Open Source Money

Everyone has probably heard about Open Source software, and thinks that they understand how it differs from "regular" software that you buy with your hard-earned money. Many seem to be of opinion that Open Source means that it costs nothing and is worth precisely as much as it costs. Perhaps current economy will open many eyes regarding Open Source software, but let's stop the discussing by mentioning just a few Open Source software projects:

1. Linux Operating System, not only providing a very serious competition to Apple OSX and Microsoft Windows, but perhaps more importantly supplying both Apple and Microsoft with innovative ideas that they can incorporate into their own projects
2. Apache Web Server, responsible for running majority of the world's websites and most frequently running on Linux Operating System
3. Firefox web browser, running in most of the world's computers to access the www content

To reiterate the above points - in one way or another, whether they acknowledge it or not, most of the people currently living in our world and using computers daily are daily users of Open Source software.

But Open Source approach is not limited to only software. From Wikipedia:

The term open source describes practices in production and development that promote access to the end product's source materials.

Apparently anything can qualify as Open Source and there are many examples of Open Source projects available, ranging from the GEK gasifier, a small wood-gas-production system, to Open Cola, a soft drink recipe.

But that is not what I intended to write about here. My intention was to write about a significant sneaky feature of openness whereby potential enemies are turned into collaborators.

Closed Source

In the Closed-Source world, products are developed by a small group of developers and then protected with secrets, patents, or armies. However powerful, the group of developers and the protection schemes can only be limited. Microsoft and Apple are well capitalized to hire plenty of people to develop and protect, but are they well capitalized to pay off all the would-be hackers in the world? Most likely not.

Closed Source model - limited number of insiders (developers, green area) protects against unlimited number of outsiders (attackers, red dots).

And this is where the major weakness of Closed Source lies - it is financially impossible to protect against all potential threats. And this is not some theoretical weakness; it is a mathematical fact. Microsoft can double all its products' prices and double the amount of developers, but will that suffice against potential threats directed against its products from the rest of the world's population, currently numbered at 6.9 billion? Clearly not. 

Open Source

In the Open Source world, everything about the "thing" is open to the world. There are no patent protections, secret formulas, or compiled and unreadable software code. Every aspect is available to everyone in the world, 6.9 billion people, 24/7. Compared to Closed Source, what are the chances that bugs go unseen, only to be discovered by potential attackers? Probably much lower.

Open Source model - everyone, including the potential attackers, gets a chance to contribute.

Would-be hackers in the Closed Source world are very likely regular users of the products in the Open Source world. Instead of amusing themselves by attacking and abusing vulnerabilities, they are more likely to be hard at work in making sure that the Open-Source product can not be attacked by hackers such as themselves. Enemies become friends and collaborators via the open model.

Money
What is money, its role and desirable features, are extensively discussed elsewhere. Here I'd only like to look at money from the Closed Source / Open Source perspective.
Money is an invention that benefits the whole world population by virtue of being the medium of exchange in various transactions between these people. Money functions very much like Mozilla/Apache/Linux software combination providing a very basic service and providing it so well that users don't really need to bother themselves with the fine details.
Because of its scope, Open Source-based ideology seems to be much more applicable to money than Closed-Source-based reality today.
Today, Central Banks, the guardians of money, like to present themselves like small groups of developers trying to maintain a product that is under attack by everything around them.
In reality, it is actually worse than that. Money should function as something that holds equal value in the hands of any person. Whether in the hands of a millionaire banker or a bum, money should have the same purchasing power. That is how it should be.
In reality, via targeted inflation, or in other words via a continuous, purposeful debasement of currencies, money can not function equally in the hands of everyone. By the time it trickles down through the society and reaches the bum, it has lost some of its original value. The bum becomes even poorer simply by being further away from the source of money - the Central Bank.
The conflicts of interest that arise when the universally used commodity (money) is under the control of a very small group of people is enormous and obvious, and this post is not the place to discuss it. Here, I'd only like to make the point that in order to eliminate the basis for such conflicts of interest and their abuses, perhaps the Open Source ideology is the way to go.

Open Source Money
In the Open Source world, if money was a Open Source product, all its users would want it to maintain its value uniformly. No developer responsible for key decisions would want it to have weaknesses that could potentially lower its purchasing power and thus impoverish the developer. No-one would want to leave any back-doors open or bugs not taken care of.
Such money would be inspected by thousands and perhaps millions of eyes and it would be tough for any bugs to go unnoticed. All users would be collaborators intent on making sure their money maintains its value at all times.

Bitcoin
Bitcoin is (to the best of my knowledge) the first attempt to develop Open-Source money. Bitcoin is not functioning under the control of any single person or a group. It's architecture is distributed across many computers in the world, across many countries and jurisdictions. Transactions need to be verified by the network and all communications are encrypted.
Is it THE next major step forward in world economics? Towards solving the problems arising from excess credit bubbles? Perhaps so. But perhaps more work on solutions are needed as recently Bitcoin has experienced its first major problems.
But Bitcoin is definitely a step in the right direction towards protecting personal property against groups of hackers busy targeting inflation at their will.