Literature and Books

Author: supercrew

Ethereum Books and Publishing, Fundraising, and other Applications

What is Ethereum?

Will we ever live in a world where people can publish books on the blockchain? LiteraryBent sure seems to think so! The blockchain technology behind the greatest cryptocurrency in the world (Ethereum) has the ability to publish and log all sorts of books. Ethereum refers to a kind of application that runs the way they are programmed by its servers with no likelihood of fraud, censorship, downtime, or influence by a third party hence it is a platform decentralized to run smart contracts. These apps work as a custom design block chain, on largely and powerfully shared worldwide infrastructure able to change value either to depreciate in and around and it represents the owning of a property. With books, it’s very similar. People can record their book on the blockchain as data. We may even have ethereum wallets with the capability to pull books from the Ethereum blockchain network.

Risks to Ethereum Publishing with a wallet

The application was first launched in 2016 June. The governance of an anonymous investment was noticed to contain a coded path which was sophisticated to the user which made it unexpected and unable to withdraw most of their funds which was in the DAO.

Cryptocurrency like ETH have major risks too.

Cryptocurrency like ETH have major risks too.

Some funds were exploited and embezzled by an undiscovered parties and persons who were able to move it about a 1/3 of the application and as at that time it was sold at $50 million as a copy right of the DAO. A control of “Child DAO” was held by this party only in which the DAO was programmed as a consequence of the action. This relocated funds remained unavailable for about a month for withdrawal. This makes it able for developers to store registries of promises or debts, create markets, transfer funds under instructions given long ago such as a will and many unvented things and yet to be invented without an intermediary or counterparty risk.

Integrating Books with Ethereum Wallets

Proof of Work and Stake Algorithms help to secure Ethereum data on the blockchain for all publishers.

Proof of Work and Stake Algorithms help to secure Ethereum data on the blockchain for all publishers.

The Ethereum Wallet acts as a portal to applications that are decentralized on the block chain of Ethereum. Someone could easily make a decentralized application to retrieve books from publishers through a smart contract. For example, could release apps that allow books to be read from any Ethereum address. It allows one to secure and hold ether as well as the other crypto-assets that are built on the application and allows writing, deploying and using smart contracts. One can create a contract that holds a contributor’s money until reaching the goal or a given date using an Ethereum. The funds will either return back safely to the contributors or released to the project owners depending on the outcome.

This makes it possible for developers to store registries of promises or debts, create markets, transfer funds under instructions given long ago such as a will and many unvented things and yet to be invented without an intermediary or counterparty risk. The Ethereum Wallet acts as a gateway to applications that are decentralized on the Ethereum block chain. Ethereum was developed with contributions from great minds all over the globe hence it’s a Swiss nonprofit organization.

Ethereum and Cryptocurrency

Ethereum tokens can be used to create other programs (smart contracts) on top of the network.

Ethereum tokens can be used to create other programs (smart contracts) on top of the network.

Ethereum allows one to create tokens digitally hence we can use it to represent assets, virtual shares and more. The smart contracts are adaptable with any type of wallet exchanges that use standard coins. One can copy the code and then use your tokens from Ethereum’s website (which is gaining popularity recently) for many intentions, including fundraising, voting forms and also the shares representation. One can either have a fluctuating amount or fixed amount of tokens based on predetermined rules.

Ethereum is not just a digital currency but also a block chain platform based on many aspects. It features the Ethereum Virtual Machine, smart contracts and uses ether which is its currency for peer-to-peer contracts.

The smart contracts in Ethereum uses block chain to store applications for contract facilitation and negotiation. Its benefit is that the block chain contributes a way that is decentralized to enforce and verify them. This aspect makes it extremely difficult for censorship or fraud. Ethereum’s smart contracts target to provide a security greater than traditional contracts and demolish the associated costs.

Fundraising Using Ethereum

Ethereum gives developers a way to raise money for various applications which makes it one of the awesome features of Ethereum. One can seek pledges and set up a contract from the community as a new project. The raised money will be held until an agreed date or until reaching the goal. The money will be refunded to the contributors if the aimed project is not met or transferred to the one raising funds if the project is successful. This kicks out such platforms such as Kickstarter. Kickstarter’s fees include processing fees which can take 10% of a project’s funds.

Ethereum can not only help you provide funding, but also it can help to provide an idea of the organizational structure off the ground. One can collect ideas from the contributors who helped your project and then hold votes on how one can proceed meaning that one can skip the cost of a traditional structure including doing paperwork and hiring managers. Ethereum protects one’s project from influences coming from outside hence you won’t face downtime.

Ethereum vs Bitcoin

There are also differences between ethereum and the bitcoins. Ethereum intends to be 12 seconds average block time while Bitcoin’s is about 10 minutes. Ethereum’s GHOST protocol enables this quick time in which a faster block time means that acceptance is quick.

Another difference between the ethereum and the bitcoins is their supply of monetary. Most available bitcoin has been mined which is approximately two third of all bitcoins while majority the going to early miners. Ethereum capital launch raised with about half of its coins have been mined and a presale by its existence for five years. Ethereum compensates miners according to Ethash which is its proof-of-work algorithm.

Ethash is a hard hashing memory algorithm that gives hope to decentralized mining by individuals, compared to the use of centralized project with Bitcoin. Ethereum and Bitcoin cost their transactions in many different ways. In Ethereum, the costing of transactions relies on their bandwidth usage, complexity and memory needs which is called Gas. In Bitcoin, transactions are limited block sizes and also they compete with each other equally.

Ethereum features anything can be calculated with enough time and enough computing power which means its own Turing complete internal code while bitcoin is not capable. The ethereum complexity also brings security problems hence it contributed to the attack of DAO in June.

Many will compare the ethereum and bitcoins aspect of cryptocurrency while the reality is that the difference in the two projects is vast and have different aims. Bitcoin has emerged as a relatively stable digital currency, while Ethereum intends to encompass a relatively stable digital currency with ether that has smart contract applications components while bitcoin has emerged as just a relatively stable digital currency.


Foreword to “The Isherwood Centrury”

This is the foreword Armistead wrote for The Isherwood Century: Essays on the Life and Work of Christopher Isherwood edited by James J. Berg and Chris Freedman. The best authority on Isherwood was the man himself so if you haven’t read him, do yourself a favor and pick up any one of his novels, autobiographis, diaries. A good first Isherwood is hia 1964 novel, A SINGLE MAN. You’ll be amazed by its timeliness and relevance today. To learn more about him,

Foreword to “The Isherwood Centrury”

By Armistead Maupin

The title of this volume fits its subject to a tee. There was so much about Christopher Isherwood that felt centurial in scope: from his pre-modernist concern for the enjoyment of his readers to his trailblazing commitment to telling the truth, even when it proved unflattering. On a personal level, this union of charm and candor made him a treasure to his friends: a sort of social alchemist whose very presence in a room could bridge the generations. Certainly no other figure in my life made me feel more connected to a past I had never known and a future I had yet to realize. He accomplished this remaining solidly in the present, while never presuming that his celebrated history was a matter of common knowledge. “My friend Wystan was a poet,” he once explained to a friend I brought to his house. And he provided this footnote without a trace of condescension.

Chris’s comfort around people of all ages was gloriously present at a dinner party he and Don Bachardy threw in the early eighties. An unknown friend of a friend of theirs was performing in a jazz club in the San Fernando Valley-a cabaret, if you please-so the couple suggested we retire there for drinks, while warning us that they could promise nothing. The senior member of our gang, Chris, reclined in the back seat of the car, not because he was infirm but because he couldn’t bare to watch Don’s driving, and the couple had settled upon this peculiar method of travel as the best way to avoid conflict. (Chris once explained it to me this way: believe I’m the only person who’s fit to be on the road at all; therefore, I prefer to just miss it when other people drive.”)

We were all rather giggly by then and speculating wildly about our destination, which, to judge from our suburban surroundings, threatened to be relentlessly hetero. To aid in our deliberations Chris would read aloud from the signs that flickered past his limited low-level vantage point. “Midas Muffler,” he would mutter with exaggerated alarm. “That’s very bad news indeed.” But when we finally arrived at the nightclub, tucked primly into a prosaic mini-mall, he read the last sign he saw with a note of unexpected relief in his voice. “Pioneer Chicken,” he crowed. “It is a gay place, after all!”

It wasn’t-in any sense of the word-but we enjoyed ourselves thoroughly. (It helped that the chanteuse was a touchingly plump Valley Girl version of Sally Bowles.) There were six men at the table that night, each representing a different decade of adult gay life, and it was exhilarating to see the journey laid out before me so attractively Chris had his arm around a twenty-eight-year-old, whose nipple he would occasionally tweak in a friendly way, much to the honor of the tweakee. I remember catching Don’s eye and seeing the twinkle there that I would learn to read so much into in the years to come. “Isn’t this wonderful?” he seemed to be saying. “This happy little band of queers in the midst of this ordinariness.” Or maybe that’s just how I felt at that moment: proud and free and blessedly special because of the company I was keeping.

I first met Chris and Don at an Oscar Night party in the home of one of the producers of Saturday Night Fever. (There was, I remember a distinct note of protest in the air, since all those catchy Bee Gees songs had been officially excluded from consideration by the Academy) I established the author’s identity by the piercing blue eyes that had recently mesmerized me on a PBS interview. He was very much in his cups that night, but he was gracious when I expressed my fandom and even more so when I told him I was writing a fictional serial for the San Francisco Chronicle. “Oh, yes,” he said. “That marvelous, funny thing.” At which point I lost all sense of proportion and asked if he might consider reviewing Tales of the City for the Los Angeles Times. Chris countered with an offer to write me a blurb, explaining that he never wrote reviews because they sometimes required one to be critical of other writers. He would rather just celebrate the good, he said. (This policy made so much sense to me that I promptly adopted it as my own–and adhere to it faithfully still.)

Chris’s blurb arrived in a letter that likened me to Dickens and declared-even more shockingly-that he had read Tales three times and would probably read it again before long. Rereading that letter recently, I was struck by his unfailing graciousness to a young writer. He actually apologized for being late with the blurb, explaining that “writing a blurb sometimes comes as hard to me as writing a sonnet — I mean, there’s same necessity to be brief.” The other thing that letter made clear was impoverished state at the time. “I tried phoning you,” Chris wrote, “but the operator told me the number has been disconnected. If there’s another, please let me know” When I was able to thank him in person, Chris deflected my gratitude by citing the generosity that Forster and Maugham had shown him as a young writer. He knew full well what effect this would have–linking a callow newspaper serialist to the noble lineage of English literature–and drew great pleasure from it, I think. And his support didn’t stop there. When I came to L.A. for my very first out-of-town gig there were six people who showed up for my autographing at the Unicorn Bookshop in West Hollywood: three friends from back home, the guy picked up the night before at a sex club called Basic Plumbing, and that famous pair from Adelaide Drive.

In the years that followed I cherished a relationship with Chris and Don–then with Don alone–that continued to illuminate my life in ways both personal and professional. Chris was the first writer to tell me that art and entertainment were not mutually exclusive, that I should never apologize for my impulse to keep readers interested. He was also the first to warn me about literary labeling. “Don’t let them call it a gay book,” he told me emphatically in reference to Tales of the City. “You’re writing for everyone and about everyone.” Though Chris has been understandably embraced by the new queer theorists, the man who popularized the Q-word in public interviews had a horror of being restricted to a sub-genre for his honesty. His aim, it seemed to me, was the aim of a true revolutionary: to change literature from the inside and remain squarely under the nose of what he called “the heterosexual dictatorship.” I can’t help wondering what he would make of the current marketing scheme that keeps gay thought restricted-at least in this country-to a cubbyhole in the back of the bookstore.

Which is not to imply that Chris was in any way cautious about discussing his homosexuality. He spoke out more fearlessly-and more often-than any of his queer contemporaries; certainly more than Truman Capote, who once equated his gayness to his alcoholism, or even Gore Vidal, who wrote brilliantly about our oppression but remained cagey about his own life while he still had a shot at the Senate. Chris was deliciously blunt and remained that way to the end. In 1985, when I talked to him for the Village Voice in what proved to be his last interview, he even offered some blasphemous advice to young men who had been ostracized because of AIDS: “They’re told by their relatives that it’s a sort of punishment, that it’s . . . God’s will and all that kind of thing. And I think they have to get very tough with themselves and really decide which side they’re on. You know, fuck God’s will. God’s will must be circumvented, if that’s what it is.”

There were other lessons I learned from Chris: subtler ones that came from observing a successful gay couple in action. The longevity of his partnership with Don was widely celebrated, but it should be noted that they never used it to feel superior to others or to propagandize for some grim replica of conventional marriage. I well remember Don remarking to the Advocate that his decades with Chris were no more inherently valid than a lifetime of one-night stands. It wasn’t the numbers that counted, he seemed to be saying, but the quality of the love that was shared. And, as Chris’s and Don’s diaries begin to unfurl before the world, it becomes increasingly clear that the couple achieved a fidelity far deeper and more rewarding than simple monogamy could ever be.

The thirty-year difference in their ages lent a Socratic quality to the union that was fascinating to witness. Chris had early on recognized Don’s gift as an artist and supported his education, so that over the years the younger man began to develop an impressive visual counterpoint to his partner’s greatest contribution: a sharp but generous eye on the human condition. They were twin lights, separate but together, each feasting off the other’s talents and perceptions. And anyone who knew them will tell you how eerie and wonderful it was that a kid from the beaches of Southern California came to adopt the stammer of a well-bred Englishman.

Even after years of knowing them, I found it a challenge to guess which of the two was answering the phone at Adelaide Drive. So I had a reference point already when I met a feisty young man in Atlanta who was fifteen years my junior and reportedly sounded exactly like me on the phone. Terry Anderson worked part-time at a book store called Christopher’s Kind and came into my life just as Chris was leaving, so it felt like a pilgrimage of sorts when I took my newfound soul mate to Santa Monica to meet Don. (I remember the guilty thrill I experienced when Don left the room and Terry and I scrambled to take each other’s pictures in the straw chairs that Chris and Don had posed in for David Hockney.) Several years later Don would fall in love with Tim Hilton, a young architect as far from him in age as Don had been from Chris, and they would spend their honeymoon with Terry and me on the isle of Lesbos. Both partnerships would flourish for almost a decade, dissolv-ing-or at least reconfiguring themselves-at roughly the same time. And the wisdom that Don had accrued from both sides of the generation gap once again offered me a source of strength and validation.

When Don visited me in San Francisco last month, I told him it didn’t seem possible that Chris had been gone for nearly fifteen years. He felt the same way, he said, acknowledging the potency of the words and memories that Chris had left behind. But there was something else that induced that feeling of my mentor’s constant presence, something I noticed as we stood on the porch waiting for a cab to arrive. Don bounced on his heels in a way that seemed utterly familiar, and the set of his jaw in profile made me gasp in recognition of the man he was becoming at sixty-five. “Oh, my God, Don,” I murmured, and he read my mind on the spot. “I know,” he said with an impish smile. “And the haircut doesn’t help either.”


San Francisco 29 September 1999