Mediaboss Marketing

Today, one of the major challenges associated with blockchain is scalability. The ever-increasing demand for blockchain applications has resulted in significant scalability challenges, resulting in transaction latency, making the system slower and less efficient, thereby hindering their widespread adoption and utility.

As blockchain adoption continues to surge, the issue of scalability looms large. Therefore to address these challenges in order to be able to handle a larger number of transactions and have more efficient performance, the blockchain industry has been actively working on solutions to address these blockchain scalability concerns.

In this blog we will delve into the various challenges associated with blockchain scalability problems, and examine the various blockchain scalability solutions, exploring their fundamental concepts, benefits, and real-world implications to address these issues while maintaining the networks security and decentralisation.

What is blockchain scalability?

But first of all, what is blockchain scalability? When discussing scalability in the context of blockchain technology, the term refers to the transaction processing speed. Blockchain scalability has to do with the capacity of a blockchain network to handle a growing volume of transactions, store data and increasing the number of nodes running in the blockchain network efficiently and in a timely manner, without compromising on its core features such as security, decentralization, and consensus. For a blockchain network to meet up to its expectations, it must be able to process loads of transactions per second (TPS). Some factors which can impact blockchain scalability are networking, cost and capacity, finality, throughput, and confirmation time.

Why is scalability in blockchain important?

The importance of scalability cannot be underestimated. Scalability is a critical factor in blockchain networks since the network's size and complexity increase with each transaction added to the blockchain. It is pivotal that blockchain networks are able to process loads of transactions very quickly and effectively to meet the increasing demands.

When a certain network is not capable of handling the transaction demand or requirements, it will result in slow transaction processing times, high fees, and poor user experience. Slow transaction times and high transaction fees may hinder the usability and practicality of blockchain networks, especially for applications that require high transaction volumes, such as decentralized finance (DeFi), supply chain management and others. As a result, scalability is critical for blockchains future growth.

Scalability challenges

Scalability has been identified as the most significant barrier to establishing public blockchains. Blockchain scalability problems basically refer to the challenges in the blockchain network. These challenges include: limited throughput, high fees and long confirmation times.

One of the primary limitations of many popular blockchains is their limited transaction throughput and latency in processing transactions promptly. Scalability issues can arise when a blockchain network is unable to process a sufficient number of transactions when there is a significant increase in the number of transactions, leading to slower confirmation and processing times and higher fees.

Traditional blockchains, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, are facing inherent scalability limitations due to their design choices. These networks typically rely on consensus mechanisms that require every participant to validate and store all transactions. The scalability issue emerges mostly when the number of nodes and transactions increases. While this ensures decentralization and security, it comes at the cost of limited transaction throughput. These blockchains thereby experience congestion, resulting in delays in transaction confirmation and inflated transaction fees.

Bitcoin, is facing scalability issues due to its limited block size, that restricts the number of transactions that can be included in a single block, with block creation time averaging 10 minutes and block size limited to 1 MB. The current capacity of the Bitcoin blockchain can only process around 7 to 10 transactions per second (TPS), far less than traditional payment systems like Visa, which can handle thousands of transactions per second.

The Scalability/Blockchain Trilemma

Blockchain networks face a fundamental challenge known as the scalability or blockchain trilemma. It refers to the idea that it is challenging to simultaneously achieve three key features of a blockchain system: decentralization, security, and scalability, thus requiring trade-offs to improve scalability.

The trilemma suggests that obtaining increased scalability would come at the expense of decreased security and decentralization. At the same time, it is critical to remember that only scalability can enable blockchain networks to compete successfully with traditional, centralized platforms.

This trilemma highlights the need to finding the right balance between these three critical aspects of blockchain technology being essential for blockchain's growth. To address the Blockchain trilemma and other issues mentioned above, researchers and developers are exploring various solutions to increase scalability whereby a perfectly decentralized, secure and scalable blockchain is the ultimate goal. But is it feasible to create Blockchain scaling solutions without compromising security or decentralization? We will show that in the following part.

Solutions to these Scalability Problems

The need for scalable blockchain networks has spurred the exploration and development of numerous solutions and practices to help overcome these scalability challenges including the limitations of transaction throughput and high fees. These solutions aim to increase blockchain networks transaction throughput and capacity while maintaining the security and decentralization that make blockchain technology so valuable.

Scalability advancements are consistently made across the various blockchain networks.Blockchain scaling solutions have been developed in many forms. These can broadly be categorised into four categories including Layer 1 (On-chain) solutions, Layer 2 (Off-chain) solutions, Scalable consensus methods and hybrid solutions.

Each solution category provides distinct strategies for addressing the Blockchains scalability issues. Each approach tackles scalability differently, and their implementation varies depending on the blockchain network's architecture. In addition to these proposed solutions, other blockchain networks are exploring various innovative approaches to address scalability issues.

Layer 1 (on-chain) scalability solutions This is the most common blockchain scalability solution, also known as first-layer or on-chain scaling solutions. It is used to modify the core architecture of the blockchain. Layer 1 solutions aim to address scalability challenges by making optimizing changes to the underlying protocol itself, to increase its transaction throughput. Segregated witness (SEGWIT), sharding and hard forking are three prevalent layer 1 blockchain scaling options.

- Segregated Witness (SegWit) To address these scalability issues, Bitcoin developers proposed a solution called Segregated Witness (SegWit). SegWit, is a protocol upgrade that focuses on changing the way and structure of data storage. The solution is designed to primarily enhance transaction throughput on a blockchain, by changing how data is stored, making blocks on the network smaller resulting in increased capacity and storage space for transactions within Bitcoin's 1MB-storage blocks.

It separates transaction signature data from the transaction data, thereby enhancing scalability making the network more efficient. The removal of the digital signature may free up additional space for the addition of new transactions, allowing more transactions to be processed in each block, thereby improving Bitcoins transaction efficiency and capacity. However, while it enhances throughput and capacity, it isn't a comprehensive long-term solution to blockchain scalability.

- Sharding Another popular on-chain scalability solution is sharding introduced by Ethereum to improve the scalability of its blockchain. It involves the breaking down of the blockchain network into smaller, more manageable data sets known as shards.

By breaking down transactions into smaller pieces, it can act as the sum of its parts, with each shard handling a portion of the groups transaction processing.

Sharding effectively eliminates the need to rely on the performance of individual nodes to achieve quicker and more efficient transaction throughput.

Each shard operates independently, processing its own transactions and smart contracts. Each shard is thereby managed by specific nodes, allowing multiple transactions to occur simultaneously. The network would then execute the shards in parallel with one another

As a result sharding can significantly save both storage space and processing transaction times, thereby increasing the overall transaction throughput and capacity of the overall network. On the other hand it can also presents challenges related to security and communication between shards.

- Hard forks And there is the hard fork, a procedure that focuses on making structural or fundamental changes to a blockchain networks properties. Hard forking may increase the size of the block or reduce the time necessary to create a block.While hard forking is a prerequisite for layer 1 blockchain scalability solutions, a contentious hard fork is the most productive option. This essentially suggests a split in the larger blockchain network, with a certain segment of the community contradicting the core community on specific topics. In such instances, a subset of a blockchain community may elect to make fundamental modifications to the underlying source.

Layer 2 (off-chain) scalability solutions

The viability of first-layer or on-chain scaling methods is heavily dependent on changes to the main blockchain network. There is now a wide variety of Layer-2 or second layer scalability solutions to choose from that have drastically reduced transaction times.

Layer 2 solutions aim to address scalability challenges by building additional layers (supplementary protocols) on top of the existing blockchain network, without making fundamental changes to the underlying protocol. These secondary protocols would be used to offload transactions from the primary blockchain process transactions off-chain and periodically settling them on-chain in order to increase its capacity, which can reduce congestion and increase transaction throughput.

These layers can include state channels or side chains and protocols such as Lightning Network and Plasma, which enables instant and low-cost transactions for users. These solutions have demonstrated significant promise in improving the scalability of blockchain technology, thereby increasing its usability in various industries. Layer-2 solutions have the potential to transform finance, supply chain management, and digital identity verification, among other sectors.

- Sidechains Sidechains are a popular choice among layer 2 solutions for determining how to solve a scalability issue in the Blockchain of your choosing. They are separate chains that are connected to and run in parallel with the main blockchain.

They operate as a transactional chain next to the blockchain in big batch transactions, enabling the processing of transactions off the main chain, in a more efficient way. Sidechains can provide faster transaction confirmations and lower fees, as they are not limited by the transaction throughput of the main chain. This approach reduces network congestion on the mainchain, enhancing scalability.

In comparison to the primary chain, sidechains use distinct consensus techniques and can have different rules and functionalities tailored to specific use cases.

This can increase transaction throughput by offloading certain types of transactions to the sidechain, where faster and cheaper transactions can take place. Once transactions are completed on the sidechain, the final state can be securely settled on the mainchain via a two-way peg mechanism.

Prominent examples include Plasma on Ethereum and Parachain on Polkadot, known for their scalability improvements while maintaining security.

- State Channels State channels are a typical inclusion among layer 2 solutions for blockchain scalability. They allow two-way interactions between blockchain networks and off-chain transaction channels through various approaches. They enable off-chain transactions between users without having to interact with the main blockchain for each transaction. On the other hand, state channels function as resources near to the network that is integrated with the assistance of a smart contract or multi-signature method.

They may conduct numerous off-chain transactions without recording each individual transaction on the main blockchain. They thereby do not need the immediate participation of miners to validate transactions. When a transaction or series of transactions on a state channel is completed, the relevant blockchain records the final state of the channel and any related transactions with the final state on the layer-1 blockchain.

State channels have the potential to significantly improve the capacity and transaction throughout speed of the blockchain network to a great extent. By creating a secure channel, participants can engage in fast and inexpensive transactions. This technique can significantly reduce congestion and minimize transaction fees, making it ideal for high-frequency, low-value transactions, such as microtransactions and gaming applications.

- Nested blockchains At its core, this solution operates as a decentralized network infrastructure that utilizes the main blockchain to establish parameters for a wider interconnected network of secondary chains. It guarantees the execution of transactions across a network of interconnected secondary chains. By allowing transactions to be executed over these secondary chains, nested blockchains can improve scalability without impacting the main blockchains security or decentralisation.

- Payment Channels Payment channels facilitate off-chain transactions between parties, conducted in parallel to the main blockchain. These channels are established, transactions executed, and channels closed with final state recorded on the main blockchain. Payment channels allow for faster, cheaper and more efficient transactions by conducting them off the main blockchain. By establishing a direct payment channel between two parties, transactions can occur rapidly and with minimal fees. Lightning Network (Bitcoin) and Raiden Network (Ethereum) are notable implementations.

One popular Layer 2 solution is the Lightning Network, which is a payment channel network built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. The Lightning Network is an off-chain protocol that enables instant, low-cost transactions by establishing payment channels between users.Transactions can be routed through these channels without requiring confirmation on the main blockchain. They can conduct multiple transactions off-chain, and then settle the final transaction on the main blockchain The Network thereby exploits smart contract functionality through these private, off-chain channels over the main blockchain network.

Layer-2 solutions, such as the Lightning Network, offer promising improvements in transaction speed and cost. By shifting transactions away from the mainchain, the Lightning Network reduces the burden on the mainchain. As the secondary channels can process transactions more quickly than the main blockchain, this can help reduce network congestion and increase transaction speed for Bitcoin transactions. Consequently, users no longer have to pay mining fees or wait for prolonged periods for block confirmation.

Another prominent blockchain Layer 2 scalability solution is Plasma, which is a scaling framework for Ethereum. It primarily focuses on the use of child chains that come from a parent blockchain. Each of the child chains functions as a separate blockchain that operate independently and conduct transactions off the main Ethereum chain.

Plasma may be created for use cases involving processing a certain type of transaction while assuring execution in a comparable environment with enhanced security. Child chains can be used for various applications and smart contracts, and transactions on the child chains can be settled on the main Ethereum chain, enabling higher transaction throughput.

Scalable consensus mechanisms

In addition to Layer 1 and Layer 2 solutions, there are other innovative approaches that seek to address scalability challenges such as scalable consensus mechanisms, to streamline reaching consensus. They are thereby exploring protocol upgrades to improve their scalability. This approach helps streamline consensus so that the algorithms offer excellent throughput and scalability.

Alternative consensus mechanisms include solutions such as such as proof-of-stake (PoS) and delegated proof-of-stake (dPoS). These require significantly less energy than proof-of-work (PoW) and can process transactions more quickly, leading to improved scalability. For example, Ethereum made a transition from a PoW to a PoS consensus mechanism, which has laid to increase its transaction throughput and significantly reduced energy consumption. Other examples of scalable consensus mechanisms include Proof-of-Authority and Byzantine Fault Tolerance.

- Proof of Stake In a bid to address the scalability trilemma associated with blockchains, the Ethereum network has in recent times, embarked on numerous upgrades. They introduced a new consensus mechanism called Proof of Stake (PoS) to enhance scalability without compromising security or decentralisation, while considerably reducing the computational burden required for consensus.

Proof-of-stake (PoS) is a consensus mechanism where miners are replaced with validators, thereby altering the initial block validation tradition. These validators are selected randomly, and they can validate transactions and create blocks without solving complex mathematical problems. By selecting validators based on their stakes in the network, PoS allows for faster transaction processing and reduced energy consumption compared to PoW.

- Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) DPoS, or Delegated Proof-of-Stake, is a consensus technique, where a limited number of trusted nodes are selected to validate transactions and create blocks. In this instance, token holders get to choose validators for network transactions, which can improve transaction throughput compared to traditional PoW or PoS consensus mechanisms.

- Proof of Authority Proof-of-Authority is also a viable option among blockchain scalability solutions. It is a scalable consensus method with a reputation-based consensus algorithm, where only selected nodes have the power to authenticate the transactions on the network with this technique.The chosen nodes are in charge of validating network transactions using the Proof-of-Authority consensus technique.

- Byzantine Fault Tolerance or BFT And there is the Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT). This consensus technique addresses the Byzantine Generals Problem, which is a distributed system characteristic that implies the need for continual consensus despite various antagonistic participants in the network.

Hybrid solutions

There are various blockchain scalability solutions that involve a combination of the above approaches: so-called hybrid solutions. A blockchain might use both sharding and Layer 2 solutions to increase transaction throughput whilst also optimizing its protocol for better performance.

A great example is the Core DAO Network that tackles the scalability problem by leveraging theSatoshi Plus consensusmechanism, which combines the best aspects of Bitcoin's security and immutability (Proof-of-Work) and Ethereum's scalability and efficiency (DPoS).This innovative approach allows the protocol to provide a robust layer one blockchain solution capable of handling a significantly higher transaction volume while maintaining security and decentralization. This provides a promising framework for building scalable dApps and unlocking the true potential of blockchain technology.

Interoperability: Inter-blockchain communication issues

In a landscape with numerous coexisting blockchains, seamless interaction and interoperability is also a great challenge. There are various cross-chain interoperability solutions that aim to connect different blockchain networks, allowing for a seamless exchange of value and data. This may help increase the overall capacity of the blockchain ecosystem by allowing different networks to work together, thereby contributing to the alleviation of scalability concerns.

Protocols like Polkadot, Cosmos, and other interoperable blockchain networks enable seamless integration and communication and the efficient transfer of assets and data across disparate blockchains.This interoperability enhances scalability and opens up a world of possibilities for developers and users to leverage the strengths of multiple blockchains.

Looking ahead

Blockchain scalability is a critical factor that needs to be addressed for blockchain technology to reach its full potential and deliver on its promise of secure, decentralized, and efficient transactions. Balancing scalability, decentralisation and security thereby remains a critical challenge. However these are not insurmountable obstacles.

In the meantime various solutions have been proposed offering a promising path forward to overcome the scalability limitations of layer-1 blockchains.There is however no one-size-fits-all solution to the blockchain scalability problem and none of them are yet perfect and each has its limitations.

Looking ahead, the future of blockchain scalability is promising, with further advancements expected in scalability solutions. As blockchain technology continues to evolve, the balance between security, decentralization, and scalability will continue to be refined, propelling us toward a scalable and decentralized future, thereby driving the mainstream adoption of blockchain across various industries.

For businesses and organizations it is therefore important to stay informed on these developments and be proactive about adapting to the changing landscape of blockchain technology.

See the original post:

Blockchain and the scalability challenge: solving the blockchain ... - Finextra

In the cyclical rhythm of technological innovation, bear markets often appear as challenging interludes. Yet, for those well-versed in the evolutionary journey of the internet, they are not to be feared. Instead, they present a profound opportunity for introspection, refinement and robust growth. The introduction and proliferation of Web3 technology is a testament to this journey, promising to usher in an era of decentralization, self-sovereignty and true digital ownership. But what makes Web3 so resilient amidst the bear markets testing times?

The digital realms evolutionary story begins with Web1, the internets static, read-only version. Here, passive users consumed pre-packaged content without meaningful interaction. Then came Web2, which empowered users to become content creators, igniting the rise of social media, blogging platforms and collaborative wikis. However, as revolutionary as these shifts were, they were but stepping stones to the more transformative Web3.

Web3 doesnt merely offer incremental improvements; it offers a paradigm shift. It emphasizes the decentralization of power and control, enabling genuine digital ownership and fostering an environment where users control their data. While Web2 revolutionized content creation, Web3 promises to redefine content and data ownership in an era of increasing concerns over privacy and autonomy.

While the bear markets shadows might seem long and ominous, history reminds us that its in these very crucibles that genuine innovation takes root. Recall the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s and early 2000s. While many startups with lofty valuations but little substance went bust, the period also gave birth to tech behemoths like Amazon, Apple and Google. These entities didnt just survive the downturn; they thrived, adapted and led the next wave of digital innovation.

Similarly, todays bear market in the crypto realm serves a dual purpose:

Despite the ebb and flow of market sentiments, the core promise of Web3 remains unyielding. Several factors underscore this resilience:

Projects that persevere through the bear market are typically those that are more than just technology-driven; they are mission-driven. And the mission? To redefine the internets foundational principles for a more inclusive, transparent and equitable digital future.

Furthermore, as the broader public becomes progressively enlightened about Web3s offerings, its adoption will likely surge. Beyond the financial realm, decentralized solutions are making inroads into supply chains, healthcare, entertainment and more. Each application further solidifies the importance and inevitability of the Web3 movement.

In understanding the Web3 revolution, its essential to recognize that we stand at the convergence of technological prowess and a societal shift towards decentralization. This movement is much bigger than transient market sentiments.

In the bear markets quiet, there is ample room for ideation, innovation and the laying of a foundation that will not just withstand, but thrive, in the subsequent bull market. For those navigating these tumultuous waters, its crucial to remember that this is but a phase, a rite of passage.

Web3 is more than an evolutionary step; its a transformative leap. As we collectively build this new internet layer, were not just shaping technology; were molding the future. Embrace the vision, stay the course and gear up for the luminous horizon that inevitably follows this temporal dusk.

Tomer Warschauer Nuni is CBDO @Pink Moon Studios, a serial entrepreneur, advisor and angel investor focused on Blockchain & Web3.

This article was published through Cointelegraph Innovation Circle, a vetted organization of senior executives and experts in the blockchain technology industry who are building the future through the power of connections, collaboration and thought leadership. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Cointelegraph.

Link:

Web3's resilience amidst the bear market: A promising horizon awaits - Cointelegraph

I was four years old when my father took me to the theater to see Star Wars.

From that moment, until that calamitous day in 1999 when The Phantom Menace debuted, the Star Wars trilogy was everything storytelling should be.

In the past few decades, stories like the ones I grew up loving have been in short supply, leaving me to ask:

And, of course

Hollywood in Toto helped to introduce me to The Critical Drinker. It was the Drinker who reverse-engineered the cultural and political rules that govern modern storytelling and why those rules result in terrible movies.

After watching a few dozen Drinker videos, I was convinced that I could create an epic adventure better than anything Hollywood is churning out these days: one that ignores the rules supposedly demanded by modern audiences and the mobs of fanatics on social media.

Further, I was determined to create something special for a very ordinary reason: I wanted to impress a girl. My creation had to be good because the girl I needed to impress is a very special one: my wife of 25 years.

That leads me to my concept

Imagine a computer algorithm that can know your hopes, dreams and deepest desires better than even your friends and family do. It can use that knowledge to persuade you to do whatever its owner wants you to do.

The possibility that such a technology could one day exist seemed terrifyingly plausible, given that tech giants sit atop enormous mountains of data about every one of us. Further, with all of the devices in our midst, they can spy on us and communicate with us in a multitude of ways.

Having learned something about the psychology of influence, I found it easy to think of persuasion as a rule-bound endeavor, much like the game of chess or the Japanese game called Go. Long before the world stood in amazement at the capabilities of ChatGPT, I had become deeply unsettled by the abilities of an AI program called AlphaZero that had revolutionized both chess and Go (mastery of Go had eluded computer science far longer than chess).

What if AI could master persuasion the way it has mastered these games? What use would it be put to? The first use seemed obvious. It would be used for the same purpose as any new technology: to get girls. But what then? The results amazed and terrified me.

I began to imagine a tech billionaire who owns an algorithm that can persuade and manipulate people more effectively than any human being can. Algorithm in hand, Neville first uses his program to seduce Meghan Peters, a Hollywood starlet whom he could never attract on his own.

Nevilles problem is that he owes the Chinese a lot of money. They come to him with their concerns that his program, while effective, is not perfect. Theyre tired of having to imprison dissidents for political crimes. It reflects badly on China on the world stage. They threaten to collect on their debts and ruin Neville if he doesnt perfect his program.

Neville is unable to meet their demand. The sheer complexity of the world makes the task of perfecting the program as he originally conceived it impossible. He and his team find a clever but terrifying workaround, one that solves the problem in the most horrifying way imaginable. His new weapon of persuasion interests both Chinese and American politicians.

To make Nevilles evil plan terrifyingly plausible, I had to take the reader through it one devious step at a time. If the reader doesnt see whats coming, it has grown organically out of the story. But if the reader begins to sense whats coming, the eventual payoff is even more terrifying.

To accomplish that, I realized I would have to out-Crichton Michael Crichton by filling my budding techno-thriller with lots of real-world techno: physics, mathematics, complex systems, psychology, computer science, and network science.

Additionally, having spent the past decade on a program of self-education, I was also able to fill the work with law, art, history, opera, and political intrigue, all of it working to enhance the plot and deepen the characters.

What kind of heroes could overcome the plans of an AI-backed genius whose work is by nature secret?

Realistic but positive and inspiring, I designed a cast of the most American of heroes: ordinary and imperfect characters of every background who have, (in varying degrees) some of the four cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.

Not knowing exactly what theyre up against, they all get in over their heads and they have to find their way out. Only one of my male characters is an incompetent laughingstock. Without having to cater to modern audiences I was able to build female characters who are genuinely strong rather than the strong female character we see so much on screen.

The men in Kingmaker are the kind you would recognize from your everyday life rather than the hyperactive hyper-emotional hyper-talkative children forced into mens bodies that todays insecure, effeminate, emotionally fragile Hollywood screenwriters imagine men to be.

The heroes in Kingmaker arent trying to establish some unreachable Utopia. They dont strive to be empowered because the desire to control the lives of others hardly seems like a noble calling fit for a hero.

Instead, theyre concerned with the same things we all are concerned with: finding work, finding love, finding meaning, finding forgiveness, exposing injustice. The obstacles they face are the same obstacles we all face: constant lying from our betters, utopian educators alienating our children with indoctrination, and the sheer amount of effort it takes to truly grow and achieve anything worthwhile.

In their pursuit, they show us all what we can become with courage, conviction, humility, and effort. In their quest, they uphold the best of our nations legacy and urge us to defend it from those who would tear it down.

As a writer, I wanted to experience the world from a multitude of perspectives by creating characters who are different from me. Some of my heroes are different from me in the trivial dimension of race. But theyre also different on the more important dimensions of experience, profession, and worldview.

For instance, although Im an orthodox Jew, one of my heroes is a Catholic priest.

After reading about Chinese spy Christine Fang who seduced Congressman Eric Swalwell and other American politicians, I just had to have a honeypot spy of my own to spice up the plot. The result was Mei Hua Chang, a dangerous wild card in the plot of Kingmaker. Shes a femme fatale whose sex appeal is only exceeded by her cunning.

To execute her character properly, I could only get her clothes off but once. In all of her other interactions, shes required to play the cards shes dealt to perfection. I always relished the challenge of writing her scenes.

WWCDD: What Would Critical Drinker Do?

By the time I finished planning the novel out, I had something like five plots going simultaneously. It reminded me of the HBO series Game of Thrones (but unlike George RR Martin, I actually finished writing the book, and unlike the HBO series, I provided an ending that works).

In order to tame all those plots into a coherent whole, I made a careful study of my characters, their backgrounds and their emotions. I attended to the practicalities of what my characters were attempting to do.

Inspired by Critical Drinker, I made a careful study of setup and payoff. Every plot point either had to set up an important payoff later or be the payoff of an earlier setup. (My daughter Leah nicknamed the book Chekhovs Arsenal.) That one Critical Drinker video became the inspiration for an entire method of writing that guided the whole process.

A writer could do much worse than to ask himself, What would the Drinker do?

Critical Drinker observes that modern screenwriters, bent on replacing legacy characters with their mediocre creations, seem to hate their fans. I was raised in a different generation. I drew on the teaching of Dale Carnegie.

He said of the great American magician Howard Thurston, that he would remind himself before every performance how much he loved his audience. I did something very similar before sitting down to write. That was easy because I was writing to impress the love of my life.

More than that. I began sending pieces of Kingmaker to my friend Martin. He devoured them and asked for more. Energized by his encouragement, I was able to keep on writing even when the going got difficult.

Critical Drinker once commented: One of the most disgusting hallmarks of modern screenwriting is the denigration of the past in a desperate attempt to elevate the present. The bastardization of other peoples work to service your own.

Kingmaker skewers all of those who would deconstruct the arts, architecture, and legacy popular culture IPs, revealing them to be dangerous, power-hungry operatives. It does so in ways that spring organically from and contribute to the plot.

For instance, when it dawns on my two main heroes that their favorite comic book movie series has lost interest in telling the great stories they once told, that realization dawns on each of them at different times. That difference moves the plot forward.

While Critical Drinker takes to task what the custodians of popular culture have done to the IPs they have been entrusted with, others have pointed out that the same thing is happening to high culture as well. Kingmaker addresses that and imagines what the next step will be for the arts if those who would deconstruct them get their way.

If a technology like Nevilles existed, which political party would be the one to use it?

The answer is obvious: either of them. Any political party can have ruthless operatives, opportunists, and time-serving apparatchiks. It should be obvious to every American that one party isnt the domain of well-meaning idealists while the other is the one for evil wannabe tyrants. If Machiavelli has taught us anything hes taught us that the public would never know which leader is virtuous and which one is simply an effective Machiavellian. Party affiliation cant help the public tell the good politicians from the bad.

While Kingmaker addresses issues such as lawfare and election integrity, which is currently associated with the political right, that issue is genuinely critical to all Americans. Governments that are secure enough in their power that they dont have to answer to the people have done some tremendously depraved things to keep and increase that power.

In those one-party states such as Saddams Iraq, it was extremely dangerous to be a member of the Baath party.

When offered Nevilles tool to increase their power, the villains in Kingmaker do not hesitate to add members of their own party to the proscription list.

In any political system, the strategy for getting and keeping power is the same: reward the people who keep you in power and punish those who oppose you. That goes for a dictator who depends on a small number of people to keep him in power and a Republic that (hopefully) governs with the consent of the people at large. The evil Party operatives in Kingmaker are not evil because of which party they choose. Theyre evil because as Machiavelli and Game Theory teach us, good politics frequently requires evil behavior.

Unlike modern moviemakers, I dont dictate my answers to complex questions to my readers. In fact, I have no idea how to answer many of the thorny questions posed by Kingmaker. For instance, what is consent in an age of powerful persuasion?

How do we make it so that the government truly can be said to have the consent of the governed? Did Meghan Peters genuinely consent to Jerry Nevilles advances after she had been seduced by his computer algorithm? I invite the reader to think through questions like these about the topic of consent with me. I dont attempt to answer them, even in a book entitled Consent.

One reason I dont attempt an answer is an important truth that Jerry Neville knows about the human mind: our brains are not sophisticated enough to genuinely understand a board game any more complicated than checkers. Equipped with that kind of brain, I realize that were going to have to grope our way through these issues and learn from experience rather than trusting some smarty-pants who says hes figured it all out for us.

I didnt want anything about Kingmaker to be dictated to me by a publishing industry that is busy editing out the offensive bits of James and the Giant Peach. Instead, I followed my vision.

Paul Joseph Watson has famously argued that populism is the new punk. Every step of this project has been influenced by the 1970s punk ethos of DIY or Die. I immersed myself in the nitty-gritty of every stage of this production: background learning, writing, editing, formatting, and the recording and editing of the audiobook.

The only thing I didnt do was design the cover. That was left to my friend Richard Smotherman. The result was a product I was so confident about that I put Consent, the first volume of Kingmaker on YouTube for free.

Facing down the impossible odds

If the culture war against those trying to destroy our heritage is to be won, we have to become creators. Its a risky business. The odds against hitting it big are long. The thought of daring greatly and having the world reject your work is not one that everybody can bear. Still, it must be done.

Simply finishing Kingmaker has been a reward unto itself. For the past two years, I have gotten to experience the greatest drama I will ever encounter. I started with a simple premise and thought as deeply as I could about what I had created.

Thinking deeply about simple things leads to wonderful discoveries. I was constantly delighted and surprised by what my characters did and the way the plot twisted and turned as I tried to wrestle five stories into a coherent whole. All the while, the project was spiced by the persistent question I asked of myself: Can you do this?

For two years, I willed that answer to be yes. No matter what, for the rest of my life, I will be able to say that I stared down those impossible odds and kept going when I thought I couldnt. In the process, I created something wonderful.

I hope you will take that risk and join me in creating culture. Our nation needs it. You might even impress your wife.

Attorney and polymath Ari H. Mendelson is the author of the Kingmaker trilogy. His previous novel was Bias Incident: The Worlds Most Politically Incorrect Novel. Before beginning the Kingmaker Trilogy, Mendelson dedicated himself to home schooling his four children. You can find his books at Amazon.com and GoodReads. Follow him on Twitter (X) via @kingmakerseries.

Go here to see the original:
Creating New Stories That Don't Suck - Hollywood in Toto

In the near future, AI agents like Pixie from GPTConsole, Codeinterpreters from OpenAI, and many others are poised to revolutionize the software development landscape. They promise to supercharge mundane coding tasks and even autonomously build full-fledged software frameworks. However, their advanced capabilities bring into question the future role and relevance of human developers.

As these AI agents continue to proliferate, their efficiency and speed could potentially diminish the unique value human developers bring to the table. The rapid rise of AI in coding could alter not just the day-to-day tasks of developers but also have long-term implications for job markets and educational systems that prepare individuals for tech roles. Nick Bostrom raises two key challenges with AI.

The first, called the Orthogonality Thesis, suggests that an AI can be very smart but not necessarily share human goals. The second, known as the Value Loading Problem, highlights how difficult it is to teach an AI to have human values. Both these ideas feed into a more significant issue, the Problem of Control, which concerns the challenges of keeping these increasingly smart AIs under human control.

If not properly guided, these AI agents could operate in ways that are misaligned with human objectives or ethics. These concerns magnify the existing difficulties in effectively directing such powerful entities.

Despite these challenges, the incessant launch of new AI agents offers an unexpected silver lining. Human software developers now face a compelling need to elevate their skillsets and innovate like never before. In a world where AI agents are rolled out by the thousands daily, the emphasis on humans shifts towards attributes that AI cant replicatesuch as creative problem-solving, ethical considerations, and a nuanced understanding of human needs.

Rather than viewing the rise of AI as a threat, this could be a seminal moment for human ingenuity to flourish. By focusing on our unique human strengths, we might not just coexist with AI but synergistically collaborate to create a future that amplifies the best of both worlds. This sense of urgency is heightened by the exponential growth in technology, captured by Ray Kurzweils Law of Accelerating Returns.

The Law of Accelerating Returns by Ray Kurzweil intensifies the urgency, indicating that AI advancements will not only continue but accelerate, drastically shortening our time to adapt and innovate. The idea is simple: advancements arent linear, but accelerate over time.

For instance, simple life forms took billions of years to evolve into complex ones, but only a fraction of that time to go from complex forms to humanoids. This principle extends to cultural and technological changes, like the speed at which we moved from mainframe computers to smartphones. Such rapid progress reduces our time to adapt, echoing human developers need to innovate and adapt swiftly. The accelerating pace not only adds weight to the importance of focusing on our irreplaceable human attributes but also amplifies the urgency of preparing for a future dominated by intelligent machines.

The Law of Accelerating Returns not only predicts rapid advancements in AI capabilities, but also suggests a future where AI becomes an integral part of scientific discovery and artistic creation. Imagine an AI agent that could autonomously design new algorithms, test them, and even patent them before a human developer could conceptualize the idea. Or an AI that could write complex music compositions or groundbreaking literature, challenging the very essence of human creativity.

This leap could redefine the human-AI relationship. Humans might transition from being creators to curators, focusing on guiding AI-generated ideas and innovations through an ethical and societal lens. Our role may shift towards ensuring that AI-derived innovations are beneficial and safe, heightening the importance of ethical decision-making and oversight skills.

Yet, theres also the concept of singularity, where AIs abilities surpass human intelligence to an extent where it becomes unfathomable to us. If this occurs, our focus will pivot from leveraging AI as a tool to preparing for an existence where humans are not the most intelligent beings. This phase, while theoretical, imposes urgency on humanity to establish an ethical framework that ensures AIs goals are aligned with ours before they become too advanced to control.

This potential shift in the dynamics of intelligence adds another layer of complexity to the issue. It underlines the necessity for human adaptability and foresight, especially when the timeline for such dramatic changes remains uncertain.

So, we face a paradox: AIs rapid advancement could either become humanitys greatest ally in achieving unimaginable progress or its biggest existential challenge. The key is in how we, as a species, prepare for and navigate this rapidly approaching future.

Featured Image Credit: Provided by the Author; Pexels; Thank you!

I'm an AI engineer and the founder of a pioneering startup in the AI agent development space. My critical approach to analyzing the impact of AI on human developers has been deeply influenced by key works in the field. My reading list spans from Nick Bostrom's "Superintelligence" to "The Age of Em" by Robin Hanson. Through my writings, I aim to explore not just the capabilities of AI, but also the ethical and practical implications it brings to the world of software development.

Original post:
AI Agents: Adapting to the Future of Software Development - ReadWrite

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether Florida and Texas may prohibit large social media companies from removing posts based on the views they express, setting the stage for a major ruling on how the First Amendment applies to powerful tech platforms.

The laws supporters argue that the measures are needed to combat what they called Silicon Valley censorship, saying large platforms had removed posts expressing conservative views on issues like the coronavirus pandemic and claims of election fraud. In particular, they objected to the decisions of some platforms to bar President Donald J. Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Two trade groups, NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, had challenged the laws, saying the First Amendment prevents the government from telling private companies whether and how to disseminate speech.

The courts decision to hear the cases was unsurprising. In each case, both sides had urged the justices to do so, citing a clear conflict between two federal appeals courts. One ruled against the Florida law, the other in favor of the one in Texas.

The approaches of the two states were similar but not identical, Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote in a decision upholding the Texas law. To generalize just a bit, the Florida law prohibits all censorship of some speakers, while the Texas law prohibits some censorship of all speakers when based on the views they express.

In a statement issued when he signed the Florida bill, Gov. Ron DeSantis, now a Republican presidential candidate, said the point of the law was to promote conservative viewpoints. If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable, he said.

The Texas law applies to social media platforms with more than 50 million active monthly users, including Facebook, YouTube and X, the site formerly known as Twitter. It does not appear to reach smaller platforms that appeal to conservatives, and it does not cover sites that are devoted to news, sports, entertainment and other information that their users do not primarily generate.

The sites in question are largely barred from removing posts based on the viewpoints they express, with exceptions for the sexual exploitation of children, incitement of criminal activity and some threats of violence.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, last year largely upheld a preliminary injunction against Floridas law.

Social media platforms exercise editorial judgment that is inherently expressive, Judge Kevin C. Newsom wrote for the panel. When platforms choose to remove users or posts, deprioritize content in viewers feeds or search results or sanction breaches of their community standards, they engage in First Amendment-protected activity.

A few months later, a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, reversed a lower courts order blocking the Texas law.

Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say, Judge Oldham wrote.

He added: The platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech.

The Supreme Court had already had an encounter with the Texas case, temporarily blocking its law last year while an appeal moved forward. The vote was 5 to 4, with an unusual coalition in dissent.

The courts three most conservative members Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch filed an opinion saying they would have left the law in place and that the issues were so novel and significant that the Supreme Court would have to consider them at some point.

Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news, Justice Alito wrote in the dissent. At issue is a groundbreaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.

Justice Alito added that he was skeptical of the argument that the social media companies have editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment like that enjoyed by newspapers and other traditional publishers.

It is not at all obvious, he wrote, how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.

Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, voted with the dissenters but did not adopt their reasoning or give reasons of her own.

The First Amendment generally prohibits government restrictions on speech based on content and viewpoint but allows private companies to say and convey what they wish.

In a recent Supreme Court brief, lawyers for Texas said the challenged law does not affect the platforms free speech rights because no reasonable viewer could possibly attribute what a user says to the platforms themselves. The brief added: Given the platforms virtually unlimited capacity to carry content, requiring them to provide users equal access regardless of viewpoint will do nothing to crowd out the platforms own speech.

In an earlier brief, the states lawyers wrote that the platforms are the 21st century descendants of telegraph and telephone companies: that is, traditional common carriers. That means, they wrote, that the companies must generally accept all customers.

The Biden administration filed a brief in August urging the justices to hear the cases Moody v. NetChoice, No. 22-277, and NetChoice v. Paxton, No. 22-555 and to rule in the companies favor.

When a social-media platform selects, edits and arranges third-party speech for presentation to the public, it engages in activity protected by the First Amendment, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote for the administration, adding that the act of culling and curating the content that users see is inherently expressive, even if the speech that is collected is almost wholly provided by users.

More here:
Supreme Court to Hear Challenges to State Laws on Social Media - The New York Times