[ExI] see you on Retroshare

[Anders Sandberg]

On 2013-07-10 18:47, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Where, without advertising to draw new members (at least so
> much as being googlable), communities die a slow, stagnant
> death.  I've seen it happen multiple times.
>
> Meanwhile, the communities who continue to exist in the open,
> despite the increased costs, may continue to get new members.
> (Some of them at very low rates, granted.)

This is a general problem/feature. I argued something similar about 
biometric systems: you can design something with built-in privacy and 
protection against mission creep (at least in theory, to some extent), 
or you can have a system that is open - you can change what it is used 
for in the future, and the data can be turned to new uses. Now, which 
system will grow the most? The open will find new uses, it can be 
upgraded, and failures to foresee new needs will not block things. So it 
will win in the end because the closed system only has the advantages 
originally planned.

Open communities that can grow, change and find new sources of income or 
motivation will persist. The ones that are less encumbered by built-in 
restrictions will tend to thrive. That doesn't mean all the others will 
go extinct, but critical mass effects (you need enough participants to 
create a feedback loop of activity) will weed them out.

So I suspect it is uphill for most crypto-communities even when people 
see their point. But it is not a guaranteed failure, and having a few 
alternatives around is useful and might even force market leaders to be 
honest to some extent (consider how linux as an alternative affected 
Apple and Microsoft).


-- 
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130710/8ec8ef25/attachment.html>