Monday 24th March (8:00AM)
I believe autonomy is important. I like to think I have personal autonomy. I also think it important as a political end to be promoted by institutions in our wider society.
This article is a reflection upon autonomy.
The etymology of "autonomy" is derived from Greek for "autos" (self) and "nomos" (rule or law). It was originally applied to city states where citizens were free to live by their own laws rather than laws imposed upon them. Unsurprisingly, my dictionary defines autonomy as, "the power or right of self-government; self-government, or political independence, of a city or a state".
However, it is personal autonomy, as applied to individuals, that I am interested in exploring.
An autonomous person is, "obedient to a law that one prescribes to oneself" (to paraphrase Rousseau). Such a person leads their life in a manner that is consistent with a set of beliefs, values and principles that are the outcome of reflection and self evaluation. As Socrates famously said, "the unexamined life is not worth living". Furthermore, an autonomous person is not only capable of considering, deciding and acting but does so in all three cases. To act without self-reflection - perhaps out of habit or because of an unthinking obedience to received "normal" modes of behaviour - is not autonomy.
For someone to possess autonomy not only should they have the capacity for self-reflection but they should have the additional two external requirements of freedom to act without imposition and freedom to act according to their principles. Perhaps the most famous description of such freedoms can be found in Isiah Berlin's essay, "Two Concepts of Liberty" (Berlin uses the words "freedom" and "liberty" interchangeably) in which he defines positive and negative freedom.
Berlin introduces these concepts by relating each to a question:
...the negative sense, is involved in the answer to the question "What is the area within which the subject - a person or a group of persons - is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons?" The second, ...the positive sense, is involved in the answer to the question "What or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?"
Let's unpack these two aspects of freedom / liberty:
Put simply, negative liberty is freedom from coercion or interference. Berlin qualifies this by claiming that coercion implies deliberate interference from others. As Berlin puts it,
If I say I am unable to jump more than ten feet in the air [...] it would be eccentric to say that I am to that degree enslaved or coerced. You lack political liberty or freedom only if you are prevented from attaining the goal by human beings.
In the context of autonomy, negative liberty affords the opportunity for self reflection or decision making on one's own terms. As Berlin points out, in a wider sense one's "freedom" to act may be limited by laws of nature but this is not our focus. Rather, we're concerned with coercion interfering with our intent to act in such-and-such a way.
Alternatively, positive liberty is the freedom to act in a particular way. It is the capacity to act based upon one's own choices and reasons. Berlin insists,
I wish to be the instrument of my own, not of other men's acts of will. I wish to be a subject, not an object; to be moved by reasons, by conscious purposes, which are my own, not by causes which affect me, as it were, from outside. I wish to be somebody, not nobody; a doer - deciding, not by external nature or by other men as if I were a thing, or an animal, or a slave incapable of playing a human role, that is, of conceiving goals and policies of my own and realising them.
Put simply, one can be free from interference (negative liberty) and free to act (positive liberty) and in order to act autonomously one of these freedoms is required.
Why only one? It's possible to act autonomously but only enjoy one of the two sorts of liberty. For example, I have the positive freedom to choose to drive on the wrong side of the road, and, under certain rare circumstances may choose to do so although I ought to expect curtailment of my negative freedoms via coercion in the form of the police. Alternatively, I may enjoy the negative liberty to be free from coercion when applying to one or another university but the decision concerning my offer of a place does not rest with me (a positive freedom to attend). It's the decision of the institutions to which I applied.
But are these freedoms the same as autonomy?
No. The will to act is missing - the capacity to take advantage of such liberties. Consider the following, as a result of misinformation, misunderstanding, habit or deception a person may not realise they have liberty to act in some way or another. Perhaps they come from a town where there are "Keep off the Grass" signs in every park and so they mistakenly believe that this rule is the case for their current location when no such rule is advertised or even exists. They are at liberty to walk where they will but don't because of their ignorance.
Therefore, there is a need for an open, enquiring and imaginative mind used to engaging in reflection in order to discover and decide to take advantage of such liberties.
And so we come full circle back to the capacity for self-reflection.
Unsurprisingly, I believe such an outlook ought to be encouraged at school, via institutions such as professional organisations and facilitated by the technology we invent, build and deploy.
Autonomy can also be paradoxical: strangely, I may act autonomously to curtail the freedoms needed to act autonomously. For example, I may freely choose to join the army causing me to live a necessarily un-autonomous life.
Furthermore, we regularly curtail our own and each other's autonomy in order to act autonomously: this is perhaps best encapsulated in the term "wage slave", a situation where one is forced to work in order to earn enough to pay for some other thing perceived to be more valuable than one's current autonomy (such as a mortgage, family holiday abroad or merely earning enough to make ends meet).
More puzzling still, many are paid to curtail other people's autonomy: I'm often asked to design software that is purposely limited until you pay money - and even then it is only designed to work in a specific pre-defined manner (for example, you have to pay to join a dating website, and even then, you're limited by not being able to contact your potential dates directly). This is politely (and mistakenly) called "business", but an (understandably) cynical person would prefer the term "exploitation".
Finally, exercising personal autonomy is how we decide and act upon life's big questions of a political, ethical and personal nature. It is this reason, ultimately, that explains why I believe it to be such an important attribute. It's also why the promotion of autonomy is the stated primary aim of the drogulus.
Wednesday 15th January 2014 (10:30PM)
I've been exchanging emails with my buddy Francis. We've been discussing classical music. Much of the discussion has been about discerning the "clever stuff" that may not be immediately obvious when listening to a piece of music.
It's possible to listen to any sort of music and simply enjoy the sensation of the sounds. I do this quite often. However, there's also a hidden world of clever, sneaky and fun tricks that composers and performers use to bring about a performance. To use a mathematical analogy, it's the difference between just appreciating the beautiful picture of the fractal (below) compared to having the additional understanding of the simple and rather beautiful mathematics that bring it into existence.
Put simply, sometimes it's fun to know exactly what's going on (in a musical sense). Unfortunately, in the context of classical music, this usually requires both historical and theoretical knowledge. So what do you do if you don't have this knowledge? In the case of Francis, an obvious starting point is to explore the classical pieces he already enjoys. When I asked him what classical recordings he owned he replied,
I have and quite like Faure's Pavane, and Pachelbel's Canon. Frustratingly though when I play them now they feel like cliches. This is partly because I know them from childhood, so there's nothing new to me. Partly because I don't know how to engage deeper beyond them.
So, I want to lift the curtain on Pachelbel's Canon and give you a sense of some of the non-obvious "clever stuff" happening in the piece. I assume no prior musical knowledge.
Rob Paravonian's humorous rant (above) centres around the fact that the poor cellist (playing the lowest part) plays the same sequence of eight notes 28 times. This is a special type of ostinato (repeated pattern) called a ground bass. As Rob demonstrates, the ground bass is a technique that's (over) used in a lot of pop music. In the baroque period (the historical era during which Pachelbel was writing) composers used it as an anchor within a piece so that the listener had some sort of expectation of what was coming next. The clever bit is how the composer plays with our expectations by setting contrasting, surprising and clever melodies over the top of the ground bass.
In Pachelbel's case he starts by setting a very simple, regular step-wise melody above the ground bass. As the piece continues each new repetition of the ground bass has an increasingly complex setting above it until the melody is moving quite quickly, is rhythmically more interesting (it's uneven) and jumps around in pitch. Following this "climax" (yes, that is the correct term) the melody gradually transforms into a slower moving, simpler and more relaxed state that draws the piece to a close.
This is a sketch of the form of the piece at the macro (high) level. But there are other levels of "resolution" that can be viewed under our musical microscope.
For example, have you wondered why the piece is called "Pachelbel's Canon" and not "Pachelbel's Ground Bass"? Well, a musical canon is a contrapuntal technique where a single melody is played on top of itself with voices coming in one after the other. You probably already know several canons and have perhaps sung some at school: "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" and "Frere Jacques" are well known examples. In any case, the way a canon is performed is always the same: a first voice starts to sing or play the melody and, at some regular period of time later, N number of voices gradually join in one after the other and play the melody.
It is this "canonical" technique that Pachelbel uses. The piece is written in four parts: the ground bass and three melody parts. However, each of the melody parts plays exactly the same melody but offset by one repetition of the ground bass. So, not only does the melody mysteriously fit with the ground bass, but it fits with itself. Furthermore, Pachelbel has organised things so that the macro form of the piece (the feeling of a gradual build up to a climax followed by a relaxation to the end) emerges from such micro level interactions between the different parts.
All of the features I describe above can be heard if you listen very carefully. However, don't expect to hear them all at once! This is why so much classical music deserves repeated listening because there's always something new to spot! The following video is particularly useful because the Musanim project have superimposed a graphical version of the score that follows the performance. The ground bass is represented by the blue blocks at the bottom of the screen and the red, brown and yellow blocks represent each of the three melody parts. Basically, the vertical axis is pitch (how high or low a note sounds) the horizontal axis is time and colour represents the part being played (sometimes the colours change if parts play the same note). If you watch and listen very carefully you'll be able to spot the canonical relationship between each of the melody parts.
Hang on a minute, if there are only four parts in the piece why are there six performers..?
Obviously the cello is playing the ground bass. Each of the violinists is playing one of the melody parts. The first violin is on the left, second in the middle and the third to the right of the organ. Right of the organ? What's an organ doing in there and what on earth is that funky guitar like thing on the far right?
Well, these are the continuo group - a sort of Baroque-era rhythm section (the instrument on the far right is, in fact, a Theorbo - a member of the lute family of instruments). They follow the bass part (in this piece it's the ground bass played by the cello) and improvise harmonic "filling" in much the same way that a rhythm guitarist in a pop group or pianist in a jazz trio do.
Now, watch the performance again, but this time I want you to concentrate on what the performers are actually doing. Notice how they move a lot, swaying from side to side and often change where they're facing. Since they're all reading their parts they have to keep together in some way. Obviously they're listening very carefully to each other but they're also aware of each other's movements through the corner of their eyes. As a result they're able to get a sense of what everyone else is doing and collectively work as an ensemble. At certain points you'll see them glance, make eye contact with each other and even smile. This is another means of non-verbal communication the players use to keep their sense of ensemble (you see the third violinist do this about halfway through the performance). Finally, at the end when they need to coordinate the close of the performance everyone is looking at the first violinist on the far left to get a sense of how the music is slowing down and ultimately coming to a stop.
Each group works in a different way and watching an ensemble's group dynamics is yet another aspect of classical music that allows for repeated listening. It's fun to compare and contrast the different ways in which performers react to and perform a piece of music
I hope you enjoy listening!
Image credits: Fractal © wikimedia.org under a Creative Commons license.
Sunday 3rd November 2013 (3:00PM)
The drogulus is a programmable peer-to-peer data store. It's my "fun" programming project du jour and a thought experiment in code. This article is both a story of the drogulus and a high-level technical overview of what I'm attempting to build (I don't assume too much technical knowledge on the part of the reader).
The overriding aim of the drogulus is to simply promote the autonomy of its users. This aim informs all the technical choices outlined below.
What do I mean by autonomy (and why is it so important)?
When someone is autonomous they are self-directing, free to act of their own accord and lack imposition from others. Autonomy also suggests intelligence and awareness enough to be able to enjoy and make use of such freedom. Furthermore, such intelligence entails decision making so people become accountable for their actions. Autonomy is also the opposite of such undesirable states as tyranny, slavery, ignorance and apathy.
Unfortunately, many aspects of today's web are contrary to the promotion of user's autonomy:
I asked myself, how would software designed to promote autonomy function? I tried to imagine the simplest possible solution, started to write code and the drogulus was born.
The client/server model of the web (where browsers [the clients] connect to websites [the servers and custodians of data]) is a fundamental problem simply because the server always has power over the client. Furthermore, the server is a single point of failure that is open to attack. So I decided to look at peer-to-peer (P2P) architectures as an antidote to such potential mechanisms of imposition and control. Typically, in a peer to peer network peers of equal status (computers running appropriate software) cooperate in a loose decentralised network for mutual benefit. Peer to peer is the antithesis of hierarchy (where some have elevated status and power over others as in the client/server model). Furthermore, the loose and decentralised organisation of computing resources make it very hard for third parties to control users. The drogulus is, in fact, many computers collaborating together over the internet.
Assuming a P2P architecture, what should users be able to do with such a resource? At a most fundamental level, users should be able to name things.
Being able to name things is a fundamental aspect of autonomy. In his work, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed", the philosopher Paulo Freire says,
to exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it
Naming is a fundamental aspect of computing because it's a foundation for abstraction: naming a thing hides what it is or how it works, it is merely "X". Naming things (abstracting) is a way to make sense of the world. To be able to do so without imposition is liberating and an example of every-day autonomy.
Therefore, the drogulus is a data store: a place where knowledge is named and stored in its latent digital form as data. "Data" are simply values that convey meaningful information about something. Meaning is implied by the name, context and structure of the data. Structure is formed from the way data is represented. The drogulus is a data store because users are able to create, retrieve, update and delete named pieces of data. Importantly, once data is named it may also be referenced. This is the essential requirement for hypertext.
Data is latent. To make it useful you need to do something. In the digital realm that means programming. Programming is the creation and curation of instructions that produce results. Both programs and results may be stored as data in the drogulus. But what if you're not in control of the computer you're using or don't have access to a machine that's capable of running such programs? That's hardly an autonomous state. I want the drogulus to be trivially programmable ~ a sort of distributed programming environment. Imagine it as a re-configurable SETI@home on steroids: by running a node in the drogulus network you are sharing a small and highly controlled amount of your potential computing power with everyone else on the network.
Finally, users need to be able to trust the data found in the drogulus and be able to check its provenance. Furthermore, it should be possible to identify who's who (although the who aspect may be an anonymous nom de plume). On the web such things are dealt with by a central authority such as DNS (in the case of working out who a certain URL refers to), or services such as Google, Twitter and Facebook (when working out who's who on a social network). However, this is not a state of affairs that promotes autonomy. How can we make decisions based upon some piece of data without being able to check its provenance? The current centralised brokers of identity are yet another inadvertent point of control and authority. Furthermore, sometimes it is important to have the choice of becoming anonymous: you may face personal, political or economic retribution if certain data is connected with your offline identity. It is certainly an imposition to force the use of real names and identifiable data in order to use a digital service.
Is there an alternative?
Yes! By using public key cryptography to sign data the drogulus ensures the provenance of the data and that it has not been tampered with. Importantly, there is no central authority to prove who's who. Identity is built on the far more humane mechanism of a web of trust.
These aspects of promoting autonomy translate in to three technical "pillars" with which the drogulus is built:
Each of these pillars is described, in some detail, below.
At a high level (a not entirely accurate analogy, although close enough for illustrative purposes) a distributed hash table works like a sort of peer-to-peer dictionary/encyclopedia: a unique key is used to identify (name) a value (the data). In a traditional dictionary/encyclopedia, the key is a word and the value is its definition or article. Being a data store, a distributed hash table allows users to create, retrieve, update and delete their own keys and associated digital values.
The hash table is distributed because it is split into the equivalent of the many volumes of a traditional encyclopedia (where each volume covers a particular part of the whole). Each person who ever uses the DHT has a copy of just one volume with many copies of a volume being distributed to many different users.
Users keep track of which of their friends on the network hold what volume. Users interact with the distributed hash table by contacting the friend with the correct volume for the desired item. If they don't know anyone with the right volume they play a sort of six-degrees-of-separation game with their friends and friends-of-friends until someone with the correct volume is found.
Distributed hash tables also share an interesting property with Bittorrent: the more popular an entry is the more widespread it becomes, thus improving performance since popular items are easier to find.
Distributed hash tables are eventually consistent (meaning changes made to the items stored in the DHT are not immediate: they may take some amount of time to propagate to relevant peers) and interactions with a DHT are asynchronous (the result may not be immediately available since the machinations of the six-degrees-of-separation game may take an unpredictable amount of time).
Nevertheless, distributed hash tables contain no single point of failure nor inadvertent point of control, scale to huge numbers of nodes, have a relatively efficient lookup procedure (the afore mentioned six-degrees-of-separation like process), are good at handling fluid network membership (nodes can be constantly joining and leaving the network) and have been tested in the real world (in projects such as Bittorrent, Freenet and others).
The drogulus's DHT is based upon but is not the same as the Kademlia distributed hash table algorithm. The innovation the drogulus brings is that keys and values are cryptographically signed in such a way that their provenance can be proven and content shown to be intact. Furthermore, users cannot interfere with each other's items stored within the distributed hash table unless they have access to the same private key.
Items are self contained and any that do not pass the cryptographic checks are ignored. Nodes that attempt to propagate such values are blocked (punished / ostracized) by their peers. The section about the cryptographic layer, below, explains how this works in greater detail.
The core aspects of a DHT are:
These are explained below.
A hash function is an algorithm that takes some arbitrary input block of data and turns it in to a fixed size output. Any change to the input data will change the resulting output. The name of the hash function currently used by the drogulus is SHA-512. Good hash functions are deterministic, cannot be reversed, generate different values from different seed data, uniformly distribute output values within the output range and attempt to avoid collisions (that are, unfortunately, inevitable).
Keys are SHA-512 values computed from two concatenated values provided by the user storing the data: their public key and a meaningful name identifying the item.
Every node in the DHT has a unique id that is also a SHA-512 value. This is computed from the node's own public key (used to facilitate communication with other nodes on the network). The public key is used as a seed for the hash to ensure a node has no way to position itself in a certain location in the range of all hashes.
Nodes store items whose keys are "close" to their ids (see the section on lookups and distance, below, for how this works). This isn't such a hard concept to understand: it's simply a way of knowing where a thing ought to be found, just like knowing that in an encyclopedia aardvark will be found in the volume containing entries for A.
The routing table is the data structure a node uses to keep track of its peers in the distributed hash table. It is a binary tree whose leaves are k-buckets.
A k-bucket lists contact information about other nodes in a particular region of the key space. The k-bucket is ordered from oldest to youngest node in terms of last connection time. None of the k-buckets overlap, but together they cover the whole key space.
A k-bucket can not contain more than K contacts - where K is a system wide replication parameter. K represents the number of nodes that are unlikely to fail within an hour of each other - typically, this value is set to 20.
Contact information consists of each peer's unique SHA-512 id within the DHT, its network address, the drogulus version the peer is running, a timestamp indicating when the last connection was made with the peer and a counter tracking the number of failed calls made from the local node to the peer represented by the contact.
When a node joins the network it starts with a routing table containing just a single k-bucket covering the whole key space. The routing table grows and changes dynamically as more peers are encountered or drop off the network.
When a new peer is encountered on the network the local node attempts to add it to the appropriate k-bucket that covers the area in the key space that the new peer's id falls in to. Initially this will be the original single k-bucket. If that k-bucket is not full (i.e. there are less than K contacts in it already) then the new peer's contact information is simply added.
If the k-bucket is full and its range includes the local node's ID then it is replaced by two new k-buckets each covering half the key space of the original (full) k-bucket. The contact information for peers originally held in the replaced k-bucket is divided between the two new k-buckets so peers are found in the correct new k-bucket. The new peer, whose insertion caused the split, has its contact information inserted in to the appropriate new k-bucket.
If the k-bucket covering the new peer is full and does not include the local node's id then its contact information is added to a replacement cache for the full k-bucket. If a peer in a full k-bucket has some arbitrary number of failed calls then it is removed from the k-bucket and the oldest member of the replacement cache that is still contactable is added to the k-bucket to replace it.
The routing-table is usually kept up-to-date by the normal network traffic between the local node and its peers. However, to guard against the odd case when network traffic has not refreshed all the k-buckets the local node will automatically refresh a k-bucket after some arbitrary amount of time (usually an hour) by picking a random ID within the range of the stale k-bucket and performing a node lookup for that ID (lookups are described below).
The local routing table may be asked for the K nearest peers to a certain SHA-512 id value. Sometimes it may return peers from different k-buckets if the desired id value is close to the "border" between k-buckets.
A helpful analogy for the routing table is that it's like a seating plan at a very large table where diners know more diners who are sat closer to them than further away.
Every message between peers includes the SHA-512 node id of the sender. This permits peers to learn of each other's existence.
As has been mentioned before, keys are also SHA-512 values. To work out what nodes may store a given key a notion of distance is required. This allows the DHT to search for peers close to a target key and retrieve its associated value. Nodes found to be closest to the target key are used to store the target key/value item.
The DHT defines the distance between a node id and key as simply an integer representation of their bitwise exclusive or (XOR). This is both a simple and uniform measure of distance.
Given such a mechanism for measuring distance between keys and ids it is possible to navigate the DHT to look up keys and peers given a target SHA-512.
A lookup is an asynchronous operation that either calls back with a valid result or an "errback". It's also possible to define a timeout for the lookup in the drogulus's implementation of the DHT.
The lookup operation can be used to either find the K closest nodes to a particular target in the key space, in order to find candidate nodes that will store an item in the DHT, or retrieve a value for a given key likely to be found in a certain target area of the key space.
A lookup is both parallel (in that more than one request at a time can be made to fulfil the lookup) and recursive (in that such parallel requests return peers closer to the target that are re-used to request yet closer peers until a suitable result is found).
What follows is a brief description of the lookup algorithm.
The following values are used in the lookup implemented by the drogulus (some of the names are derived from the original Kademlia paper):
Given these values the lookup proceeds with the following steps:
Note on validating values: in the future there may be constraints added to the FindValue query (such as only accepting values created after time T).
To continue the (inaccurate yet friendly) dinner table analogy, a lookup is like asking people to pass the salt from the far end of the table. You ask a person you know sat closest to the salt pot, they introduce you to the next person they know sat even closer to the salt pot. This process continues until you get introduced to the person next to the salt pot who retrieves it for you.
(Nota Bene: please take these analogies with a pinch of salt.)
Some items stored in the DHT will be more popular than others. It is possible to spread the effort for serving popular items to nodes other than those that originally stored the popular item. Furthermore, nodes can join or leave the DHT at any time. Items are persisted to new nodes and steps are taken to ensure there is no loss of data. Finally, items may be updated so it is important that newer versions replace older items.
The DHT achieves these objectives in the following way:
For caching purposes (to ensure the availability of popular items), once a FindValue lookup for an item succeeds, the requesting node stores the item at the closest node it observed to the target key that did not return the value. In this way the number of nodes storing the popular item grows and the distance from the target key to the most distant ids of nodes storing the popular item grows (so lookups find the item sooner since it's spread over a wider area of the key space that is "close" to the target key).
To guard against lost data and to ensure new nodes obtain items with keys close to their ids, nodes attempt to republish items every hour. This simply involves storing the item at the k currently closest nodes to the item's key. To avoid excessive network traffic a node will not persist the value if it has itself had the value republished to it within the hourly cycle.
To avoid over caching and before persisting an item this hourly process checks how close the item's key is to host node's own id and when the item was last requested. If they find the item has not been requested within the hour and its key is far away (some arbitrary distance that may change over time as the item becomes more out of date) then the item is removed from the local node. If the item is still "close enough" and within its expiry date then nodes within this area of the key space will continue to store the item no matter what.
If the item is found to have exceeded its expiry date then all nodes, no matter where they are in the key space, will delete the item.
Every item contains a creation date generated by the creator of the value to ensure more recent items take precedence over older versions that may be encountered in the network. If a node attempts to republish an old version of an item to a node with a more up-to-date version then the older version is replaced by the newer one and the republication activity is immediately repeated with the new (up-to-date) value.
All interactions with the DHT are asynchronous in nature and identified via a UUID used by all the nodes involved in the interaction. Locally, a promise (representing the interaction) is returned by the drogulus to the application layer. At some unknown time in the future the promise will either resolve with a result or an error (which may be a timeout if the interaction took too long).
The drogulus uses cryptography in two ways:
It is important to note that this doesn't mean that values stored in the drogulus are encrypted. It simply means messages are sent in encrypted "digital envelopes" that can't be opened by third parties. The content of the envelopes may still be unencrypted. It is left to the user to manage the encryption of their data.
Both uses of cryptography use public key cryptography. If you're unsure what this means I've already written a blog post introducing public key cryptography.
Items stored in the distributed hash table are designed to stand on their own and be self-verifiable through cryptographic signing.
An item stored in the DHT is a collection of named fields and associated values:
The public_key field is used to validate the sig value. If this is OK then the compound SHA-512 key is checked using the obviously valid public_key and name fields.
This ensures both the provenance of the data and that it hasn't been tampered with. Any items that don't pass the cryptographic checks are ignored and nodes that propagate them are punished by being blocked. It also confirms that the generated SHA-512 key for the item is correct given the public_key and meaningful name ensuring no other entity may set items with this unique key (assuming no key collision vulnerability in the hashing function).
Logos (say, "log-oss") is the least developed aspect of the drogulus and is likely to change quite a bit as development proceeds. As a result I only want to describe its requirements and how these relate to the over-arching aim of autonomy. It's all a bit "blue-sky" and "hand-wavey" at the moment but you'll at least get a flavour of what I'm thinking of implementing. Think of it as a raw "brain dump".
When I say that the drogulus is programmable I mean users are able to use the Logos language to manipulate data found in the drogulus (including Logos code too), save any results both locally and within the drogulus and either run such computations locally or remotely on other nodes on the network.
The Logos language should be simple enough for a ten year old to understand and find useful but powerful enough to be of interest to a professional programmer. There's no point promoting autonomy if the tool that users work with is incomprehensible.
With the exception of Lisp, programmers have no control over how their language works and often find niggles that they wish they could change and usually long for features that may not ever be implemented. Why is Lisp different? Lisp is a programmable programming language: it is possible to bend Lisp to your own requirements and style of programming. There is no BDFL for Lisp who you have to convince to implement your changes. Using Lisp's macro system the programmer is free to enhance and change Lisp itself. The key is that Lisp is a homoiconic language: programs are expressed in the language's own data structures (in the case of Lisp, as lists).
Lisp is a simple yet very beautiful language - an opinion I try to justify in this blog post. An important realisation I've had is that Lisp like languages can act as the AST for other languages should the Lisp-y parenthesis-heavy syntax not appeal to programmers.
Such flexibility, simplicity and re-usability make a Lisp-like language a good candidate given my emphasis on autonomy. Therefore, Logos will be a small Lisp-like language that contains just enough simple features to make it useful and understandable to a ten year old yet, because it will be a programmable programming language, it should be powerful enough that professional programmers can build and share new more powerful features.
Remember, Logos programs can be evaluated both locally or, if required, remotely.
To understand remote computation in the drogulus try to answer the following two questions:
Perhaps a story will help us ponder this problem...
If I find myself in an unfamiliar town and I require some information, say, directions to the cinema, then I have two choices: I can work out the answer (I'd consult a map and work out a route myself - assuming I have access to a map) or I could ask one of the locals - other people I find in this unfamiliar town - to tell me. Perhaps I already know a local and simply trust that they know the answer. Otherwise I usually find that "random" locals are very helpful and will give me a correct answer. However, sometimes locals are wrong because they don't know the correct answer themselves (they have a bug!). Alternatively, they're a nefarious sort who intentionally wants to send me on a wild goose chase and gives me wrong directions instead. Finally, I know that the locals have a reputation for abruptness - don't take up too much of their time or they will just tut loudly and walk off. As a result I ensure my request for information is both polite and to the point.
This story contains the essence of remotely executing code using the drogulus.
I could download the code from such-and-such a key and any data needed as input for the computation from such-and-such another key and run the Logos program on my local device. I'd only have to contend with bad data or buggy code (if that wasn't enough!). However, my device may not be powerful enough to run the program or the data may be huge making the download too expensive (the equivalent of not being able to find a map of the unfamiliar town). Why not get my peers to help me? This would involve working out the most efficient means of getting code and data to the same place so the computation can be executed and the result returned to me or stored someplace on the drogulus for me to retrieve later.
But what happens if the remote node executing code is intentionally trying to deceive. Ask yourself, if you had your doubts about the trustworthiness of the directions given to you in the unfamiliar town you'd probably ask a second or third local for directions and compare the answers. That's precisely what should happen for running a computation remotely. Ask n nodes for the result of the same computation, compare the results and, by consensus, discover, explore and select the answer. Such computations would be asynchronous and parallel in nature and, to increase confidence in the result, a higher value of n could be set. Since the nodes involved in the computation could be any (hopefully nice) node in the network individual nasty nodes would soon be out-voted. Furthermore, to hijack a computation an attacker would have to ensure that they controlled an inordinate number of nodes out of the potential pool of candidate nodes - an almost impossible task. Finally, unreliable nodes would face the threat of punishment via ostracism as already happens as part of the machinations of the DHT.
What if I'm to compute something? I oblige for the benefit of my fellow user of the drogulus (given that others do the same for me) but I set conditions in terms of time and space. I limit how long I'll spend computing a result and only allow myself to use a certain amount of memory. If these boundaries are hit then I respond with a message indicating such a situation has arisen.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm having too much fun to want to stop. What's the worse that could happen? I learn a lot of new and interesting stuff. That's no bad thing.
Apologies for the brain-dump nature of this post, but it's a good exercise to explain such things in a simple and understandable way. Constructive feedback, critique and comments most welcome via email.
Thanks for reading this far..!
Image credits: FIG 1. © 2011 Opensourceway (under a creative commons license). Encyclopedia Britannica © 2010 BostonTx (under a creative commons license). Aardvark © 2012 Valerie (under a creative commons license). Seating Plan © 2010 Boston Public Library (under a creative commons license). Salt pot © 2010 Alpha (under a creative commons license). Lisp Warning created by Conrad Barski, M.D. and released to the public domain.