Proof of Planing (PoP): the consensus mechanism for an anarchic system (Part 1)
Consensus mechanisms always existed, they were not invented by blockchain technology or by cryptocurrencies.
In reality, the social contract is ultimately a protocol of consensus among the members of a community. The individual who goes to a supermarket in a big city is giving consensus to a distribution chain made up of several corporations that planned consumption, habits, the lexicon to be used, the forms of payment, the forms of financing, the codes of communication, forms of government and even the city itself for all its inhabitants. That tacit consensus that the individual who buys a plastic bottle in a supermarket gives that corporate metasystem an incentive, in the same way, that a hodler who buys a cryptocurrency gives an incentive to the miners or the stakers that support that blockchain.
Now, game theory, a branch of mathematics that deals with the interaction between incentive structures, helping to understand human decision-making, broadly conceives two types of games: competitive games and cooperative games. In competitive games, there is a winner, in the sense that there is a person or reduced group of people (team) who receive a prize that their opponents lost. In cooperative games, however, "all" players work together to achieve a goal so that they either win or lose as a group. The system is sustainable and is stabilized by the decisions made by the "mutual", that is, the individual is a constitutive part of something in the group, without losing his/her individuality, and his/her existence, and therefore, his/her individuality depends totally on the decisions he/she makes to “cooperate” as a group.
Although capitalism was born in Europe after the Renaissance, encouraged by the dramatic cultural change produced in society by the end of feudalism and the Protestant reform, it would be more accurate to say that the system that sustains the corporate chain that ends in a supermarket, was born at the end of the 19th century with the industrial revolution. During the twentieth century, financial élites, also born in those times, made all kinds of financial experiments on the planet, leading the world to collapse on several occasions, such as the remembered episode of subprime mortgages of 2008, which took even in its crashing fall to various bigwigs in finance.
There is no longer any discussion anywhere on the planet that this is the "winning" system. It is the system that governs each and every one of the countries on the planet, to a greater or lesser extent, with the same infrastructure, with the same mode of operation. For this reason, the "right" or "left" conflict has lost all kinds of value, because both extremes end up being two sides of the same coin, which is called the "capitalist system". The misnamed “neoliberalism” (which, as Noah Chomsky once said, is neither “new” nor “liberal”), and at the opposite extreme, “socialism”, depends absolutely on the same infrastructure, especially on a Central Bank (controlled by higher-level international organizations) that prints fiat money according to corporate requirements. Both liberal and socialist governments do exactly the same. There is no difference. The result is that today in the world the difference between the rich and the poor is the greatest in the entire history of mankind.
Where the right governs, the beneficiaries are the stockholders of the corporations. Where the left rules, the beneficiaries are the state bureaucrats. Both systems create enormous inequalities, although the political discourse in both cases is that of freedom, the welfare of the people, the greatness of the Nation, and blah, blah, blah ...
This loudly suggests that what needs to be changed is the system, and not the puppet that will govern the country, whose only function will be to satisfy the large corporations and international organizations that are the ones that truly give the orders, so that the capitalist system remains in force and is not distorted in any way.
The revolution was started by Satoshi Nakamoto in late 2008, out of the global financial debacle organized by the élites who control the world's money.
History books 500 years from now will explain the invention of Bitcoin as historians today explain the Renaissance.
Both neoliberalism and socialism create élites, as faces of the same coin in a zero-sum game. Only the anarchy model proposes an environment of pure collaboration, without élites, because there is no power, only the coordination that leads to the Nash equilibrium, in which no player is incentivized to change the status quo because it would go against him/her, and nobody wants to go against himself/herself. Anarchy is a collaborative game, in which the "mutual" is more important than each individual separately, although the individual cannot live isolated in a bubble, since he/she needs others to "be", that is, he/she needs the "mutual". That is why, in anarchy, each individual "is" thanks to the "mutual" and that is why the "mutual" is what must be taken care of. Anarchy does not conceive of the accumulation of capital, and therefore of power, since in anarchy there is no struggle for power, as the capitalist system instilled in us for centuries with its zero-sum model.
The economics that is still taught in universities is based on the capitalist system, and business decisions are made on the basis of maximizing the profit of stockholders, whether private or state. However, the model that is showing preference in the new generations is that of anarchy based on P2P decisions, especially through a creation model based on gaming. The new economy is gaming and making money today has more to do with gaming and the NFTs that are created in this model, than with massive industrial production in the hands of private or state corporations. That is the revolution that totally disarms an obsolete system based on the fact that what some win is what others lose.
However, the freedom and non-dependence on authorities and intermediaries that anarchy proposes, require a high degree of responsibility. It's not that just anyone can do whatever they want. Each individual has a role in the sustainability of the "mutual", since without the "mutual" he/she cannot fulfill himself/herself as an individual. This role and this responsibility are achieved based on planning. The anarchy model is much more mathematically based than the predatory capitalist system.
The consensus protocol of anarchy is the "Proof of Planning". The individual has to be able to plan his/her production capacity in a given period for the mutual to achieve Nash equilibrium in that period.
A carpenter does not have to know how to harvest corn. However, he/she has to plan the production of furniture for the corn harvester, at the same time that he/she plans the production of furniture for everyone else who asked for it and is going to ask for it. For this, he/she will have to take into account the availability of tools and wood necessary for his/her work in the period in question, which meant prior planning for the wood producer and for the tool producer. For his/her part, the corn harvester will have to take into account the amount of fertilizer and seeds needed to obtain the necessary amount of corn to feed the carpenter, the toolmaker, and the wood producer, and plan accordingly, especially respecting the times of nature for the correct growth of each corn plant.
Image by Dmitry Abramov from Pixabay
By doing this, the individual contributes to the "mutual", while he/she enjoys the job that he/she chose during his/her workday. The Proof of Planning should consider that the individual plan involves having time for leisure and rest. If this is not possible, it is a sign that the population is growing and then more carpenters, more tool makers, more lumber producers, and more corn harvesters will be needed.
(to be continued)