausted a long list of questions that you will need to answer. You will have to generate your own questions too and answer them.
It is obvious that ‘blockchain technology’ is revolutionary and its industry is vastly-growing. This means that there is a lot of ‘innovation’ occurring within this industry as a result of people’s contributions. You can contribute to the evolution of this industry.
One thing that has helped the growth of this industry is its overall ‘decentralized nature’, referring to how most blockchains are developed. In many cases, blockchains are open-sourced codes, welcoming contributions from anyone. This is why that paper that defines your blockchain is important. You don’t have to build your blockchain alone.
Besides, after you have built a functional blockchain, it only becomes “a blockchain” on the basis of its level of ‘decentralization’. Typically, a blockchain is ‘distributed’, meaning that there has to be a network of distributed nodes holding true copies of your blockchain. As such, others will need to take up roles of operating nodes that will form your blockchain network, accepting your blockchain in turn. The more participants, the more ‘decentralized’ the blockchain becomes and consequently, the more secure.
In an ideal case, a blockchain needs to incentivize ‘participation’. For a blockchain to maintain its status as ‘decentralized’, others have to participate. This is why many blockchains have a native cryptocurrency to reward participants, especially ‘block producing’ nodes which formulates the core of the network.
The Bitcoin blockchain for instance, rewards ‘block producing’ miners in ‘BTC’, while the Hive blockchain rewards ‘block producing’ nodes in ‘HIVE’.
Ofcourse, each blockchain can define its own unique ‘incentive’ mechanism.
Speaking of ‘incentive’, this is an integral part of a blockchain’s formulation. However till date, with many blockchains, the scope for the term ‘incentive’ hasn’t transcended the jurisdiction of “money” and that has underlyingly hampered the evolution of ‘blockchain’ and its potency as an indispensable tool tangible to ‘world adjustment’.
In my own ‘blockchain’ model for instance, I would love to incorporate some ‘un-ordinary parameters’ into its ‘reward-distribution’ mechanism, emanating an ‘incentive’ that has a directional/mentality-adjusting element.
I feel blockchain is better used as a ‘mentality-adjuster’ than as a ‘reward-distributor’.
Speaking of ‘rewards’, recall that I have formulated a reward-distribution mechanism based on a model referred to ‘proof of tears’; the same model that my ideal blockchain will incorporate whenever it actualizes.
This reward-distribution model possesses a ‘mining the human’ element!
Our primary reward is ‘real human growth’; money constituting a secondary reward.
Now having established that your blockchain will have a native cryptocurrency to reward participants, it becomes important to determine a ‘consensus’ model that defines who gets rewarded and how much, among other things. For instance, Bitcoin distributes ‘100% of its reward-allocation’ to ‘block producing’ miners on the basis of a ‘proof of work’ consensus model, while the Hive blockchain rewards only ‘10% of its reward-allocation’ to its ‘block-producing’ nodes on the basis of ‘delegated proof of stake’, rewarding other forms of participation too!
Then, you will need to formulate a consensus protocol that defines how the blockchain iterates its code, referring to ‘forks’.
Altogether, most aspects of a blockchain’s evolution requires a form of ‘consensus’.
You aren’t alone!
These days, you don’t need to create an entire blockchain from the scratch to begin the dream. You can create your blockchain, starting from the framework of another blockchain.
As we mentioned earlier, many blockchains today have ‘open-source’ code. For instance, you can find the code of the Hive blockchain on ‘https://gitlab.syncad.com/hive’ and the Hive blockchain itself started from the source-code of the Steem blockchain, which you can find on ‘https://github.com/steemit/steem’.
If you desire to replicate the code of another blockchain as your base-code, it is better to have researched a blockchain that aligns with your vision. This way you can modify its code with minimal effort. For instance, if you intend to create a blockchain that offers ‘smart contract’ capabilities you could start from ‘the Ethereum source-code’, considering that it was built with ‘smart contract’ capabilities and modify it to your taste.
A programmer may consider other factors relating to ‘programming’ when selecting a blockchain to fork.
In my case, I intend to create a blockchain in years to come and alas, I have answered many of the questions outlined throughout this chapter and I have a drafted-paper of defining the model for my blockchain. Assuming I decide to ‘fork an existing blockchain’ in the process of creating my own blockchain, it would be the ‘Hive blockchain’ as it is the closest fit to my ideal blockchain, considering that it is a blockchain built specifically to host ‘social media’ DAPPs.
‘Proof Of Tears’ typically requires a blockchain specifically built for ‘social media’. Now, if I am to modify the Hive blockchain to create my own ideal blockchain, the modifications will be minimal. For instance, Hive makes use of ‘proof of brain’ to reward ‘social interactions’ in ‘HIVE’ on the basis of ‘quality’. Tweaking that aspect of the Hive blockchain to incorporate ‘proof of tears’, which rewards ‘social interactions’ as well but on the basis of its ‘mining the human’ element would require minimal effort, while I retain tangible aspects of Hive that aligns with my vision.
Ofcourse, there will be ‘radical changes’ too but ‘minimal’ in comparison to ‘having to build a blockchain afresh’.
Speaking of ‘radical changes’, my ideal blockchain will make use of ‘grey-lists’ and if it has to make use of an ‘oracle’, it will be an ‘un(dis)talented oracle’. I would also like to incorporate a unique ‘governance’ model that isn’t entirely based on a ‘boolean’ (i.e vote and unvote), for ‘votes’ can capture much of the human essence and intention. My blockchain will be ‘forgiving’ too. Thus, its code will not break ‘anytime humans disagree’.
While the Hive blockchain makes use of ‘delegating proof of stake’ (a revolutionary ‘consensus’ model) to govern and secures itself, which relies on ‘votes’ weighted proportional to the size of a user’s stake, my ideal blockchain could use a variation of that, one that isn’t entirely defined by ‘the size of one’s stake’ and incorporates a prominent ‘human’ element.
Regardless, the parameters defining each aspect of your blockchain, referring to the ‘theme’ of your blockchain, has to be formulated by you.
In eventuality, assuming that you have made your blockchain source-code public, anyone can contribute code or propose changes that could modify your blockchain, following a theme that you have created. As such, your blockchain can maintain its vi-mission, essence and intention.
What does this say? Why not begin the process of interacting with other blockchains? For instance, a good way of understanding the dynamics of the Hive blockchain is by making use of one of the ‘decentralized applications’ hosted on it. You can find one such DAPP on ‘hive.blog’.
Underlying though, let your interaction with these various be an avenue to ‘peer into the true state of world’ (courtesy of these ‘public ledgers’ containing human ‘data’) and to interact/understudy humans as a salient ingredient in building an ideal blockchain, one that ‘returns value to humans’, is ‘understanding life and humans’.
Didn’t we say that you don’t have to build a blockchain afresh? What if you made the existing blockchain of another work like yours?
Well, aren’t most blockchains open-source? Have you contributed suggestions or proposed changes to these ‘blockchains’? Isn’t that another ‘humanly exhaustible action?
Yes, there exists an atom of possibility that a change that you propose passes ‘consensus’ and gets implemented into an existing blockchain via a fork. Altogether, in the course of suggesting or proposing changes to existing blockchains, you would have interacted with these various blockchains and understood their innerworkings, further enhancing your capabilities in formulating yours.
Did you know that being a programmer doesn’t mean that you can code a ‘blockchain’? Well, you quite can but ‘blockchain technology’ is a newer niche and has its own learning curve. You can start the process of learning the inner-workings of blockchain in practice by contributing code to ‘open-source’ blockchains like ‘Hive’, starting on ‘https://hive.io/developer’. I say ‘Hive’ because it has a community of ‘programmers’ who are incentivized to assist you in building with Hive.
If you are not a programmer at all, does this mean that you can’t create your own blockchain? Well, I am not a programmer either but I intend to write an entire ‘programming language’ called ‘Macrohard’, to remove all barriers-to-entry from the world of programming. I will eventually create a blockchain too! Well, and an entire ‘internet’ to sit on ‘surpassinggoogle.com’.
Ultimately, if you are not a programmer, you can still be the founder of your blockchain by innovating its theme. In its theme, you can encode your un-ordinariness and its parameters, paradigms, tenets etc, creating a paper that captures the vi-mission of your blockchain.
Back your paper by publicizing it and propagating it, till you find a ‘programmer’, typically a ‘brother-programmer’ who forms a longing for ‘backing your paper’ with you!
Did you know that codes are made up of ‘algorithms’ and that you can write out ‘algorithms’ without knowing how to code, using regular grammar? Then, visit ‘github.com’ and write out a list of algorithms that provides insight to the world and ‘programmers’ of your vision. Continuing backing your vision by iterating your ‘github.com’ paper, till programmers and people alike and you begin to see the ‘vision within the dream’.
People will begin to flock in to help, backing your dream in turn. In eventuality, your blockchain will be born.
Do not fret; your role is to write that paper, evolve its content into levels of spanlessness and complete it and I tell you, that part is the actual coding.
When your paper is ready, you will have an entire network made up of ‘brother-programmers’ proactively seeking to help you build your blockchain even for free, for the sole reason of playing a role in historical history.
Plus, you have the person of ‘your boy Terry Aajyi’, whether ‘bulls or bears’, whom you can reach on ‘email@example.com’ or by visiting the ‘Macrohard hub’ located in Manila, Philippines.
Does it mean I can’t help you find a ‘brother-programmer’ to help you build your project just yet? I can!
Before we proceed to the next segment of this chapter, to tackle the subject of ‘creating your own DAPP, let us say that you don’t always need an entire blockchain to bring your vision to actuality. A DAPP may be sufficient!
Your boy 'Terry Ajayi', whether 'bulls or bears'.
I will soon resume fuller activity. I was able to bury my dad some 25 days ago, after 17 days past since he passed.
Join my Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/GtfUvhoqQkW5U9EGboRGMw
Kind support the evolution of the Macrohard hub by purchasing a 15$ T-shirt.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta