When I vote today i have the option to either vote as I selected or to vote as those delegates I selected recommend to vote. If everyone would do the latter voting participation would probably be much higher. The first option though gives the voter more control.

Combining the good of both could look like this: When I select x delegates I want to vote for 101-x delegates are complemented to my delegate slate based on the recommendations of those I selected.

It would be like a default for RDPOS when I don't know 101 delegates I can trust but that would be better than voting only with a fraction of your stake if you only know 5 you trust.

I have made a post here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11584.msg152771#msg152771 but that was a bit of topic. I'd like to discuss the challenges of a "stateless society" here.

I have learned a lot here about libertarianism and it resonates very well with many of my values! I'd like to learn more about the potential of a state free society.

There are two things I struggle with / do not know how a society without a central authority which can make people do things can solve:
 
1) How are environmental problems handled if not by prohibitions enforced by some authority?

2) The idea of a state (as a state of law) is  to guarantee certain rights to everybody and enforce those. The poorest man would have his rights (property rights, body integrity etc.) guaranteed as well as a rich man. Now this does not work well in many states and the individuals that are given that authority abuse their power often but it can work well enough to give everyone about the same basic guarantee to protect his/her life and property (in germany it works relatively well). In a society without a central authority wouldn't your most crucial rights (incl. property rights, the right to live / physical integrity) be depended on whether one can "afford" the necessary protection?
Practically: If I can't afford protection someone could just kill me take my kidney and there would be no effort made to prosecute the killer?

Here is an additional thought related to point 2): Property rights in the sense that EVERYONE's property is secured can only exist if there is an authority that can enforce it (for property rights to be property rights in the sense that they are guaranteed to EVERYONE it is a necessary that the authority enforces the law as a neutral third party (=no corruption ; here is where the weak link is)). Otherwise what are property rights than the ability to protect your property? I'd say that such an ability is not a "right". This is unproblematic with products (definition below) because products can be traced back to the rightful maker of the product. It gets problematic with land:

There are two kinds of property: Ownership of land (incl. its resources) on the one side and ownership of materialized human work (products). The two are different because someone that has produced a product has every right to call it his and can therefore sell it. With EVERY land owned today someone has simply said that it is "his" at some point in time (except if a state sells land). One example is the american land-rush where so called "sooners" just claimed land IF they could enforce that no one violates it - but by what measure is it their "property"? Over time the forced claim of land was excepted and then enforced by the state. Another example would be mining resources on mars or on asteroids. Land and its resources do not belong to ANYONE by definition IF there is no common agreement about what land belongs to who. So land ownership is either maintained by the owner's own ability to defend it against other's using it or it is maintained by a common agreement that is necessarily enforced by some kind of state (land rush example: the state allowing colonialists to to claim land of a certain size) because what is a "common agreement" (=facts and rules excepted by EVERYONE) but a state that can enforce that common agreement.

Are there any solutions / mechanisms which could solve those problems?

I like the attitude to keep on searching for solutions and make the world better than it is today! ...that is why such discussions are valuable.

What I could NOT AGREE MORE WITH is that the laws and the organizational framework alone change NOTHING. Western societies (especially the US today and Europe during the colonialization) are trying to bring "order" and "democrarcy" and "constitutions" to it's "colonies" for ages which is the most devastating process which leads to endless amounts of violence long term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlydjg1tiso well said.

Am I right that algorithms/concepts/networks like PBFT, ripple and hyperledger all fall into the same category in so far as they all suffer from being either not open (=the participation (as a node) in the finding of the consensus depends on the decision of a centralized entity) or if everyone can provide a node they suffer from sybill attacks?

Links:
http://www.coindesk.com/stellar-ripple-hyperledger-rivals-bitcoin-proof-work/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CoinDesk+%28CoinDesk+-+The+Voice+of+Digital+Currency%29

http://hyperledger.com/

http://video.mit.edu/watch/practical-byzantine-fault-tolerance-9388/

I don't think everyone is aware that the mumble session time has changed:

To everybody who subscribed to this topic, please notice that the Mumble talk time has moved to 9 AM EST. Thanks Fuzz

First I want to say that I am very happy with what BitShares has become! Also I admire the passion and idealism Larimer and co put into BitShares. A groundbreaking product (BitAssets + lots of innovations like DPOS and TITAN) has been produced within relatively little time.

To following should stimulate a hopefully fruitful discussion about an issue that will always be a balance.

I am asking (myself and I3) whether the tendency towards atomic entities (individual teams, individual developers, no hierarchies whatsoever) is practically helpful for the realization of all the BitShares ideas and projects.

Maybe it is naive but wouldn't it help if all the devs would work on all the bitshares ideas as a team rather than individuals who do all kinds of uncoordinated things. (was maybe a bit exaggerated but i have the impression that this is the tendency)

There is another (related) issue: Transparency/Openness towards the forum: I think this is an important goal worth achieving. The question is just whether this goal would be in danger if "strategic proposals posts" or other ideas, plans and side projects (the merger proposal would certainly be an example) would first be discussed with the "team" to a point where they are "finished". I, as a stakeholder in all BTS ideas, would wish for a "PR strategy" that is sensitive towards the sometimes subtle subtexts conveyed which can result in FUD which can hurt the project long term because shareholder see the BitShares dev team as not capable of handling "investor relations" well, also given that the Chinese community panics easily at certain "pain words". That would practically include that all fundamental strategic posts are vetted with the team first so that a solution can be found that is part of a bigger picture where the consequences have been thought about (instead of giving the forum/shareholders a weekend of a FUD/enthusiasm roller coaster which will overall always be more painful because uncertainty is always perceived as negative).

I know that what I described above can never be reached! It will always be a process and like BM said it will always be foggy where everyone can only see so far. What I propose though is that a team that works as a team (and not as individuals doing whatever they like) might also just see 10 meters ahead like on individual but might see more interconnections and unconsidered consequences. After that team vetting process the forum public would be helpful like it has greatly been in the past.

Here is my philosophical perspective on hierarchies:
I totally oppose any hierarchies with respect to social standings. Hierarchies separate artificially. There is no difference among anything that lives when the essential core is what is looked at. I personally respect people for two reasons only: Because they are humans and behave as such (being trustworthy, emphatic, loving...) and because they have good arguments and/or skills. The power (over others someone has) is no reason to for me to treat anyone any different.
On the other side hierarchies can be functional which do not effect the value of individuals (as described above). And there is something like a "team spirit" that holds people together through trust beyond what is necessary for the individual.

What I head in mind I think was "a normal startup team" that works towards a common goal. I also see that the whole forum is kind of the extended (vetting) team which has lots of value. It's all a balance

I have to add that this IS ONLY MY OUTSIDE IMPRESSION which I wanted to share to ignite some discussion about the way to get most effectively towards our goals.

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/beyond-bitcoin-17-counterpartying-with-robby-dermody DPOS mentioned, beginning 48:50 and wise words about adoption at the end.