[p2p-research] Trust Relationships in P2P Networks

[Patrick Anderson]

> danny jp wrote:
>> A P2P network cannot by definition jointly own a house.

By definition?

Who has the authority to define what a P2P Network can
and cannot do?

Within the context of P2P, what are 'definitions', and
what is 'authority'?

Could Peers ever define terms in a P2P manner?

Interesting... one of the central problems we face in
collaboration is the trouble we have agreeing on the
definition of terms.



>> The house would have to be split up into shares
>> managed in a trust, and then individual nodes
>> would own or owe a given number of such units.

By what reasoning do you claim the house *must* be
managed as you are describing?

Maybe you are right, but maybe you are wrong, and maybe
there are many other organizational forms that would
work with similar degrees of success.



>> In this case the trust manager either has to have
>> a link with each joint owner, (the trust manager
>> owns the house as an asset and 'owes' the other
>> nodes their share).

The details of how co-ownership (some would say
'sharing') of property should be handled is at the
very heart of the discussion of why corporations
and governments get it wrong, and how we, the people,
need to do it differently.

Here are some of the ways people currently choose
to share land and buildings.

Which would you say is closest to your vision of the
best way to organize co-ownership in a P2P network?:

http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_Estate
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Condop
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_club
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_ownership
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_society
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_organization
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenancy
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeshare
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_association



>> Also, how do you presume the various nodes managed
>> to get together to 'jointly' own the house in the
>> first place?

I have been working on this problem lately, and hope to
soon make a presentation showing how we can begin by:

0.) Determine the minimum complexity of a network
(or you might say 'community') needed to host developers
who can only pay with "Commitments to Work".

This minimum complexity is a "Basic Outcome" needed
to keep these workers sustained physically without
paying interest or profit outside of that community.

The inescapable parts I have identified include:
housing/storage, food/drugs, water/sanitation.

The absolute bare-bones startup scenario could provide
temporary housing/storage with tents and food/drugs
through bulk-purchase until we have the time to
build the houses and install the organisms.


1.) Organize middle-class consumers to prepay with
"Outside Money" to buy the Land, Water, Tools, etc.
needed to begin.  These investors will usually be paid
with a single product.

For example, consumers who
prepay for raw milk will actually be investing in the
Milk Cattle, Land, Water-Rights, buildings, etc. needed
to 'host' that production and will be 'paid' when they
receive their portion of that product each day or week.


2.) Attract skilled workers to sign contracts of
"Commitment to Work" to supply the labor needed to
begin.  These investors will usually be paid with a
variety of the products available within the community
to cover all of their physical needs.

The payments to these investors in both cases will come
from the outputs of the production that takes place
within that network.

So a worker might commit to work milking cattle while
receiving basic meals, shelter, etc. as his return.



Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com