A benefit society, fraternal benefit society or fraternal benefit order is a society, an organization or a voluntary association formed to provide mutual aid, benefit, for instance insurance for relief from sundry difficulties.
The exchange is maturing nicely and will continue to improve.
This idea is unique and has no competition. It could drive a lot to bts.
(http://img.tgcom24.mediaset.it/binary/dal-web/74.$plit/C_4_articolo_2013834_upiImagepp.jpg)
Civil disobedience to protest injustice is something many people understand.
Start with a narrow cause that many people agree on and insure mutual aid for that.
After establishing a heroic global reputation, then branch out to more controversial causes.
Now, what exactly would that cause be?
(http://img.tgcom24.mediaset.it/binary/dal-web/74.$plit/C_4_articolo_2013834_upiImagepp.jpg)
Civil disobedience to protest injustice is something many people understand.
Start with a narrow cause that many people agree on and insure mutual aid for that.
After establishing a heroic global reputation, then branch out to more controversial causes.
Now, what exactly would that cause be?
Socialism?
Lol. I was just looking at the picture of Mandela Ghandi and king, and trying to figure out what they have in common. I came up with socialism. I could also say opposition to empires.
Ultimately I was jokingly attempting to say, I have no idea what that cause would be.
I don't know enough about Gandhi and his economic beliefs to be sure.
King was ... economically ...about as far away from freedom as you can get.
Their pictures came up when I googled "civil disobedience"
How about putting a toggle button in the wallet and if someone turns it to "on", you capture some of their fees or have them pay a one-time donation?I don't know enough about Gandhi and his economic beliefs to be sure.
King was ... economically ...about as far away from freedom as you can get.
It's possible to have tremendous respect for what these leaders stood up for nonviolently without necessarily agreeing with their economic beliefs. The contexts in which they lived, and the things their people needed badly, are not necessarily the same as the problems that you and I face. Also, I have never been comfortable taking someone who is an expert in one field and automatically assuming that that expertise should extend to other fields. If someone is a great neurosurgeon or casino mogul, how do we know that person's greatness would translate into being a great president or a great cookbook author? And there are rare people who are true Renaissance folks and have diverse skills and interests; I'm not precluding that. Evaluate King and Gandhi based on what they achieved. The fact that their economic beliefs were partially formed (they probably had their hands full with other things) or different from yours, etc., really shouldn't matter because they were not economists to begin with.
All that was an element of progress in the past or an instrument of moral and intellectual improvement of the human race is due to the practice of mutual aid, to the customs that recognized the equality of men and brought them to ally, to unite, to associate for the purpose of producing and consuming, to unite for purpose of defence to federate and to recognize no other judges in fighting out their differences than the arbitrators they took from their own midst.
Each time these institutions, issued from popular genius, when it had reconquered its liberty for a moment, — each time these institutions developed in a new direction, the moral level of society, its material well-being, its liberty, its intellectual progress, and the affirmation of individual originality made a step in advance. And, on the contrary, each time that in the course of history, whether following upon a foreign conquest, or whether by developing authoritarian prejudices men become more and more divided into governors and governed, exploiters and exploited, the moral level fell, the well-being of the masses decreased in order to insure riches to a few, and the spirit of the age declined.
I like the idea!QuoteA benefit society, fraternal benefit society or fraternal benefit order is a society, an organization or a voluntary association formed to provide mutual aid, benefit, for instance insurance for relief from sundry difficulties.
A blockchain cannot provide insurance as it is traditionally known, but could easily create a community of individuals who help one another when they face difficulties. These difficulties can be a wide range of things.
We live in a society where most good people standby and do nothing to help those who are the victim of state violence. This includes those who are punished for victimless crimes or laws that violate the constitution or other basic human rights. Few people are willing to stand up to the government because the costs are very high on an individual. If we could only stand together then we would all be protected and regain our freedom.
Typically the way this would work is this, each month members contribute funds to an individualized account that can only be used to reimburse authorized claims by other members. Each member would be allowed to make a claim for at most a multiple of funds contributed derived from the ratio of claims paid out.
The process of making a claim involves making a public request for help and getting the request for help certified by an oracle trusted to verify the facts of the claim. Once the facts are certified other individuals may review the claim and "donate" up to $100 from their locked up funds to cover the claim.
Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.
I would start this system for five classes of users:
1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.
5. Those who have their assets seized
In all cases we presume innocence and believe that the accused deserve a fair defense.
This is a unique product that could easily be codified in smart contracts and provide real world utility that does not exist elsewhere.
This is also a controversial product that would generate a lot of media attention and attract people who might not otherwise care about crypto currency.
So the question is, how much would you contribute each month to join a community of people united in defense against government attacks on peaceful individuals?
If all funds / accounting were done using BTS then the amount you can get paid out will dramatically increase as adoption grows. The locked up funds would take BTS out of circulation until a claim was made. It could get very interesting very quickly.
Thoughts?
derived from the ratio of claims paid out.I don't understand this bit. Can you explain that?
Once the facts are certified other individuals may review the claim and "donate" up to $100 from their locked up funds to cover the claim.Would that system have the overall cost that indidivuals have to pay attention to the claims of other individuals? It's a bit like all shareholders in DPOS have to pay attention in order to vote. Maybe a similar proxy system would make sense?
5. Those who have their assets seizedShould it say "Those who have their assets seized" or "Those who have their assets seized without having harmed aynone" ?
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
While I like the general idea of such an "insurance", I think you may forgetHaha there we are right in the middle of the mainstream vs austrian debate.
that some laws are put in place to PREVENT people getting injured, such as most
rules in traffic:2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
And of course this is not only true for traffic alone. It's not only about
punishing people that harm others!
Would you drive by a school with 80 miles/h?
Would you allow people to carry a gun in an air plane?
Would you allow lose regulation in banking and finance so that intelligent people can easily rob not so intelligent people?
What of the idea that insurance fosters irresponsibility? State laws aside, for example in a hypothetical free society, wouldn't you be a more careful driver if you drove an expensive car without insurance than if you shielded yourself from some of the risk by buying insurance?
That's not saying insurance is not useful, but what are the secondary effects? Could it be slowly changing our perspective about personal responsibility?
What of the idea that insurance fosters irresponsibility? State laws aside, for example in a hypothetical free society, wouldn't you be a more careful driver if you drove an expensive car without insurance than if you shielded yourself from some of the risk by buying insurance?
That's not saying insurance is not useful, but what are the secondary effects? Could it be slowly changing our perspective about personal responsibility?
A soon as we study animals — not in laboratories and museums only, but in the forest and prairie, in the steppe and in the mountains — we at once perceive that though there is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species, and especially amidst various classes of animals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defence amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society. Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle. Of course it would be extremely difficult to estimate, however roughly, the relative numerical importance of both these series of facts. But if we resort to an indirect test, and ask Nature: "Who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?" we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development and bodily organization. If the numberless facts which can be brought forward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle; but that as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance, inasmuch as it favors the development of such habits and characters as insure the maintenance and further development of the species, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment of life for the individual, with the least waste of energy.
-Mutual Aid as a Factor in Evolution, by Peter Kropotkin
I'm only here because I've been banned everywhere else.
... I plan on being waterboarded in secret
İs this what BM briefly mentioned on mumble session ? He said demand for BTS will increase without dilution.
Oh snap. Operation Christmas.
Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.
Damn. I was hoping Bytemaster had something more interesting in mind (ref: last mumble hangout). I'm usually very supportive of his ideas but this time I'm quite skeptical. In theory a good concept but I'm afraid that people are just too lazy to actually use an insurance like this.
A few years back we had similar insurance here in Finland. It was set up by hippies who wanted free public transport. For 15 euros per month or 150 euros per year the customer got his fines paid by the fund if she/he got caught by ticket inspector. I don't remember how long it was functioning but less than a year I think. Maybe only a couple of months.Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.
Here we have the first problem. How you are going to incentivize a large number of independent people to verify the evidence and make a transfer? Some people will do this if they love the concept so much, but I suspect that's not going to be a very large group.
This reminds me of Judge.me (http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/05/14/judge-me-private-arbitration-and-intellectual-property/) that was web-based a dispute resolution service. Totally amazing idea but unfortunately people just didn't want to use it enough so it was stopped. Never underestimate the laziness of people when planning new kinds of services.
My guess is that this will not gain any meaningful traction. Handful of libertarians get excited but that's not enough to actually get lots of profit for Bitshares.
Damn. I was hoping Bytemaster had something more interesting in mind (ref: last mumble hangout). I'm usually very supportive of his ideas but this time I'm quite skeptical. In theory a good concept but I'm afraid that people are just too lazy to actually use an insurance like this.
A few years back we had similar insurance here in Finland. It was set up by hippies who wanted free public transport. For 15 euros per month or 150 euros per year the customer got his fines paid by the fund if she/he got caught by ticket inspector. I don't remember how long it was functioning but less than a year I think. Maybe only a couple of months.Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.
Here we have the first problem. How you are going to incentivize a large number of independent people to verify the evidence and make a transfer? Some people will do this if they love the concept so much, but I suspect that's not going to be a very large group.
This reminds me of Judge.me (http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/05/14/judge-me-private-arbitration-and-intellectual-property/) that was web-based a dispute resolution service. Totally amazing idea but unfortunately people just didn't want to use it enough so it was stopped. Never underestimate the laziness of people when planning new kinds of services.
My guess is that this will not gain any meaningful traction. Handful of libertarians get excited but that's not enough to actually get lots of profit for Bitshares.
Damn. I was hoping Bytemaster had something more interesting in mind (ref: last mumble hangout). I'm usually very supportive of his ideas but this time I'm quite skeptical. In theory a good concept but I'm afraid that people are just too lazy to actually use an insurance like this.
A few years back we had similar insurance here in Finland. It was set up by hippies who wanted free public transport. For 15 euros per month or 150 euros per year the customer got his fines paid by the fund if she/he got caught by ticket inspector. I don't remember how long it was functioning but less than a year I think. Maybe only a couple of months.Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.
Here we have the first problem. How you are going to incentivize a large number of independent people to verify the evidence and make a transfer? Some people will do this if they love the concept so much, but I suspect that's not going to be a very large group.
This reminds me of Judge.me (http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/05/14/judge-me-private-arbitration-and-intellectual-property/) that was web-based a dispute resolution service. Totally amazing idea but unfortunately people just didn't want to use it enough so it was stopped. Never underestimate the laziness of people when planning new kinds of services.
My guess is that this will not gain any meaningful traction. Handful of libertarians get excited but that's not enough to actually get lots of profit for Bitshares.
I had the same question for BM who just explained it to me on the whiteboard an hour ago. Blew my mind.
BM selected it from a list of all the ideas we've heard as the one he wants to invest his own resources in. I now intend to join in that investment. So has one of our whale supporters.
What makes an entrepreneur successful is being able to see the potential of an idea before others do and then overcome all roadblocks until success is achieved. And you don't really expect an entrepreneur to share ALL the secrets that make them believe in it, do you?
Hopefully there will be lots of entrepreneurs bringing other ideas they believe in to the BitShares platform and pouring their energy and resources into making them happen. In general, we will not see everything in it that they see, so we will always be unqualified to assess the full merits (unless they need to reveal enough to raise funds from us.)
We need as a community to resist the urge to throw cold water on every idea that shows up. That does nothing to encourage other entrepreneurs to join us. New businesses adopting our platform will be its lifeblood from now on. Let's try to think positive.
:)
Another quote from Peter Kropotkin which is relevant to the philosophical, biological, and societal underpinnings of mutual aid.QuoteA soon as we study animals — not in laboratories and museums only, but in the forest and prairie, in the steppe and in the mountains — we at once perceive that though there is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species, and especially amidst various classes of animals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defence amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society. Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle. Of course it would be extremely difficult to estimate, however roughly, the relative numerical importance of both these series of facts. But if we resort to an indirect test, and ask Nature: "Who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?" we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development and bodily organization. If the numberless facts which can be brought forward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle; but that as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance, inasmuch as it favors the development of such habits and characters as insure the maintenance and further development of the species, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment of life for the individual, with the least waste of energy.
-Mutual Aid as a Factor in Evolution, by Peter Kropotkin
Damn. I was hoping Bytemaster had something more interesting in mind (ref: last mumble hangout). I'm usually very supportive of his ideas but this time I'm quite skeptical. In theory a good concept but I'm afraid that people are just too lazy to actually use an insurance like this.
A few years back we had similar insurance here in Finland. It was set up by hippies who wanted free public transport. For 15 euros per month or 150 euros per year the customer got his fines paid by the fund if she/he got caught by ticket inspector. I don't remember how long it was functioning but less than a year I think. Maybe only a couple of months.Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.
Here we have the first problem. How you are going to incentivize a large number of independent people to verify the evidence and make a transfer? Some people will do this if they love the concept so much, but I suspect that's not going to be a very large group.
This reminds me of Judge.me (http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/05/14/judge-me-private-arbitration-and-intellectual-property/) that was web-based a dispute resolution service. Totally amazing idea but unfortunately people just didn't want to use it enough so it was stopped. Never underestimate the laziness of people when planning new kinds of services.
My guess is that this will not gain any meaningful traction. Handful of libertarians get excited but that's not enough to actually get lots of profit for Bitshares.
I had the same question for BM who just explained it to me on the whiteboard an hour ago. Blew my mind.
BM selected it from a list of all the ideas we've heard as the one he wants to invest his own resources in. I now intend to join in that investment. So has one of our whale supporters.
What makes an entrepreneur successful is being able to see the potential of an idea before others do and then overcome all roadblocks until success is achieved. And you don't really expect an entrepreneur to share ALL the secrets that make them believe in it, do you?
Hopefully there will be lots of entrepreneurs bringing other ideas they believe in to the BitShares platform and pouring their energy and resources into making them happen. In general, we will not see everything in it that they see, so we will always be unqualified to assess the full merits (unless they need to reveal enough to raise funds from us.)
We need as a community to resist the urge to throw cold water on every idea that shows up. That does nothing to encourage other entrepreneurs to join us. New businesses adopting our platform will be its lifeblood from now on. Let's try to think positive.
:)
Great idea...let's keep it semi private (only teasing, as in this post) and milk the benefits with a series of "Spectacular" announcements in the autumn of 1016?
How is that for a plan?
Now, Also would be great time to ditch bitshares 2.0...they are so 2015 anyway.
Hopefully there will be lots of entrepreneurs bringing other ideas they believe in to the BitShares platform and pouring their energy and resources into making them happen. In general, we will not see everything in it that they see, so we will always be unqualified to assess the full merits (unless they need to reveal enough to raise funds from us.)
We need as a community to resist the urge to throw cold water on every idea that shows up. That does nothing to encourage other entrepreneurs to join us. New businesses adopting our platform will be its lifeblood from now on. Let's try to think positive.
1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.
5. Those who have their assets seized
Hopefully there will be lots of entrepreneurs bringing other ideas they believe in to the BitShares platform and pouring their energy and resources into making them happen. In general, we will not see everything in it that they see, so we will always be unqualified to assess the full merits (unless they need to reveal enough to raise funds from us.)
We need as a community to resist the urge to throw cold water on every idea that shows up. That does nothing to encourage other entrepreneurs to join us. New businesses adopting our platform will be its lifeblood from now on. Let's try to think positive.
Yeah, I try not to be too negative on projects like this. But I just don't see "the secret sauce" here.
And also I like to write down my predictions and reasoning behind them. I can later check if I was right and tune my mental models if I was wrong.
Few words about target audiences...Quote1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.
5. Those who have their assets seized
2: Personally I wouldn't like to insurance people who drive recklessly and get fines. Very often they have deserved that.
3: Problems of intellectual property are very close to my heart, but I don't think an insurance will be very effective on that. It might even encourage the copyright mafia to extort more money from alleged pirates. If somebody is a member of insurance fund, he is an easy target because he will propably pay and not fight back.
I think most effective way would be to develop better, easier to use and more anonymous file sharing technology.
1&4: While I do not want to keep these criminalized, I have to say that these kind of behaviors are usually used for short term hedonistic purposes that don't bring much overall happiness to people.
Libertarians usually fail to admit that there should be a culture that will moderate the use of recreational drugs. If there is no law to prevent excessive use, there should be a culture that mandates other people to take care of those who are prone to the temptations of short term hedonistic pleasure.
I would rather see secret clubs for responsible drug users (make sure quality is good, take care of set & setting, etc.) and polyamoric relationships, swingers clubs, etc. for people wanting to have more sex than an insurance for random people who can behave however reckless they want with these substances and services.
And do you think that there will be lots of customers who are willing to provide evidence for a large group of total strangers to be carefully investigated that they got in trouble with hookers and cocaine after a wild night?
5: Unnecessary asset seizures are a big problem in USA, am I right? So this wouldn't be a big hit internationally, but I've heard that people really don't like how cops steal their property without any legitimate reason. This might be the best case for insurance and it wont even be too much controversial. Lots of people will love it and not many can seriously claim that police should have a right to rob people as they want.
sorry to break this to you guys ....but someone in China already come up with such idea one month ago :P the name was mutual aid insurance on blockchain .
Damn. I was hoping Bytemaster had something more interesting in mind (ref: last mumble hangout). I'm usually very supportive of his ideas but this time I'm quite skeptical. In theory a good concept but I'm afraid that people are just too lazy to actually use an insurance like this.
A few years back we had similar insurance here in Finland. It was set up by hippies who wanted free public transport. For 15 euros per month or 150 euros per year the customer got his fines paid by the fund if she/he got caught by ticket inspector. I don't remember how long it was functioning but less than a year I think. Maybe only a couple of months.Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.
Here we have the first problem. How you are going to incentivize a large number of independent people to verify the evidence and make a transfer? Some people will do this if they love the concept so much, but I suspect that's not going to be a very large group.
This reminds me of Judge.me (http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/05/14/judge-me-private-arbitration-and-intellectual-property/) that was web-based a dispute resolution service. Totally amazing idea but unfortunately people just didn't want to use it enough so it was stopped. Never underestimate the laziness of people when planning new kinds of services.
My guess is that this will not gain any meaningful traction. Handful of libertarians get excited but that's not enough to actually get lots of profit for Bitshares.
I had the same question for BM who just explained it to me on the whiteboard an hour ago. Blew my mind.
BM selected it from a list of all the ideas we've heard as the one he wants to invest his own resources in. I now intend to join in that investment. So has one of our whale supporters.
What makes an entrepreneur successful is being able to see the potential of an idea before others do and then overcome all roadblocks until success is achieved. And you don't really expect an entrepreneur to share ALL the secrets that make them believe in it, do you?
Hopefully there will be lots of entrepreneurs bringing other ideas they believe in to the BitShares platform and pouring their energy and resources into making them happen. In general, we will not see everything in it that they see, so we will always be unqualified to assess the full merits (unless they need to reveal enough to raise funds from us.)
We need as a community to resist the urge to throw cold water on every idea that shows up. That does nothing to encourage other entrepreneurs to join us. New businesses adopting our platform will be its lifeblood from now on. Let's try to think positive.
:)
on a more serious note, I already grabbed the FuckThe DecentralizedExchange.com
The question is should I go for
IrresponsibleDriversofAmerica
or
MutuallyAssuredCrackHeads
?
1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.
5. Those who have their assets seized
If your premium isn't risk adjusted most of you would be extremely overpaying and dramatically subsidizing high risk candidates like BM.
(This is why various forms of blockchain insurance aren't likely to catch on, though the blockchain should have much lower expenses, in order to provide good value, you probably still need a lot of personal information and actuarial calculations to be made, absent that you may have a very expensive product for most people.)
It's worth attempting for the potential publicity. It's always good to be first with something.
This would also work better when there is a bond market so that the balance could be put to use and earn interest.
I like the idea!QuoteA benefit society, fraternal benefit society or fraternal benefit order is a society, an organization or a voluntary association formed to provide mutual aid, benefit, for instance insurance for relief from sundry difficulties.
A blockchain cannot provide insurance as it is traditionally known, but could easily create a community of individuals who help one another when they face difficulties. These difficulties can be a wide range of things.
We live in a society where most good people standby and do nothing to help those who are the victim of state violence. This includes those who are punished for victimless crimes or laws that violate the constitution or other basic human rights. Few people are willing to stand up to the government because the costs are very high on an individual. If we could only stand together then we would all be protected and regain our freedom.
Typically the way this would work is this, each month members contribute funds to an individualized account that can only be used to reimburse authorized claims by other members. Each member would be allowed to make a claim for at most a multiple of funds contributed derived from the ratio of claims paid out.
The process of making a claim involves making a public request for help and getting the request for help certified by an oracle trusted to verify the facts of the claim. Once the facts are certified other individuals may review the claim and "donate" up to $100 from their locked up funds to cover the claim.
Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.
I would start this system for five classes of users:
1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.
5. Those who have their assets seized
In all cases we presume innocence and believe that the accused deserve a fair defense.
This is a unique product that could easily be codified in smart contracts and provide real world utility that does not exist elsewhere.
This is also a controversial product that would generate a lot of media attention and attract people who might not otherwise care about crypto currency.
So the question is, how much would you contribute each month to join a community of people united in defense against government attacks on peaceful individuals?
If all funds / accounting were done using BTS then the amount you can get paid out will dramatically increase as adoption grows. The locked up funds would take BTS out of circulation until a claim was made. It could get very interesting very quickly.
Thoughts?Quotederived from the ratio of claims paid out.I don't understand this bit. Can you explain that?QuoteOnce the facts are certified other individuals may review the claim and "donate" up to $100 from their locked up funds to cover the claim.Would that system have the overall cost that indidivuals have to pay attention to the claims of other individuals? It's a bit like all shareholders in DPOS have to pay attention in order to vote. Maybe a similar proxy system would make sense?Quote5. Those who have their assets seizedShould it say "Those who have their assets seized" or "Those who have their assets seized without having harmed aynone" ?
Could it be that the system ends up with only one class of people? A class where the "legal risk" is the highest while doing no harm to others. So for example: Only "drug" dealers.
What if you are not harming anyone yourself but you are helping someone that for example is a contract killer by washing his money?
1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.
5. Those who have their assets seized
I have two major problems with this proposal.
1. I believe a functioning society needs rules in order to stay functioning, and rules are only useful when violation of these rules is punished in some way.
A durable functioning society also needs rules on how to change and adapt existing rules. So at least for those of us living in "democratic" countries there should be ways to change the rules that we don't like, or to emigrate into a country with different rules.
Your proposal is effectively an encouragement for breaking the rules, which I think is harmful to society.
2. Any kind of insurance costs at least as much as the risk that it covers. The problem there is that the insurance lowers the percieved risk for the insured individual, which incentivises them to take a higher risk, which drives up the overall cost and thereby the actual risk for the individual. From that it follows that an insurance can only work if there remains sufficient incentive for the insured to avoid producing an insurance case.
For example, health insurance works quite well, because although it lowers the percieved risk of the individual, nobody is interested in catching an illness. (Yes, that's a simplification. "quite well", not "perfectly".)
However, people who drive recklessly *want* to drive recklessly. Give them an insurance against traffic fines, and they will drive even more recklessly.
Just because something is a law/rule does not make it just or needed or actually bettering society.
Just because something is a law/rule does not make it just or needed or actually bettering society.
That is true of course, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the rules that you don't like. The point is that if you want to be part of a society/community/whatever you have to accept the rules, because being part of that society means they are YOUR rules. You cannot claim the benefits of being part of a society without delivering on the expectations that society has on you.
As I said before, if you don't like the rules you can either change them or choose a different society, which in the case of citizenship means moving to a different country. Of course that's not easy, because it means you no longer claim the benefits of being a citizen. That's the point. Society cannot function if people only want the benefits but don't care about the rules. Breaking the rules will force society to take action against you (and rightfully so, IMO).
In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups...for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes.
Initial reports described the selections as nearly exclusively of conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names
This is a ponzi scheme.
Just because something is a law/rule does not make it just or needed or actually bettering society.
That is true of course, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the rules that you don't like. The point is that if you want to be part of a society/community/whatever you have to accept the rules, because being part of that society means they are YOUR rules. You cannot claim the benefits of being part of a society without delivering on the expectations that society has on you.
As I said before, if you don't like the rules you can either change them or choose a different society, which in the case of citizenship means moving to a different country. Of course that's not easy, because it means you no longer claim the benefits of being a citizen. That's the point. Society cannot function if people only want the benefits but don't care about the rules. Breaking the rules will force society to take action against you (and rightfully so, IMO).
Just because something is a law/rule does not make it just or needed or actually bettering society.
That is true of course, but that doesn't mean you can simply ignore the rules that you don't like. The point is that if you want to be part of a society/community/whatever you have to accept the rules, because being part of that society means they are YOUR rules. You cannot claim the benefits of being part of a society without delivering on the expectations that society has on you.
As I said before, if you don't like the rules you can either change them or choose a different society, which in the case of citizenship means moving to a different country. Of course that's not easy, because it means you no longer claim the benefits of being a citizen. That's the point. Society cannot function if people only want the benefits but don't care about the rules. Breaking the rules will force society to take action against you (and rightfully so, IMO).
What is a society? A country can have a overall layer of freedom to such an extent that we can have multiple societies and getting caught up in other societies just means you have to pay their price. I think you'll find a lot of people in disagreement with you. Disobeying laws is a calculated risk, and when there is no well defined victim of your actions then it is questionable whether state sanctioned violence is needed.
Your view goes way too far. What happens when your society is ruled by some evil entity? These are all just constructs of why we do what we do and ultimately it is a risk/reward ratio that is personalized to everyone's individuality.
Anyway, I came to this thread because there are a few problems with this. #1 You would not want your real identity broadcast over the net as part of Bitshares history. I mean maybe some here would not mind, but it is likely many would rather not have their name SEOed in such a fashion. This leads to #2 which is if it became known that you had such a insurance, it might very well be able to be used against you in a criminal case because it shows some admission of criminality.
Both of the above reasons fly against the required transparency when putting forth a claim. So this thing will likely be pretty limited. :(
One way to fix this is to have the people who decide on payment rather limited, but then you have more problems with trust even if you can do it cryptographically.
This is a ponzi scheme.
This is a ponzi scheme.
No, it's not. From a certain angle, any kind of insurance is a ponzi scheme of sorts. You have people paying into it, and those continued payments being required so that others can get payouts. But insurance, benefit societies, and community rainy day funds have been around for thousands of years, and their models are not pponzis.
The difference between insurance and Ponzis is that insurance companies can invest and build up the money they get from premiums. Their businesses can sustain themselves based on returns from their investments and current policyholders paying premiums. If they needed to attract new pay-ins in order to have the money to pay claims, etc., then they would be Ponzis.
What is a society? A country can have a overall layer of freedom to such an extent that we can have multiple societies and getting caught up in other societies just means you have to pay their price.
Disobeying laws is a calculated risk, and when there is no well defined victim of your actions then it is questionable whether state sanctioned violence is needed.
What happens when your society is ruled by some evil entity?
For example, if you drive above the speed limit you increase the risk of injuring every other drivers/pedestrian near you, even if you don't actually harm anyone. These other people cannot immediately stop you from increasing *their* risk of being injured. That's why society comes up with speed limits.
In the same way, society has effectively nullified copyright law (for personal use).I completely disagree. Perhaps your peers have done so, but I feel confident that the majority has not. For example, ask a sampling of Americans if they think it's OK to pirate the new Star Wars movie, and watch it for free (for personal use).
In the same way, society has effectively nullified copyright law (for personal use).I completely disagree. Perhaps your peers have done so, but I feel confident that the majority has not. For example, ask a sampling of Americans if they think it's OK to pirate the new Star Wars movie, and watch it for free (for personal use).
If this were OK, the movie would likely not have been produced, since it would not earn nearly as much revenue.
In the same way, society has effectively nullified copyright law (for personal use).I completely disagree. Perhaps your peers have done so, but I feel confident that the majority has not. For example, ask a sampling of Americans if they think it's OK to pirate the new Star Wars movie, and watch it for free (for personal use).
If this were OK, the movie would likely not have been produced, since it would not earn nearly as much revenue.
If you drive the speed limit while all the traffic around you is going 10 over, then you are the one who is endangering everyone else. In this case, the person following the law is increasing the risk of everyone else.
The system proposed simply gives "society" (the people) a means of pushing back and expressing their opinion.
For example, even though drunk driving is a victimless crime (when no one is hurt), I doubt they would get many voluntary contributions from their mutual aid society even if they are a paying member.
PC's argument basically seems to revolve around every law having a stated purpose that is for the benefit of society. The real question is whether any law is worth making a new class of criminal. Is it worth locking someone up at the thread of eminent death? You will notice through-out his analysis he never approaches that question.
If no one ever pushes back against laws, the unjust laws will continue to unjustly push society.
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.
I reject the idea that I have given consent to be governed simply by being born in a geographical location.
I reject the idea that by using public goods, like roads, that I am agreeing to be subject to that publics authority.
I reject the idea that any group or 'authority' can be given rights that no individual has themselves. (legalized kidnapping, theft, murder etc)
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.
The very premise of the State and all its laws rest on an injustice and moral depravity.
Its the moral obligation of every self respecting person to disobey unjust laws.
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.
do you vote? if you vote you support psychopathic authoritarians and they always hurt people. voting for rulers is taking risk with other people's lives and is undesirable for society. ;)
No! I'm fully aware that many stupid, meaningless and even unjust laws exist.
I'm arguing that you cannot break these laws and try to get away with that by creating some form of insurance. If you want to push back against laws you either have to do it on the political level within the system, or you have to start a revolution. (And no, this mutual aid society is not a revolution.)
You cannot create a functioning society without rules.It depends what rules you refer to.
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.
I reject the idea that I have given consent to be governed simply by being born in a geographical location.
You haven't.
But you give consent by staying there. Unless you're alone and not interacting with anyone, in which case governance is purely academic.
This is a very tired argument. You don't need authority to build a road or offer any service that people want. The same people who build roads today can build them tomorrow. With or without a government. Building a road is insanely simple.I reject the idea that by using public goods, like roads, that I am agreeing to be subject to that publics authority.
How do you imagine a society could function without that? There wouldn't be any "public goods like roads" without a functioning society, and road traffic doesn't work without rules either.
I never said there should be no rules. I'm saying I do not recognize rules that I have not voluntarily consented to. No one has the right to murder steal and kill. But what we have done is given that right(which nobody has) to a group of people called the State.I reject the idea that any group or 'authority' can be given rights that no individual has themselves. (legalized kidnapping, theft, murder etc)
That is self-contradictory, IMO. Either you have rules that limit your right to steal or to kill, in which case you need some authority to enforce them. Or you don't have rules, in which case the individual doesn't have any rights as such.
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.
The very premise of the State and all its laws rest on an injustice and moral depravity.
Its the moral obligation of every self respecting person to disobey unjust laws.
Except that moral or the notion of "just laws" are not absolute. You cannot create a set of rules with which everyone is totally happy. You cannot create a functioning society without rules. If you don't like the rules you can try to "improve" them (probably at the cost of making someone else less happy), or you go to some place with "better" rules. You cannot break the rules and expect society to let you get away with it.
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.
I fully agree and I won't join any society that bails people out for stupid shit. That's just money down a hole and it does nothing to make the world any better. Some rules enforce an important code of behavior that society has set, even when (thankfully) there's been no harm done in the immediate instance. I don't always agree with where the lines are drawn; often they are more conservative than I would like. But I can respect that without some such guidelines, some people would crap everywhere and make the world a lot uglier for everyone else. Civilization has its trade-offs, but the alternatives aren't very pretty.
I've read an interesting small book "chaos theory" from Robert Murphy which mentions how a free society could still work, simply using the free markets and reputation. It's very interesting although, with such evil in this world one may think it's too naive.
https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory
Does anyone know this? It makes sense, but at the same time, too good to be true. Reputation would keep people in check but I believe sooner or later an oligarchy caused by corruption would arise.
do you vote? if you vote you support psychopathic authoritarians and they always hurt people. voting for rulers is taking risk with other people's lives and is undesirable for society. ;)
That's retarded. Are you that much of a simpleton
If you don't vote, then don't complain.
Then thank your government for protecting your right to speak your mind
I understand your more measured approach Donkeypong, but to answer you and Chronos:
I don't support drunk driving, but if someone does drive drunk and there are no accidents or harm that's fine. If someone is being rude it doesn't mean I support rude behavior. Does it mean there should be a law against rude behavior? If so should some people in these forums pay a fine to the government?
Hence it's important to focus on the consequences. If you drive drunk and you harm another there is a consequence of your action. It's the same consequences of harming someone when you are not drunk. There are some people who are just bad or negligent drivers.
In old common law and tort law focusing on consequences would probably be standard principle. You can challenge others for emotional distress, but that would most likely be a tiny fraction of the compensation you can claim compared to physical harm.
If you want to change cultural habits and highlight the dangers of drunk driving and make those actions unbecoming in the society that's fine, but you don't need statutory laws for that. Your just giving up more power to the those that are in government. Next time you are stopped during these holiday seasons for a DUI checkpoint and are asked to stand on one foot and touch your nose think a little bit more if that's really to protect people from drunk drivers. Furthermore when a TSA agent starts touching your crotch or your children's at the airport, think if that really is to protect you from terrorists. In the end the primary benefit for those in government to get public displays of authority is to condition the public into submission. I mean if they can molest little girls in public at the airport how can you not think those in government are the boss? In the end it's up to you. Want to stand on one leg and touch your noise. Go ahead and obey. If you have the TSA touching your crotch. Go ahead and obey. If you see that happen to an old lady or little girl. Go ahead and keep silent. Then we'll all know who the boss is.
I understand your more measured approach Donkeypong, but to answer you and Chronos:
I don't support drunk driving, but if someone does drive drunk and there are no accidents or harm that's fine. If someone is being rude it doesn't mean I support rude behavior. Does it mean there should be a law against rude behavior? If so should some people in these forums pay a fine to the government?
Hence it's important to focus on the consequences. If you drive drunk and you harm another there is a consequence of your action. It's the same consequences of harming someone when you are not drunk. There are some people who are just bad or negligent drivers.
In old common law and tort law focusing on consequences would probably be standard principle. You can challenge others for emotional distress, but that would most likely be a tiny fraction of the compensation you can claim compared to physical harm.
If you want to change cultural habits and highlight the dangers of drunk driving and make those actions unbecoming in the society that's fine, but you don't need statutory laws for that. Your just giving up more power to the those that are in government. Next time you are stopped during these holiday seasons for a DUI checkpoint and are asked to stand on one foot and touch your nose think a little bit more if that's really to protect people from drunk drivers. Furthermore when a TSA agent starts touching your crotch or your children's at the airport, think if that really is to protect you from terrorists. In the end the primary benefit for those in government to get public displays of authority is to condition the public into submission. I mean if they can molest little girls in public at the airport how can you not think those in government are the boss? In the end it's up to you. Want to stand on one leg and touch your noise. Go ahead and obey. If you have the TSA touching your crotch. Go ahead and obey. If you see that happen to an old lady or little girl. Go ahead and keep silent. Then we'll all know who the boss is.It's not fine to drive drunk. Society has a bright-line rule preventing bad behavior and I fully support having such lines as well as reasonable enforcement of them.
Do you seriously believe a legal system can function without statutory laws? That's a very naive view. If you want to strip those away and rely only on tort law, then I see at least four big problems with that.
First, it would be incredibly expensive, so get ready to pay MUCH higher taxes.
Second, tort and common law do not cover crimes adequately. That's why we have criminal codes. They are different bodies of law for different situations.
Third, speaking of the differences between criminal and civil law, you're talking about (in common law countries, at least) a completely different standard of proof that's required. It's much easier to prove a civil case (preponderance of the evidence, probably around 51% certainty) than a criminal one (beyond a reasonable doubt, probably greater than 90% certainty). How are you going to reconcile those? Because if you are relying on civil law to solve all of society's problems, then you're going to "convict" a lot more people than the criminal law system would have convicted.Yes relying on civil law is much better and can handle everything. It's semantics anyways. 'Criminal law' came out of Canon Law so most of what we think of with statutes and 'criminal law' most likely came about from central authorities dictating what was right, rather than the people as individuals with equal power. Before it was the Church and now Government.
Fourth, if you are relying on tort law, then most tortfeasors (wrongdoers) would not have the money to pay adverse judgments...deep pockets. ...additional consumer protection laws (both civil and criminal statutes, which I know you don't like) to cover other areas that tort law's deep-pockets-free-market approach cannot touch.... In other words, the system would break down immediately .... No rules, no enforcement, no civilization, no society.Not sure how you think the current system fixes any of those problems you mention or doesn't break down? Maybe there are some benefits of being poor? The reparations-system I mentioned above would work as well as voluntary bonds & insurance to participate in certain activities.
So next, you may argue that this whole thing still could work if you had a reputation system. I think a reputation system would be good. But who would end up administering and enforcing that? ... if you don't have a government or nonprofit overseeing it, then you're leaving it up to the market to do so, and that's when you get cartels, mafia, and organized crime.Yes a reputation system would be fantastic and we should be pursuing this regardless of what the government is or isn't supposed to do. It's where the technology is taking us and I'm excited about the potential for those in our community to help make that happen with Bitshares.
One way or another, power will fill the vacuum.Yes. I agree with you there.... and my goal is to have We the People fill that power vacuum instead of We the Government or We the Elite....
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.
....I agree with you on not imprisoning non-violent drug offenders. As far as penalties, there is great room for improvement, and I love your idea about having criminals work to pay back their debt to society...would be a huge improvement over a prison system that (I agree) is very corrupt. But the system and the laws are not always the same thing; you continue to paint them with the same brush and I understand you have some major distrust of both. But I would be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater when the fixes may not mean dismantling everything society has built to address its problems. Regarding criminal law, the crimes are pretty similar in most states and the legislatures revisit them on a regular basis. Many of them do go back a very long time; take a look at the Ten Commandments and compare with any state criminal code. You can just take the 'easy way out' scoundrel's argument that government created all of it and therefore it's all evil, but to a large extent, this is society''s way of dealing with these problems and if you create new solutions, then over time they pretty much will end up in the same place.
Thou Shalt Not Drive a Zamboni While Drunk. Even if you do not mow over small children on the ice, you will create ruts and rough spots that make skating dangerously unpleasant.
Would you arrest the bastard? Or would you wait for "consequences" first? It's always fun until someone loses an eye...or some kid loses a leg. Unfortunately, there's no legal recourse if we have eliminated our written laws. Preventative maintenance is out the window with risk prevention. So let daddy due the Zamboni operator, the Zomboni company and its subcontractors, the ice skating rink, the insurance companies, the skate maker, the water company...yeah, and that will save society a ton of money, won't it? Fucking amateur hour.
http://www.steinbachonline.com/local/impaired-zamboni-driver-charged (http://www.steinbachonline.com/local/impaired-zamboni-driver-charged)
Logical fallacy much?
Logical fallacy much?
I haven't understood a word of your posts, so no, I don't much logical fallacy. Do you? I see your much and raise you more. My posts were much more directed at that other moron who says written laws should be eliminated. If so, there isn't much you can do to prevent accidents on the ice. Or ISIS babes from causing orgasms. Much is more. Yoda not far.
....I agree with you on not imprisoning non-violent drug offenders. As far as penalties, there is great room for improvement, and I love your idea about having criminals work to pay back their debt to society...would be a huge improvement over a prison system that (I agree) is very corrupt. But the system and the laws are not always the same thing; you continue to paint them with the same brush and I understand you have some major distrust of both. But I would be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater when the fixes may not mean dismantling everything society has built to address its problems. Regarding criminal law, the crimes are pretty similar in most states and the legislatures revisit them on a regular basis. Many of them do go back a very long time; take a look at the Ten Commandments and compare with any state criminal code. You can just take the 'easy way out' scoundrel's argument that government created all of it and therefore it's all evil, but to a large extent, this is society''s way of dealing with these problems and if you create new solutions, then over time they pretty much will end up in the same place.
Overall, I don't think I agree with you on very much. You are very, very far off on your concept that eliminating statute law will save any sort of money. Courts and trials are by far the most expensive aspect of the system. That is precisely why, at every step of the process, courts and judges try like hell to get everyone to settle and keep their cases out of court. Believe me, you do NOT want a world where the rules come only from case law. That would be a full on nightmare.
I haven't understood a word of your posts, so no, I don't much logical fallacy. Do you? I see your much and raise you more. My posts were much more directed at that other moron who says written laws should be eliminated. If so, there isn't much you can do to prevent accidents on the ice. Or ISIS babes from causing orgasms. Much is more. Yoda not far.
Most of those ideas are not tenable in practice.
Most of those ideas are not tenable in practice.
I found this interesting.
Ancient Irelands Anarchy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svyJuSZdnuI
Ireland, for 1000 years was a stateless libertarian society. "It was a highly complex society, that was for centuries the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of western Europe"
saying the ideas are not tenable in practice ignores this history.
sorry to break this to you guys ....but someone in China already come up with such idea one month ago :P the name was mutual aid insurance on blockchain .lol -- remember, copyright violation was on the list...
I think the needs to to be a core development on the tools and infrastructure. If the tools and infrastructure is sound then multiple philosophies can be overlaid on Bitshares. Get the proper roads and brigdes up and nearly any vehicle can use it. If your philosophy can't drive on the road then Bitshares is the wrong platform for you. Trying to bend Bitshares to fit every philosophy will only cause it to snap.
Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.
I would start this system for five classes of users:
1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.
5. Those who have their assets seized
In all cases we presume innocence and believe that the accused deserve a fair defense.
This is a unique product that could easily be codified in smart contracts and provide real world utility that does not exist elsewhere.
This is also a controversial product that would generate a lot of media attention and attract people who might not otherwise care about crypto currency.
Company markets 'first criminal legal insurance policy'
An annual premium of £29.99, the policy provides up to £20,000 worth of cover...
The policy covers all offences triable in the Crown court, either way or indictable only. It excludes anyone with previous convictions or who has been prosecuted for a criminal offence in the past 10 years.
Under this system individuals can only receive benefits if they are a victim, produce verifiable evidence, and have the support of a large number of independent users who individually transfer funds from user to user.
I would start this system for five classes of users:
1. Those who are accused of possessing illegal substances but have not actually harmed anyone
2. Those who are accused of traffic violations for behavior that did not harm anyone
3. Those who are accused of copyright violation
4. Those who are accused of participating in prostitution that did not harm anyone and where no children are involved.
5. Those who have their assets seized
In all cases we presume innocence and believe that the accused deserve a fair defense.
This is a unique product that could easily be codified in smart contracts and provide real world utility that does not exist elsewhere.
This is also a controversial product that would generate a lot of media attention and attract people who might not otherwise care about crypto currency.
I've seen that there a variety of legal insurance products on the market. Would it not be possible to insure yourself against these risks using some form of traditional legal insurance?QuoteCompany markets 'first criminal legal insurance policy'
An annual premium of £29.99, the policy provides up to £20,000 worth of cover...
The policy covers all offences triable in the Crown court, either way or indictable only. It excludes anyone with previous convictions or who has been prosecuted for a criminal offence in the past 10 years.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/company-markets-first-criminal-legal-insurance-policy/66356.fullarticle
If so, why would someone choose to use a MAS?
Same reason people use health sharing instead of health insurance.
Same reason to use a Health Saving Account
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account)
+5% +5% +5%, great, good idea, i like it, just do it!
+5% +5% +5%, great, good idea, i like it, just do it!
Is this spam?
+5% +5% +5%, great, good idea, i like it, just do it!
Is this spam?
I'm fairly sure that's the only phrase that user ever posts.
I think he meant health SHARING system...
https://mychristiancare.org/how_does_it_work.aspx
Liberty Health Share...
Costs are lower than insurance *AND* you get a more personal interaction with the community.
BitShares was originally created out of a desire to solve a problem that Bitcoin faced (exchange with fiat) under the presumption that the governments would eventually shutdown the exchanges like they did egold and liberty dollar. With each day that passes it seems less and less likely...
We are put in a situation of competing head-to-head with centralized exchanges which are trusted, fast, and legal.
Who again said this shouldn't be high priority?
I am asking because slock.it (built on Ethereum) is now partnering with an insurance company:
https://blog.slock.it/partnering-with-safeshare-to-create-the-ad-hoc-insurance-of-the-sharing-economy-77462163ab91