^^ Agreed, I question the premise that a military or militia would be necessary if DACs become the way the world operates.

While I disagree with his ideas and take an anti-violent stance I also take an anti-censorship stance. There should be a portion of the forum properly tagged for this kind of talk. This primarily because we know at some point these sorts of ideas are going to be discussed.

My opinion on it is that while the government isn't good at many things, when it comes to defense and war the government is the best at that particular business.

----------

I think what you're thinking of is a cyber militia. You're thinking about it in the context of a cyber war. I'm sure the three letter agencies around the world already have plans in place for that.

As far as law enforcement goes, that is not something which can be decentralized anytime soon. Checks and balances are necessary to prevent abuse. How would you prevent these tools from being misused to abuse innocent people without checks and balances?

For that reason I take on an anti-violence stance. There are no current checks and balances in the world where we already know who is in charge and there would similarly be no checks and balances when we don't know who is in charge.

Violence doesn't really benefit the people who want to live a long life or who want freedom in most cases. Perhaps there should be a clause put into the social contract which stipulates that all DACs which adhere to the social consensus will not promote or make use of physical violence, force, or coercion? Because in my opinion opening the door to violence would invite it right back.

I have no problem having this removed.

As a hardcore NAPer my goal was to brainstorm defense against aggressors, not aggression.

I wanted to see how it could be done.

Does anyone have ideas regarding a defense DAC?
Like a police DAC.
A "don't rape me, beat me or home invade me" DAC.

I'm looking for brainstormers here!

If your goal really is defense against aggressors the best defense against aggressors is evidence provided by sousveillance. Secrecy allows aggressors to get away with abusing innocent people, break laws, and more. Surveillance is a tool of hierarchy to protect those at the top from those at the bottom while souseveillance is a tool of heterarchy to protect those at the bottom "the little guy" from those at the top.

The Rodney King beating was filmed and police brutally was caught on tape. That was sousveillance. The ability to pseudo-anonymously exchange information means that evidence of corruption or of a crime can captured and distributed. The same laws which are used to enforce on the little guy can take down the big guy if the right law enforcement agent receives the evidence.

I think if information flows freely, it will become more difficult for those with power and authority to abuse that power and authority. Violence isn't really necessary to get a person fired or arrested for a crime, if in fact a crime has been committed. A jury is the only way to evaluate the evidence to determine if that was the case, and the evidence has to be collected by detectives and people trained to make those kinds of cases.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/18/sousveillance-turns-the-tables-on-the-su

I think 100$ is realistic for the shares.

Why are we talking about prices in dollars?

The target price I have is 0.1 BTC. I don't know anyone who is buying PTS with dollars. Over the year 2014 0.1 BTC will make sense. That could be between $100-$1000 depending on the price of BTC at the time.

I'm happy to announce the introduction and small preview to KIDARC, a fancy shortcut for the boring "Keyhotee ID Advanced Reputation Check" name.

KIDARC will function as an addition to Keyhotee's reputation to get user information in more detail to know who you're
dealing with and to make sure fraud get's punished by the community and the good people get rewarded. It will (hopefully) also be
helping Keyhotee to get more activity going, meet new people and gain more attention.

Some of it's key features are:

• Only accessible with a valid Keyhotee Auth
• A case-based dispute solving mechanism including judges and jury
• Comment, vote on members
• Profile pages
• Send gifts to friends to increase reputation
• A marketplace
• A job board
• Forums
• Community based escrow service
• See recent activity of members
• Send messages, funds and send friend requests directly (These actions will open Keyhotee which handles the rest)
• All notifications from KIDARC will be sent directly to your Keyhotee inbox (We will completely abandon regular mails)
• An own credit-based currency called ARC's to buy gifts for friends and extra features. Please do note that
  without ARC's you won't miss anything, it will only be used for special features like buying gifts, promoting your ads etc
  to keep funding the platform
• Keyhotee is all about privacy and so are we. We will never acquire any IP addresses, use HTTPS nor do we keep server logs and when Keyhotee
  will feature it's own browser it will be even better. And you will be able to set a few options such as your country, your friend lists etc
  but all these features can be turned on or off.

Progress is being made fast and we do expect a fully functional beta for Keyhotee founders within 2 weeks from today. Of course
it also depends on Keyhotee's timeline but we will make sure to be ready when it launches to the general public.

Keyhotee founders will get a special treatment including a special badge with your name and will be given priority to
being a case judge and/ or escrow service provider to make some hard earned cash.

Founders who want to be added please send me an email at godscreation_rys@hotmail.com with your Keyhotee Id (Yes, I
will validate it and you can be sure to be among the first one joining.

Donations are  very much welcomed to speed up the development, it's a personal project next to my daytime work and I have zero funding. All donators will also receive a special badge and your donation amount will be converted 1:1 to ARC's when the platform launches based
on the PTS > USD price at the end of each day (GMT time) . (100 ARC's = 1 USD) . If you donated please send me an email
with the transaction id.

PTS donations: Pu7DUgfVPHXWzD8hbaRzSrMTQq6LBXF8NM

We really want to be THE Keyhotee community platform and will do everything we can to make it fun and useful for
every Keyhotee'er involved. I will keep you all updated on development progress in this thread.

[edit]Preparing for a new preview with new addition including fully working marketplace, voting system and job board[/edit]

If you have any questions, ideas or complaints please do let me know.

Thank you for your time and let's all do our part to make Keyhotee rock the world!

Kind regards,
Mark

ps: I suck at 'press releases'

Also Please note that although we keep in close contact with 3I for feature integration this platform is developed independently.

Who pays the judges and juries and where does the money come from? Is this a part of a justice DAC?  Who reviews the decisions of the judges and juries to prevent collusion? People will have to be paid to review every decision.

BTS is where the money is. Keyhotee is fun and games until a bigger ecosystem is built out around it.
Stick around long enough to get alpha binaries out to everyone, then do exclusively BTS.

I think the failure or success of all DACs depends on having Keyhotee. If we don't have a reputation and identity then we have nothing from which to evaluate DAC participants. If we don't have Keyhotee we won't have anything so I believe Keyhotee is the most important component which will distinguish the DAC ecosystem from the other solutions out there.

You can have Bitshares but without reputation, identity and trust it's a lot less powerful and a lot less useful. There are a lot of scams that exist.

This would work well for a distributed university, maybe another level or two:

student - learning material
teaching assistant - mastered material, assists students in learning
instructor - mastered material, experience assisting students in learning, presents material to students
professor - creates course material presented by instructors
dean - manages course group in subject area, marketing

But there are only two primary roles in the system with the rest being merely sub-roles. You have mentor and you have apprentice (1 or 0) participants usually exist somewhere on that spectrum of these two states. I don't use student but in any open system you can adapt it to your purposes so if you want to create a distributed peer to peer university you could easily do so but it would still have to follow a heterarchical design. The required level of hierarchy will emerge on its own and people will designate their own roles. We should stay away from taking the roles that exist in existing organizations and implanting them into a heterarchical system. Ideally a DAC will be self managing, which means you'll select some algorithm with parameters and participants through their interaction with the DAC will emerge naturally into whatever social structures work best to operate the DAC.

Hierarchy should be considered the last resort as a means of solving a problem rather than the first. The reason for this is that if you have it set up where there is a hierarchy then it's very easy to shut down. So if you use these names for roles to distinguish required processes the risk is that the same hierarchy that exists in academia could find its way into the DACs and this may not in fact be necessary in a distributed university.

These would be heterarchical, with students in one area potentially being experts creating and teaching in other areas. A fee split might be 20% each for DAC university, dean, professor, instructor, teaching assistant.

It has a potential to be heterarchical but you have to be very careful when you design the DAC not to accidentally put hierarchy in. Just as the goal for a DAC is to be distributed because of all the benefits associated with that, the goal should also be to maintain heterarchy as a way of maintaining the structural integrity of the DAC. It's easier for a heterarchical DAC to remain distributed than for a hierarchical DAC.

Bittorrent is distributed and heterarchical and that is the reason why it's seemingly an unstoppable technology. Bitcoin unfortunately is heirarchically organized and as a result the mining pool operators and ASIC manufacturers at the top of the hierarchy will eventually gain absolute control of the production of Bitcoins. The whole reason for moving to Proof of Stake is to avoid that scenario repeating itself.

Given the critical shortage of Bitcoin/crypto experienced developers at the moment and an expected surge in demand to build new DACs, a training program would be useful. It should also expand to other areas, like entrepreneurship, business economics , and management adapted to the DAC and crypto asset environment. The training may be built on top of an upcoming Turing Complete programming platform.

Lets refrain from calling it a training program. We should be calling it a training system or process. A system is something which is built around successful processes which replace unsuccessful processes. Emergence is something we should embrace. We don't know who is talented or what DACs there will be so we should find more generic words to describe things.

In the case of a distributed university you will have teachers and students but everyone is a teacher and student to others so we don't need to use the word university because it implies that this is something exclusive. The idea you present would be potentially heterarchical.

But you're looking at it as if the problem is that we merely lack people with skills and it's not as simple as that. There are elements such as reputation, politics, and many other factors which go into who you would choose as your mentor or teacher.

So for this reason it cannot be compared to a distributed university because in a university while you can choose your professor to some limited degree a professor cannot choose her students.

The mentor on the other hand has to accept the apprentice. If the apprentice does not share the same values as the mentor then the mentor can reject the apprentice. If the apprentice does not trust the mentor then the apprentice can reject the mentor. Eventually people who share similar values will economically link to each other.

For example a fraternity could form among a group of apprentices without any mentor. They could decide to share a percentage of their profits with that fraternity. This percentage could be considered a fee or a "tax" for membership. As long as they pay for membership in the fraternity then the fraternity can fund itself to protect and provide for it's members. This would allow for fraternities to form within the context of a distributed university or not.

Some fraternities could become prestigious and allow for exclusive access to certain websites and information. This would allow people who share similar values to organize their social networks potentially using the blockchain itself so that it's distributed.

So in the fraternity you would have no mentors and everyone in it would be equals. Any of these ideas would be possible because the user would be able to use a slider and set the percentages beyond a minimum level that they would like to donate or contribute to any participants or members of any group. Of course any participant could be a member of many fraternities at a time.

So if the minimum fee is 1%, all fellowships would start at 1%. But just like with transaction fees if you want to join the more exclusive club you'd have to pay a higher percentage fee.

Very good video on p2p alternatives to hierarchy. Overall, I'd like to implement the idea of the Open Value Network, http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page , which tracks user participation and rewards accordingly. A DAC would be ideal for this.

Your proposal here includes a lot of the elements of proxy voting and extends it to proxy leadership and shadowing. This would be interesting to see in action.

What the economic allegiance system leads to is a heterarchical economic order. Just as Bittorrent makes everyone a receiver and sender at once, and the user can determine how much or how little they want to be of either.  The mentor and apprentice system is the same and everyone involved is a bit of both, and is as much or as little of either as they choose or need to be at the time.

So you could be a mentor with 1000 peer apprentices and gain an economic incentive to try to maintain that, but you will have people mentoring you and will be an apprentice to many others. You can switch allegiance at any time and so can any of your peers so that there is no fixed hierarchy. It also promotes the same sort of distribution as Bittorrent making it very difficult for people from a non-related external/foreign hierarchy to gain control of it.

If you think of this model as an intelligent swarm of peers who form and break allegiances as necessary to survive, they can become as hierarchical as necessary to solve a temporary problem but break from it just as easily while maintaining distributed leadership the whole time.

If you look at traditional models they would not even be able to make sense of this. They would ask who the boss is of the circle, but a circle has no boss. In a circle every peer is connected to every peer and any peer can become any role. There is no edge, so the protruding nail gets hammered down cannot apply to these designs.

Hierarchy may exist in a limited extent but it would be camouflaged in the swarm because you would have no way to know who the leaders are. Just as there are probably Bittorrent super nodes which exist but it's harder to spot that when everyone is communicating in the exact same way and anyone is capable of rising to become a supernode in the place of anyone else. If an oppressive hierarchical organization were to try the "cut the head off" approach it would be like cutting the head off of a hydra, not only would several new heads grow in its place, but they'd now be aware of the methods of the oppressive hierarchical opposition and could become even more heterarchical and confusing to that opposition.

Let me make one thing clear though, the economic allegiance system as I envision it is fully transparent and open. If it were to become attacked however it's very easy to see that this kind of system could become completely anonymous using the same mechanism which would make Bitcoin transactions anonymous. The way I envision it is pseudo-anonymous and transparent so that any sociologist can study the blockchain to see different allegiances forming because that kind of research is valuable for a lot of good purposes, but if attacked it could easily adapt with the level of anonymity and sophistication of the user.

Thanks @luckybit

I will look into the algorithm aspects more deeply.

I still don't understand what are the ways for Funding?

Is it wise to use the same work-plan as MMC, meaning fork a new blockhain, mining, wallets. Mine them early, and offer them at a later stage as representing shares of the DAC?
Surely I plan to give 10% to PTS and AGS holders in the genesis block.

Or does the PTS protocol is actually freeing me from all the technical hassles above and I can simply create my new shares Over the Existing PTS network? (or over the Bitshares future network)

Thanks

Angelshares is still being developed. It seems that Angelshares will be the method of crowd funding a DAC. It's similar to an exodus address where people send coins to it and then get shares in the DAC sent back to them at some point just like how Mastercoin did things.

I don't know the details on how Angelshares will work. It might or might not work well as things are now. Right now we only have Invictus Innovations with the kind of reputation where people are willing to send money so they are going to host the initial bounties to build the initial DACs. In 3-6 months time there will be a lot of activity and money flooding in here and provided that the infrastructure is in place that would be the optimal time to launch a DAC. You could try and do it sooner but I don't know anyone who is except MMC and that altcoin does not make much sense yet.

I suppose what you could do is just launch similar to MMC and give 10% to PTS holders and 10% to Angelshare holders in the initial allocation of your DACShares coin altcoin. I would actually advise you to go a bit higher than the minimum of 10% because you want to win the trust in the community for crowdfunding later DAC ideas you might have.