The first step could involve facilitating selling braincycles to the cloud, akin to selling generated electricity back to the grid (SETI@home for your brain).
Blockchains could securely track and remunerate these contributed cycles.
Once the idea of crowdsharing one’s mind into cloud computation is understood and securely implemented, cloudmind participations could be expanded.
The next level of applications could include data analysis, problem solving, creative expression, and idea generation.
Blockchains could track line-item contributions in cloudmind collaborations, acknowledging and rewarding new ideas in a trustable annuity stream, in a ledger that is open for scrutiny, but inconspicuous, not detracting from the idea generation process itself.
Assured that that the administrative details of credit assignment and remuneration are being handled competently and fairly in the background, participants could have more ease in directing energy and focus toward the projects at hand.
Blockchains might be helpful not just in overall administration and line-item credit tracking, but also in the ongoing safety and security monitoring of cloudminds.
Blockchains could implement, monitor, and enforce relevant safety measures such as anti-viral provisions (to prevent mind hacking) and anti-crowdmind provisions (to prevent not being able to leave a crowdmind voluntarily).
There could be limits on the amount of time spent in cloudminds. Feature norms for responsible cloudmind technology could include roll-back to any previous version (standard Wiki functionality), and always being able to reinstantiate an original non-networked digital copy of “you.”
Therefore the design task for setting up cloudmind computing networks could be framed as contributing user-controlled resources into the computational infrastructure.
Each human participant might want to maintain his or her own agency at every step, contributing cognitive compute-time as an asset to cloudminds.
Human societies have given much thought to the issues of owning and accessing assets, but partially collaborating them into a bigger entity involving our own cognitive resources is a frontier.
Beyond sharing SETI@home-type mindcycle processing, blockchains could function as a trustable checks-and-balances system for administering BCI cloudminds more generally.
In the application of group IP-generation, “ideachains” could track individual contributions.
Further, blockchain-based smart contracts could be employed as independent advocates to monitor cloudmind activity.
A digital safeguard norm could be launching a smart-contract DAO, essentially a network security agent, automatically with the launch of any cloudmind.
The DAC could serve as a third-party advocate to monitor cloudmind activity, for example running exploitation checks for security breaches.
More sophisticated “identity sanctity anti-viral checks” could canvas brain patterns for warning signals of cult-like or prisoner-like behavior, neurodegeneration, and other situations of compromised cognitive liberty.