Hamid list
http://www.2052.info
2052_A_Global_Forecast_for_the_Next_Forty_Years_by_Jorgen_Randers.epub
3.1 MB
2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years
systems science
complex systems management and engineering
Policy and Social Science
complex strategic games
System Dynamics Society
complex systems management and engineering
Policy and Social Science
complex strategic games
System Dynamics Society
Hamid list
The Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update http://www.peakoilindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Limits-to-Growth-updated.pdf
#LTG (1)
تیکه های مهم بخش ۱
We addressed questions such as: Are current policies leading to a sus- tainable future or to collapse? What can be done to create a human economy that provides sufficiently for all?
A major foundation of our project was the “World3” computer model, which we constructed to help us integrate data and theories related to growth.
The Limits to Growth (LTG) reported that global ecological constraints (related to resource use and emissions) would have significant influence on global developments in the twenty-first century. LTG warned that humanity might have to divert much capital and manpower to battle these constraints—possibly so much that the average quality of life would decline sometime during the twenty-first century. Our book did not specify exactly what resource scarcity or what emission type might end growth by requiring more capital than was available—simply because such detailed predictions can not be made on a scientific basis in the huge and complex population–economy–environment system that constitutes our world.
In every realistic scenario we found that these limits force an end to physical growth in World3 sometime during the twenty-first century.
The end of growth, in whatever form, seemed to us to be a very distant prospect in 1972. All World3 scenarios in LTG showed growth in population and economy continuing well past the year 2000. Even in the most pes- simistic LTG scenario the material standard of living kept increasing all the way to 2015. Thus LTG placed the end of growth almost 50 years after the publication of the book.
ٖWhen we wrote LTG we hoped that such deliberation would lead society to take corrective actions to reduce the possibilities of collapse. Collapse is not an attractive future.
But the 1992 book did offer one major new finding.We suggested in BTL that humanity had already overshot the limits of Earth’s support capacity. This fact was so important that we chose to reflect it in the noscript of the book.
(یه چکی بکن تغییر روند های سیاسی قدرت های بزرگ رو توی ۱۹۹۲ یا ۱۳۷۲ به بعد)
No modern political party has garnered broad support for such a program, cer- tainly not among the rich and powerful, who could make room for growth among the poor by reducing their own footprints. Meanwhile, the global footprint gets larger day by day.
تیکه های مهم بخش ۱
We addressed questions such as: Are current policies leading to a sus- tainable future or to collapse? What can be done to create a human economy that provides sufficiently for all?
A major foundation of our project was the “World3” computer model, which we constructed to help us integrate data and theories related to growth.
The Limits to Growth (LTG) reported that global ecological constraints (related to resource use and emissions) would have significant influence on global developments in the twenty-first century. LTG warned that humanity might have to divert much capital and manpower to battle these constraints—possibly so much that the average quality of life would decline sometime during the twenty-first century. Our book did not specify exactly what resource scarcity or what emission type might end growth by requiring more capital than was available—simply because such detailed predictions can not be made on a scientific basis in the huge and complex population–economy–environment system that constitutes our world.
In every realistic scenario we found that these limits force an end to physical growth in World3 sometime during the twenty-first century.
The end of growth, in whatever form, seemed to us to be a very distant prospect in 1972. All World3 scenarios in LTG showed growth in population and economy continuing well past the year 2000. Even in the most pes- simistic LTG scenario the material standard of living kept increasing all the way to 2015. Thus LTG placed the end of growth almost 50 years after the publication of the book.
ٖWhen we wrote LTG we hoped that such deliberation would lead society to take corrective actions to reduce the possibilities of collapse. Collapse is not an attractive future.
But the 1992 book did offer one major new finding.We suggested in BTL that humanity had already overshot the limits of Earth’s support capacity. This fact was so important that we chose to reflect it in the noscript of the book.
(یه چکی بکن تغییر روند های سیاسی قدرت های بزرگ رو توی ۱۹۹۲ یا ۱۳۷۲ به بعد)
No modern political party has garnered broad support for such a program, cer- tainly not among the rich and powerful, who could make room for growth among the poor by reducing their own footprints. Meanwhile, the global footprint gets larger day by day.
Hamid list
#LTG (1) تیکه های مهم بخش ۱ We addressed questions such as: Are current policies leading to a sus- tainable future or to collapse? What can be done to create a human economy that provides sufficiently for all? A major foundation of our project was the “World3”…
#LTG (2)
تیکه های مهم بخش ۲
The three causes of overshoot are always the same, at any scale from personal to planetary. First, there is growth, acceleration, rapid change. Second, there is some form of limit or barrier, beyond which the moving system may not safely go. Third, there is a delay or mistake in the percep- tions and the responses that strive to keep the system within its limits. These three are necessary and sufficient to produce an overshoot.
overshoot may be psychological—continuously rising goals for personal consumption
Throughout this text we will grapple with the difficulties of understanding and describing the causes and consequences of a population and economy that have grown past the support capacities of the earth.
بیایید دلیل این که این کتاب رو دارم میخونم بگم
یکی از نظریه هایی که وجود داره این هستش، کشور ها به خصوص کشور های قدرتمند و صنعتی اگه با همین سرعت به پیشرفت کردن و استفاده کردن از منابع زمین و تولید گاز های گلخانه ای ادامه بدن یه جایی توی قرن ۲۱ میرسیم به یک نقطه که مادر طبیعت میگه دیگه بسه و دهن آدم ها رو صاف میکنه (داستان ها کم آبی و گرمایش جهانی و انواع آلودگی ها و کمبود مواد غذایی عادی ای که الان میشناسیم و ... )و این باعث میشه دیگه پیشرفتی صورت نگیره و جمعیت جهان از مریضی و دلایل دیگه شروع کنه به کاهش پیدا کردن
یکی از نتیجه گیری هایی که میشه از این نظریه داشت این هستش:
اگه همه کشور های زمین صنعتی تر و پیشرفته تر بشن زمان رسیدن به اون limit ها یا گنجایش هایی که کره زمین داره کمتر میشه و اوضاع و دوران بدی شروع میشه
و بر اساس این یک تئوری توطئه وجود داره :
کشور های قدرت مند برای این که بتونن توسعه پایدار داشته باشن و با فعالیت هاشون باعث سریع تر رسیدن به اون گنجایش نشن باید فعالیت هاشون رو کاهش بدن و کنترل شده اش بکنن تا به بقیه کشور ها هم فضا رشد و صنعتی شدن رو توی این گنجایش محدود کره زمین داشته باشن.
اما کدوم کشوری این رو قبول میکنه که کمتر پیشرفت کنه تا بقیه کشور های توسعه نیافته پیشرفت کنن؟
و این میشه که کشور های قدرتمند میگن که اکی ما نمیتونیم خودمون از گنجایش های فعلی استفاده نکنیم و پیشرفت نکنیم از طرفی هم نمیتونیم به بقیه بگیم که ببینید زمین نمیکشه همه امون پیشرفت کنیم و صنعتی و پولدار باشیم پس بیایید پیشرفت نکنید و ...
و نتیجه این شد که گفتن اکی خودمون پیشرفت میکنیم اما نمیزاریم کشور های دیگه پیشرفت کنن (جنگ های توی خاورمیانه و ... بقیه داستان هایی که توی دنیا وجود داره)
(اما صرفا یه تئوریه دیگه شاید واقعی باشه و بتونه رفتار های سیاست های کلان کشور های بزرگ رو توضیح بده و شاید هم کلا رو هوا باشه این تئوری)
(اها این داستانی هم که چجوری پیشبینی کردن تو یک نقطه ای دیگه زمین میگه بسه و اون داستان ها شروع میشه؟ بر اساس یک شبیه ساز کامپیوتری به اسم world3 که بر هم کنش ۱:سیستم غذایی ۲: سیستم جمعیت انسان ها ۳:سیستم تولید آلودگی ۴:سیستم مصرف انرژی ها تجدید ناپذیر ۵: سیستم صنعتی شدن جوامع رو مطالعه کرده و سناریو های مختلف رو روی این شبیه ساز پیاده کردن)
(یکی دیگهع از نکته های جالب توجه این کار رو تو ۱۹۷۲(۱۳۵۰) کردن و تو بازه زمانی ایشون تا الان پیشبینی اشون از میزان جمعیت درست بوده و همچنینیه پیبینی برای افزایش میزان مرگ و میر توی ۲۰۱۵ داشته این شبیه ساز که با اختلاف زمانی چند سال هم اون هم درست داره میشه و حالا این نسخه ای که دارم میخونم یه آپدیت ۳۰ ساله اس که تو ۲۰۰۴ دادن روی اون تحقیقشون توی 1972 )
تیکه های مهم بخش ۲
The three causes of overshoot are always the same, at any scale from personal to planetary. First, there is growth, acceleration, rapid change. Second, there is some form of limit or barrier, beyond which the moving system may not safely go. Third, there is a delay or mistake in the percep- tions and the responses that strive to keep the system within its limits. These three are necessary and sufficient to produce an overshoot.
overshoot may be psychological—continuously rising goals for personal consumption
Throughout this text we will grapple with the difficulties of understanding and describing the causes and consequences of a population and economy that have grown past the support capacities of the earth.
بیایید دلیل این که این کتاب رو دارم میخونم بگم
یکی از نظریه هایی که وجود داره این هستش، کشور ها به خصوص کشور های قدرتمند و صنعتی اگه با همین سرعت به پیشرفت کردن و استفاده کردن از منابع زمین و تولید گاز های گلخانه ای ادامه بدن یه جایی توی قرن ۲۱ میرسیم به یک نقطه که مادر طبیعت میگه دیگه بسه و دهن آدم ها رو صاف میکنه (داستان ها کم آبی و گرمایش جهانی و انواع آلودگی ها و کمبود مواد غذایی عادی ای که الان میشناسیم و ... )و این باعث میشه دیگه پیشرفتی صورت نگیره و جمعیت جهان از مریضی و دلایل دیگه شروع کنه به کاهش پیدا کردن
یکی از نتیجه گیری هایی که میشه از این نظریه داشت این هستش:
اگه همه کشور های زمین صنعتی تر و پیشرفته تر بشن زمان رسیدن به اون limit ها یا گنجایش هایی که کره زمین داره کمتر میشه و اوضاع و دوران بدی شروع میشه
و بر اساس این یک تئوری توطئه وجود داره :
کشور های قدرت مند برای این که بتونن توسعه پایدار داشته باشن و با فعالیت هاشون باعث سریع تر رسیدن به اون گنجایش نشن باید فعالیت هاشون رو کاهش بدن و کنترل شده اش بکنن تا به بقیه کشور ها هم فضا رشد و صنعتی شدن رو توی این گنجایش محدود کره زمین داشته باشن.
اما کدوم کشوری این رو قبول میکنه که کمتر پیشرفت کنه تا بقیه کشور های توسعه نیافته پیشرفت کنن؟
و این میشه که کشور های قدرتمند میگن که اکی ما نمیتونیم خودمون از گنجایش های فعلی استفاده نکنیم و پیشرفت نکنیم از طرفی هم نمیتونیم به بقیه بگیم که ببینید زمین نمیکشه همه امون پیشرفت کنیم و صنعتی و پولدار باشیم پس بیایید پیشرفت نکنید و ...
و نتیجه این شد که گفتن اکی خودمون پیشرفت میکنیم اما نمیزاریم کشور های دیگه پیشرفت کنن (جنگ های توی خاورمیانه و ... بقیه داستان هایی که توی دنیا وجود داره)
(اما صرفا یه تئوریه دیگه شاید واقعی باشه و بتونه رفتار های سیاست های کلان کشور های بزرگ رو توضیح بده و شاید هم کلا رو هوا باشه این تئوری)
(اها این داستانی هم که چجوری پیشبینی کردن تو یک نقطه ای دیگه زمین میگه بسه و اون داستان ها شروع میشه؟ بر اساس یک شبیه ساز کامپیوتری به اسم world3 که بر هم کنش ۱:سیستم غذایی ۲: سیستم جمعیت انسان ها ۳:سیستم تولید آلودگی ۴:سیستم مصرف انرژی ها تجدید ناپذیر ۵: سیستم صنعتی شدن جوامع رو مطالعه کرده و سناریو های مختلف رو روی این شبیه ساز پیاده کردن)
(یکی دیگهع از نکته های جالب توجه این کار رو تو ۱۹۷۲(۱۳۵۰) کردن و تو بازه زمانی ایشون تا الان پیشبینی اشون از میزان جمعیت درست بوده و همچنینیه پیبینی برای افزایش میزان مرگ و میر توی ۲۰۱۵ داشته این شبیه ساز که با اختلاف زمانی چند سال هم اون هم درست داره میشه و حالا این نسخه ای که دارم میخونم یه آپدیت ۳۰ ساله اس که تو ۲۰۰۴ دادن روی اون تحقیقشون توی 1972 )
Alireza
https://www.imdb.com/noscript/tt8618654/
Desertification of the soils
بیابان سازی زمین های کشاورزی و روند ضربه زدن کشاورزی صنعتی به سیستم زمین و ....
Poor lands leads to Poor people
Poor people leads to social breakdown
بیابان سازی زمین های کشاورزی و روند ضربه زدن کشاورزی صنعتی به سیستم زمین و ....
Poor lands leads to Poor people
Poor people leads to social breakdown
#research
#Ethereum
implementing python exec command Equivalent in EVM
(ببین آیا معماری EVM جایی تداخل داره با کلیت این داستان و اضافه کردن یه op code برای انجام دادن همچین چیزی یا نه )
اگه همچین چیزی رو بشه پیاده سازی کرد شکل upgradability قرارداد هوشمند ها به کلی عوض میشه ولی خطر هاش بیشتر از منفعتش میتونه باشه. 🤔😂
(exec
تو پایتون یه تابع هستش که یه استرینگ به عنوان ورودی. میگره و اون استرینگ میتونه کد پایتونی باشه یه چیزی مثل عکس و حالا چیزی که تو ذهنم هست داشتن یه opcode معادل توی EVM هستش که خود بایت کد و یا اسمبلی این لاین رو تو فورم استرینگ یه تابع دریافت کنه و بتونه تو کانتکست یه قرارداد اجراش کنه اون تیکه کد رو )
#Ethereum
implementing python exec command Equivalent in EVM
(ببین آیا معماری EVM جایی تداخل داره با کلیت این داستان و اضافه کردن یه op code برای انجام دادن همچین چیزی یا نه )
اگه همچین چیزی رو بشه پیاده سازی کرد شکل upgradability قرارداد هوشمند ها به کلی عوض میشه ولی خطر هاش بیشتر از منفعتش میتونه باشه. 🤔😂
(exec
تو پایتون یه تابع هستش که یه استرینگ به عنوان ورودی. میگره و اون استرینگ میتونه کد پایتونی باشه یه چیزی مثل عکس و حالا چیزی که تو ذهنم هست داشتن یه opcode معادل توی EVM هستش که خود بایت کد و یا اسمبلی این لاین رو تو فورم استرینگ یه تابع دریافت کنه و بتونه تو کانتکست یه قرارداد اجراش کنه اون تیکه کد رو )
Formal Analysis of Composable DeFi Protocols
In the field of DeFi, security audits often involve formal analysis, but usually focusing only on the verification of individual protocols. Yet, the “money-lego” structure of the DeFi ecosystem demands compositional analysis, which allows reasoning about the possible interplay between DeFi protocols and their impact on each other.
Communicating Sequential Process (CSP) [18] is a formal language for describing patterns of interaction for concurrent systems
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.00540.pdf
In the field of DeFi, security audits often involve formal analysis, but usually focusing only on the verification of individual protocols. Yet, the “money-lego” structure of the DeFi ecosystem demands compositional analysis, which allows reasoning about the possible interplay between DeFi protocols and their impact on each other.
Communicating Sequential Process (CSP) [18] is a formal language for describing patterns of interaction for concurrent systems
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.00540.pdf
Analysis of Bitcoin Vulnerability to Bribery Attacks
Launched Through Large Transactions
Suppose that Alice, who controls a minority of the com- putational power in the Bitcoin network, attempts to launch a double-spending attack against a seller whose name is Bob.
First, Alice does a large transaction with Bob.
After the transaction is included in the chain, Alice starts working on a fork by creating a block that does not include that transaction, but keeps this matter private.
Alice needs to create at least one block in her chain before the transaction is confirmed.
This block has some special transactions in which Alice transfers some BTC to new addresses she has created before.
After Alice’s transaction to Bob is confirmed (generally, in 6 blocks time), Bob sends Alice the purchased goods, and Alice releases her block(s) and tries to ”bribe” other miners to mine on her fork.
To do this, Alice discloses the private key(s) (of one or more) of the account(s) that she has transferred the money to in the block(s) she has just created. Rational miners who see the private key(s), may decide to work on Alice’s fork. They will create a new transaction to send the BTCs in the disclosed account to their accounts, and then try to create new blocks on Alice’s block. As soon as a miner finds a solution, Alice confirms it by disclosing the next private key.
If she manages to give sufficient incentives to attract enough mining power to her fork, the second branch will take over the main one and the transaction between Alice and Bob will be undone.
Unless Alice encourages other miners to work on her fork, she cannot hope for her attack to be successful, because she has a small fraction of the network computational power. If mining on Alice’s fork is deemed more profitable by rational miners, they will join Alice’s fork. She needs to keep convincing miners to mine on her fork, while making sure that the attack remains profitable for her at the end.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.07501.pdf
Launched Through Large Transactions
Suppose that Alice, who controls a minority of the com- putational power in the Bitcoin network, attempts to launch a double-spending attack against a seller whose name is Bob.
First, Alice does a large transaction with Bob.
After the transaction is included in the chain, Alice starts working on a fork by creating a block that does not include that transaction, but keeps this matter private.
Alice needs to create at least one block in her chain before the transaction is confirmed.
This block has some special transactions in which Alice transfers some BTC to new addresses she has created before.
After Alice’s transaction to Bob is confirmed (generally, in 6 blocks time), Bob sends Alice the purchased goods, and Alice releases her block(s) and tries to ”bribe” other miners to mine on her fork.
To do this, Alice discloses the private key(s) (of one or more) of the account(s) that she has transferred the money to in the block(s) she has just created. Rational miners who see the private key(s), may decide to work on Alice’s fork. They will create a new transaction to send the BTCs in the disclosed account to their accounts, and then try to create new blocks on Alice’s block. As soon as a miner finds a solution, Alice confirms it by disclosing the next private key.
If she manages to give sufficient incentives to attract enough mining power to her fork, the second branch will take over the main one and the transaction between Alice and Bob will be undone.
Unless Alice encourages other miners to work on her fork, she cannot hope for her attack to be successful, because she has a small fraction of the network computational power. If mining on Alice’s fork is deemed more profitable by rational miners, they will join Alice’s fork. She needs to keep convincing miners to mine on her fork, while making sure that the attack remains profitable for her at the end.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.07501.pdf
Hamid list
Analysis of Bitcoin Vulnerability to Bribery Attacks Launched Through Large Transactions Suppose that Alice, who controls a minority of the com- putational power in the Bitcoin network, attempts to launch a double-spending attack against a seller whose name…
مقاله خوبی بود و نویسنده هاش هم از دانشگاه تهران بودن 👀🧐👌
اما کاش اصلا سعی بر ارائه راه حل نمیکردن😶
اما کاش اصلا سعی بر ارائه راه حل نمیکردن😶
On the other hand, recent developments in distributed ledger technology (DLT) draw together cryptography/computer science, complex systems science, and information systems (IS) to explore “cryptoeconomic systems” (CES) incentivizing human behaviour (Voshmgir and Zargham 2019a).