pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2511.03286 · v4 · submitted 2025-11-05 · 💻 cs.DC · cs.MA· cs.SE· cs.SI

Characterising Global Platforms: Centralised, Decentralised, Federated, and Grassroots

Ehud Shapiro This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 01:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC cs.MAcs.SEcs.SI
keywords global platformsessential agentscentraliseddecentralisedfederatedgrassrootsmultiagent transition systemsatomic transactions
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

The cardinality of essential agents partitions all global platforms into centralised, decentralised, federated, and grassroots classes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper proposes modeling global digital platforms as atomic-transactions multiagent transition systems to classify them formally. Essential agents are the minimal sets whose removal makes communication impossible. The paper shows that the size of these sets divides every platform into one of four categories: one essential agent for centralised systems, a finite number greater than one for decentralised, an infinite but incomplete set for federated, and a near-universal set for grassroots. A reader would care because the same model lets platforms achieve identical basic correctness properties while exposing sharp differences in their dependence on particular agents. The framework also embeds earlier definitions of grassroots platforms into this single classification scheme.

Core claim

Modeling platforms via atomic-transactions multiagent transition systems and protocols, the cardinality of essential agents—minimal sets whose removal disconnects communication—partitions global platforms into four classes: centralised (one essential agent), decentralised (finite number greater than one), federated (infinite but not universal), and grassroots (universal except one). For a global social network, the paper supplies formal specifications in each class and proves they satisfy the same correctness properties while exhibiting the expected essential-agent cardinalities. It further shows that both prior definitions of grassroots platforms entail that all agents are essential.

What carries the argument

Essential agents: the minimal sets of agents whose removal makes communication impossible in an atomic-transactions multiagent transition system.

If this is right

  • Any global platform can be specified in the model and classified by counting its essential agents.
  • Centralised, decentralised, federated, and grassroots platforms can all meet the same basic correctness properties for applications such as social networking.
  • Grassroots platforms are those in which nearly every agent belongs to the essential set.
  • The approach supplies a single mathematical procedure for classifying both existing and newly designed global platforms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Designers could target higher essential-agent cardinalities to reduce single points of failure.
  • The same counting method could be applied to other large-scale systems such as distributed ledgers or collaborative AI.
  • Simulation of targeted agent removals in deployed platforms would provide a direct test of the predicted classes.

Load-bearing premise

The atomic-transactions multiagent transition-system model accurately represents the communication structure and failure modes of real global digital platforms.

What would settle it

A real global platform that cannot be expressed as a multiagent atomic-transactions protocol or whose minimal disconnecting agent sets fall outside the four cardinalities would falsify the partition.

read the original abstract

Global digital platforms are software systems designed to serve entire populations, with some already serving billions of people. We propose atomic transactions-based multiagent transition systems and protocols as a formal framework to study them; introduce essential agents -- minimal sets of agents the removal of which makes communication impossible; and show that the cardinality of essential agents partitions all global platforms into four classes: 1. Centralised -- one (the server) 2. Decentralised -- finite $>1$ (bootstrap nodes) 3. Federated -- infinite but not universal (all servers) 4. Grassroots -- universal (all agents but one) Our illustrative formal example is a global social network, for which we provide centralised, decentralised, federated, and grassroots specifications via multiagent atomic transactions, and prove they all satisfy the same basic correctness properties, yet have different sets of essential agents as expected. We discuss informally additional global platforms -- currencies, ``sharing economy'' apps, AI, and more. While this may be the first formal characterisation of centralised, decentralised, and federated global platforms, grassroots platforms have been defined previously, using two incomparable notions. Here, we prove that both definitions imply that all agents are essential, placing grassroots platforms within the broader formal context of all global platforms. This work provides the first mathematical framework for classifying any global platform -- existing or imagined -- by providing a multiagent atomic-transactions specification of it and determining the cardinality of the minimal set of essential agents in the ensuing multiagent protocol. It thus provides a unifying mathematical approach for the study of global digital platforms, perhaps the most important class of computer systems today.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes atomic transactions-based multiagent transition systems as a formal framework for global digital platforms. It introduces essential agents as minimal sets whose removal renders communication impossible and claims that the cardinality of these sets partitions all such platforms into four classes: centralised (one essential agent), decentralised (finite number greater than one), federated (infinite but not universal), and grassroots (universal but one). The paper supplies four distinct multiagent specifications for a single illustrative global social network, proves that all four satisfy identical basic correctness properties, and derives the expected essential-agent cardinalities for each. It further shows that prior definitions of grassroots platforms imply that all agents are essential, thereby embedding them in the new classification.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions and derivations hold, the work supplies the first mathematical framework capable of classifying any global platform—existing or hypothetical—via a multiagent specification and the resulting essential-agent cardinality. Credit is due for the concrete, formally verified specifications of the running social-network example and for the proof that both existing grassroots definitions entail universal essential agents. These elements provide a unifying lens for studying platforms that already serve billions of users.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and illustrative-example section] Abstract and the section presenting the illustrative example: the central claim is that essential-agent cardinality partitions platforms themselves, yet the paper explicitly constructs four admissible atomic-transaction specifications for one and the same global social network, each yielding a different cardinality while preserving the same correctness properties. Because the framework classifies only after a specification is chosen, and because multiple specifications are shown to be admissible for a single platform, an additional argument establishing a canonical specification (or showing that all admissible specifications yield the same cardinality) is required before the partition of platforms follows from the model.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The parenthetical glosses in the abstract (“the server”, “bootstrap nodes”, “all servers”, “all agents but one”) are helpful but should be repeated or cross-referenced when the four classes are first defined formally, to avoid any ambiguity about whether “universal but one” means all agents except a single distinguished agent.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and positive evaluation of the work's significance. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and illustrative-example section] Abstract and the section presenting the illustrative example: the central claim is that essential-agent cardinality partitions platforms themselves, yet the paper explicitly constructs four admissible atomic-transaction specifications for one and the same global social network, each yielding a different cardinality while preserving the same correctness properties. Because the framework classifies only after a specification is chosen, and because multiple specifications are shown to be admissible for a single platform, an additional argument establishing a canonical specification (or showing that all admissible specifications yield the same cardinality) is required before the partition of platforms follows from the model.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to the relationship between a platform and its multiagent specification. The framework classifies a global platform by first selecting a multiagent atomic-transactions specification that models its communication protocol and then computing the cardinality of essential agents in that specification. The illustrative example deliberately shows four admissible specifications for the identical high-level social-network application, each producing the expected cardinality while satisfying the same correctness properties. This demonstrates that the same application can be realized under different architectural choices (central server, bootstrap nodes, federation of servers, or fully peer-to-peer), each corresponding to a different class. The classification therefore applies to the platform as realized by its chosen specification; different specifications reflect genuinely different design decisions about communication dependencies. Consequently, we do not require a canonical specification or invariance across all admissible specifications, because the multiplicity itself illustrates the framework's ability to distinguish architectural variants of the same application. We are prepared to add a clarifying sentence in the abstract and introduction if the editor deems it helpful. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

New definitions and explicit proofs create self-contained classification without reduction to inputs

full rationale

The paper defines atomic-transaction multiagent transition systems, protocols, and essential agents from first principles, then directly defines the four classes by the cardinality of essential-agent sets in any such specification. The illustrative global social network is given four separate specifications, each proven to meet the same correctness properties while exhibiting the expected distinct cardinalities; this demonstrates the framework rather than assuming the result. Prior grassroots definitions are connected via new proofs showing they entail universal essential agents, without the main partition depending on those prior results. No equation, claim, or derivation reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or load-bearing self-citation by construction. The framework is therefore self-contained against its own stated model and proofs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the modeling assumption that atomic-transaction multiagent systems are an adequate abstraction for global-platform communication and on the new definition of essential agents. No numerical free parameters are introduced or fitted. The only invented entity is the essential-agent concept itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Atomic transactions on multiagent transition systems can represent all relevant communication and failure modes of global digital platforms.
    This modeling choice is invoked at the outset to define the framework and the notion of essential agents.
invented entities (1)
  • Essential agents no independent evidence
    purpose: Minimal set of agents whose removal renders communication impossible in the multiagent protocol.
    New definitional construct introduced to induce the four-class partition; no independent empirical test or falsifiable prediction outside the model is supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5840 in / 1438 out tokens · 76368 ms · 2026-05-18T01:39:19.934585+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    OpenBazaar: A peer-to-peer marketplace

    2014. OpenBazaar: A peer-to-peer marketplace. https://openbazaar.org

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Lucia Acciai, Michele Boreale, and Silvano Dal Zilio. 2007. A concurrent calculus with atomic transactions. InEuropean Symposium on Programming. Springer, 48–63

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Stephanos Androutsellis-Theotokis and Diomidis Spinellis. 2004. A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies.Comput. Surveys36, 4 (2004), 335–371

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Dana Angluin. 1980. Local and global properties in networks of processors. Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing(1980), 82–93

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    Maria Apostolaki, Aviv Zohar, and Laurent Vanbever. 2017. Hijacking Bitcoin: Routing Attacks on Cryptocurrencies. InIEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 375–392

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    2004.Distributed computing: fundamentals, simulations, and advanced topics

    Hagit Attiya and Jennifer Welch. 2004.Distributed computing: fundamentals, simulations, and advanced topics. Vol. 19. John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Juan Benet. 2014. Ipfs-content addressed, versioned, p2p file system.arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.3561(2014)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Bernstein, Vassos Hadzilacos, and Nathan Goodman

    Philip A. Bernstein, Vassos Hadzilacos, and Nathan Goodman. 1987.Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley

    work page 1987

  9. [9]

    Bittensor Foundation. 2024. Bittensor: A Decentralized Machine Learning Proto- col. https://bittensor.com

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Alexander Borzunov, Dmitry Baranchuk, Tim Dettmers, Max Ryabinin, Younes Belkada, Artem Chumachenko, Pavel Samygin, and Colin Raffel. 2023. Petals: Collaborative Inference and Fine-tuning of Large Models. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2023). Association for Computational Linguistics, 558–568

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Briar Project. 2018. Briar: Secure messaging, anywhere. https://briarproject.org

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Sonja Buchegger, Doris Schiöberg, Le-Hung Vu, and Anwitaman Datta. 2009. PeerSoN: P2P social networking: early experiences and insights. InProceedings of the Second ACM EuroSys Workshop on Social Network Systems. 46–52

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Vitalik Buterin. 2014. A next-generation smart contract and decentralized appli- cation platform.white paper3, 37 (2014)

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Vitalik Buterin. 2018. Governance, Part 2: Plutocracy Is Still Bad. Available at https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Luca Cardelli, Liav Orgad, Gal Shahaf, Ehud Shapiro, and Nimrod Talmon. 2020. Digital social contracts: A foundation for an egalitarian and just digital society. InCEUR Proceedings of the First International Forum on Digital and Democracy, Vol. 2781. CEUR-WS, 51–60

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Gregory Chockler, Roie Melamed, Yoav Tock, and Roman Vitenberg. 2007. Con- structing scalable overlays for pub-sub with many topics. InProceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing. 109– 118

    work page 2007

  17. [17]

    Gregory Chockler, Roie Melamed, Yoav Tock, and Roman Vitenberg. 2007. Spider- cast: a scalable interest-aware overlay for topic-based pub/sub communication. InProceedings of the 2007 inaugural international conference on Distributed event- based systems. 14–25

    work page 2007

  18. [18]

    Bram Cohen. 2003. Incentives Build Robustness in BitTorrent. InWorkshop on Economics of Peer-to-Peer Systems, Vol. 6. Berkeley, CA, USA, 68–72. 8 Global Platforms

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    Edsko de Vries, Vasileios Koutavas, and Matthew Hennessy. 2010. Communicat- ing transactions. InInternational Conference on Concurrency Theory. Springer, 569–583

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer. 2015. A fast and scalable payment network with bitcoin duplex micropayment channels. InSymposium on Self- Stabilizing Systems. Springer, 3–18

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Discord Inc. 2015. Discord - Chat for Communities and Friends. https://discord. com Voice, video, and text communication platform

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Stefan Dziembowski, Lisa Eckey, Sebastian Faust, and Daniel Malinowski. 2018. General state channel networks. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Confer- ence on Computer and Communications Security. 949–966

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Ian Foster, Carl Kesselman, and Steven Tuecke. 2001. The anatomy of the grid: Enabling scalable virtual organizations.International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications15, 3 (2001), 200–222

    work page 2001

  24. [24]

    Framasoft. 2018. PeerTube: A decentralized video hosting network. https: //joinpeertube.org

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Juan Garay, Aggelos Kiayias, and Nikos Leonardos. 2015. The bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and applications. InAnnual international conference on the theory and applications of cryptographic techniques. Springer, 281–310

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    1993.Transaction Processing: Concepts and Tech- niques

    Jim Gray and Andreas Reuter. 1993.Transaction Processing: Concepts and Tech- niques. Morgan Kaufmann

    work page 1993

  27. [27]

    Dongning Guo and Ling Ren. 2022. Bitcoin’s Latency–Security Analysis Made Simple. InACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies. 100–113

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Ethan Heilman, Alison Kendler, Aviv Zohar, and Sharon Goldberg. 2015. Eclipse Attacks on Bitcoin’s Peer-to-Peer Network. In24th USENIX Security Symposium. 129–144

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Maurice Herlihy. 2018. Atomic cross-chain swaps. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing. 245–254

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Idit Keidar, Andrew Lewis-Pye, and Ehud Shapiro. 2025. Constitutional Consen- sus.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19216(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Eleftherios Kokoris-Kogias, Philipp Jovanovic, Linus Gasser, Nicolas Gailly, Ewa Syta, and Bryan Ford. 2018. Omniledger: A secure, scale-out decentralized ledger via sharding. In2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 583–598

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Andrew Lewis-Pye, Oded Naor, and Ehud Shapiro. 2023. Grassroots Flash: A Payment System for Grassroots Cryptocurrencies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13191 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Shen Li, Yanli Zhao, Rohan Varma, Omkar Salpekar, Pieter Noordhuis, Teng Li, Adam Paszke, Jeff Smith, Brian Vaughan, Pritam Damania, and Soumith Chintala

    work page

  34. [34]

    PyTorch Distributed: Experiences on Accelerating Data Parallel Training

    work page

  35. [35]

    Eng Keong Lua, Jon Crowcroft, Marcelo Pias, Ravi Sharma, and Steven Lim

    work page

  36. [36]

    A survey and comparison of peer-to-peer overlay network schemes.IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials7, 2 (2005), 72–93

    work page 2005

  37. [37]

    Joshua Lund. 2018. Technology Preview: Sealed Sender for Signal. Signal Blog. https://signal.org/blog/sealed-sender/

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    1996.Distributed algorithms

    Nancy A Lynch. 1996.Distributed algorithms. Elsevier

    work page 1996

  39. [39]

    Lynch, Michael Merritt, William Weihl, and Alan Fekete

    Nancy A. Lynch, Michael Merritt, William Weihl, and Alan Fekete. 1988. Atomic Transactions.Morgan Kaufmann(1988)

    work page 1988

  40. [40]

    2019.Matrix Specification

    Matrix.org Foundation. 2019.Matrix Specification. Technical Specification. The Matrix.org Foundation. https://spec.matrix.org Decentralized communication protocol specification

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    Petar Maymounkov and David Mazières. 2002. Kademlia: A Peer-to-peer In- formation System Based on the XOR Metric. InPeer-to-Peer Systems: First International Workshop, IPTPS 2002. Springer, Cambridge, MA, USA, 53–65. doi:10.1007/3-540-45748-8_5

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-45748-8_5 2002

  42. [42]

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep net- works from decentralized data. InArtificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 1273–1282

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Andrew Miller, Iddo Bentov, Surya Bakshi, Ranjit Kumaresan, and Patrick Mc- Corry. 2017. Sprites and state channels: Payment networks that go faster than lightning. InInternational Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Secu- rity. Springer, 508–526

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. (2008). https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

    work page 2008

  45. [45]

    Satoshi Nakamoto and A Bitcoin. 2008. A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Bitcoin.–URL: https://bitcoin. org/bitcoin. pdf4 (2008)

    work page 2008

  46. [46]

    Maxwell Ogden, Karissa McKelvey, and Mathias Buus. 2017. Dat - Distributed Dataset Synchronization And Versioning. https://github.com/datprotocol/docs. White paper, version 2017-01-17

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Rafael Pass, Lior Seeman, and Abhi Shelat. 2017. Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. InAnnual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques. Springer, 643–673

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. 2016. The bitcoin lightning network: Scal- able off-chain instant payments.Draft version 0.5.9.2(2016). https://lightning. network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Project Liberty. 2021. Decentralized Social Networking Protocol (DSNP) Specifi- cation. https://dsnp.org/. Version 1.0

    work page 2021

  50. [50]

    Aravindh Raman, Sagar Joglekar, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Nishanth Sastry, and Gareth Tyson. 2019. Challenges in the decentralised web: The mastodon case. In Proceedings of the internet measurement conference. 217–229

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    2004.RFC 3920: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core

    Peter Saint-Andre. 2004.RFC 3920: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core. Technical Report. IETF

    work page 2004

  52. [52]

    2016.Platform Cooperativism: Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy

    Trebor Scholz. 2016.Platform Cooperativism: Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy. Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, New York

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    David Schwartz, Noah Youngs, and Arthur Britto. 2014. The Ripple protocol consensus algorithm.Ripple Labs White Paper(2014)

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    Ehud Shapiro. 2023. Grassroots Distributed Systems: Concept, Examples, Implementation and Applications (Brief Announcement), In 37th Interna- tional Symposium on Distributed Computing (DISC 2023). (Extended version: arXiv:2301.04391) (Italy).Extended version: arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04391

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Ehud Shapiro. 2023. Grassroots Social Networking: Serverless, Permissionless Protocols for Twitter/LinkedIn/WhatsApp. InOASIS ’23(Rome, Italy). Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3599696.3612898

    work page doi:10.1145/3599696.3612898 2023

  56. [56]

    Ehud Shapiro. 2024. Grassroots Currencies: Foundations for Grassroots Digital Economies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05619(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Ehud Shapiro. 2025. Grassroots Logic Programs: A Secure, Multiagent, Concur- rent, Logic Programming Language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15747(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Ehud Shapiro. 2025. Grassroots platforms with atomic transactions: Social networks, cryptocurrencies, and democratic federations.ICDCN2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11299(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Ehud Shapiro and Nimrod Talmon. 2025. Grassroots Federation: Fair Governance of Large-Scale, Decentralized, Sovereign Digital Communities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02208(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Dominic Tarr, Erick Lavoie, Aljoscha Meyer, and Christian Tschudin. 2019. Se- cure scuttlebutt: An identity-centric protocol for subjective and decentralized applications. InProceedings of the 6th ACM conference on information-centric networking. 1–11

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    2000.Introduction to Distributed Algorithms(2nd ed.)

    Gerard Tel. 2000.Introduction to Distributed Algorithms(2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press

    work page 2000

  62. [62]

    BitTorrent’s cus- tomer is etree. Etree is a loose-knit community of people who distribute live concert recordings online

    TorrentFreak. 2021.BitTorrent Turns 20: The File-Sharing Revolution Revis- ited. https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-turns-20-the-file-sharing-revolution- revisited-210702/ Contains Bram Cohen’s original statement: "BitTorrent’s cus- tomer is etree. Etree is a loose-knit community of people who distribute live concert recordings online"

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Jiaping Wang and Hao Wang. 2019. Monoxide: Scale out blockchains with asynchronous consensus zones. In16th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 19). 95–112

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Shuai Wang, Wenwen Ding, Juanjuan Li, Yong Yuan, Liwei Ouyang, and Fei- Yue Wang. 2019. Decentralized autonomous organizations: Concept, model, and applications. InIEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, Vol. 6. 870–878

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    2001.Transactional Information Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control and Recovery

    Gerhard Weikum and Gottfried Vossen. 2001.Transactional Information Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and the Practice of Concurrency Control and Recovery. Morgan Kaufmann

    work page 2001

  66. [66]

    Gavin Wood. 2014. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    2019.The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power

    Shoshana Zuboff. 2019.The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Public Affairs, US

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    Shoshana Zuboff. 2022. Surveillance capitalism or democracy? The death match of institutional orders and the politics of knowledge in our information civiliza- tion.Organization Theory3, 3 (2022), 26317877221129290. 9

    work page 2022