The Significance of what we are doing...

[Troglodactyl]

He'd urge you to try driving on the left until *you* change your mind

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Indeed, and I was asking for that given my arbitrary choice of example.

However, that sort of all or nothing insistence isn't generally an efficient method of building network effect.  There's a difference between the hypocrisy of arguing for a new system as an absolute moral requirement without following its principles and arguing that a new consensus would increase efficiency if widely adopted.

[toast]

He'd urge you to try driving on the left until *you* change your mind

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Troglodactyl]

For what it is worth, I am less concerned with conveying my worldview than I am with asking everyone to live by the precepts that he or she advocates for others. Since early adulthood, I have referred to this as 'metarchy' from 'meta-' in the sense of self-referential analysis, and '-archy'.

In this way, rather than try to convince anyone to see the world as I do, I would ask only that academic communists be forbidden to hold property, that supporters of the social welfare society be taxed at very high rates, that racists be forbidden to live near or work among individuals of different ethnicities, that anti-immigrationists be denied passports, etc.

Help the helpful, be kind to the kind, police the police, judge the judges, tolerate the tolerant, sneer at the arrogant, and stay off my lawn.

There's some value in this approach, but it's also possible to disagree with the consensus while recognizing the value of having a consensus.  If I have a strong preference for driving on the left, but live in a country where the consensus is to drive on the right, would you urge me to drive on the left until I convince everyone else to alter the consensus?  Or should I live with and follow the current consensus while working toward an alternative?

[CWEvans]

For what it is worth, I am less concerned with conveying my worldview than I am with asking everyone to live by the precepts that he or she advocates for others. Since early adulthood, I have referred to this as 'metarchy' from 'meta-' in the sense of self-referential analysis, and '-archy'.

In this way, rather than try to convince anyone to see the world as I do, I would ask only that academic communists be forbidden to hold property, that supporters of the social welfare society be taxed at very high rates, that racists be forbidden to live near or work among individuals of different ethnicities, that anti-immigrationists be denied passports, etc.

Help the helpful, be kind to the kind, police the police, judge the judges, tolerate the tolerant, sneer at the arrogant, and stay off my lawn.

[fuzzy]

bump

[G1ng3rBr34dM4n]

Point noted about extreme political views...  Unlike debates with left vs right, communism vs democracy, gay rights, etc all of these views require everyone to adopt their system and threaten to hurt those who do not get with the program.   I merely promote views that don't threaten to hurt anyone.   Though, I suppose most other views by their very nature would threaten to hurt me for not getting with their program.   Look what happened to Jesus for simply telling people to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, give to the poor, go two miles if you are compelled to go one.   

Do you believe that the myth of Jesus is actually true? Would you describe yourself as any of the following: atheist, theist, deist, Christian?  Just so that I can understand exactly where you are coming from.

None of the above.  After seeing the complete ignorance of the vast majority of society on every other area of inquiry (Money, Economics, Government, Electricity, Health, etc) combined with the complete corruption of any kind of commitment to the truth by every political entity since Genesis was first penned I have no trust in any other individual to accurately convey a message over 2000 microseconds let alone 2000 years, through multiple cultures and languages.   Always and everywhere the history books are written by the victors to serve as propaganda for their rule.   Lies and myths are accepted as truth today despite clear evidence to the contrary from first hand experience.   People DIE for these lies thinking they are fighting for freedom.   

Does God exist or do we live in the matrix?  I believe the answer can only be found within.  All of history is a myth and the future a dream.  Only now, in this moment, do they exist and are available to guide our next action.

I've been searching for years for this deep of an understanding of what I believe to be my own inner feelings in regards to what others call religion.  Thank you bytemaster, for the articulation of something I've been striving to put into words for so long... :-)

[Ykw]

Point noted about extreme political views...  Unlike debates with left vs right, communism vs democracy, gay rights, etc all of these views require everyone to adopt their system and threaten to hurt those who do not get with the program.   I merely promote views that don't threaten to hurt anyone.   Though, I suppose most other views by their very nature would threaten to hurt me for not getting with their program.   Look what happened to Jesus for simply telling people to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, give to the poor, go two miles if you are compelled to go one.   

Do you believe that the myth of Jesus is actually true? Would you describe yourself as any of the following: atheist, theist, deist, Christian?  Just so that I can understand exactly where you are coming from.

None of the above.  After seeing the complete ignorance of the vast majority of society on every other area of inquiry (Money, Economics, Government, Electricity, Health, etc) combined with the complete corruption of any kind of commitment to the truth by every political entity since Genesis was first penned I have no trust in any other individual to accurately convey a message over 2000 microseconds let alone 2000 years, through multiple cultures and languages.   Always and everywhere the history books are written by the victors to serve as propaganda for their rule.   Lies and myths are accepted as truth today despite clear evidence to the contrary from first hand experience.   People DIE for these lies thinking they are fighting for freedom.   

Does God exist or do we live in the matrix?  I believe the answer can only be found within.  All of history is a myth and the future a dream.  Only now, in this moment, do they exist and are available to guide our next action.

You are a dreamer man! =) Your thoughts just travel over multiple directions seeking for joy in finding new knowledge and ideas to discuss...

Can't leave aside my gratitude for such great help to the world... 

[CryptoN8]

umm... is that... you? 

I wish... it's The Dude.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+dude

 
In my defense, I was just a child when the movie came out haha

Well then I would say it's awesome that you're involved with cryptocurrency at your current age.

[jae208]

umm... is that... you? 

I wish... it's The Dude.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+dude

 
In my defense, I was just a child when the movie came out haha
 

[smiley35]

umm... is that... you? 

I wish... it's The Dude.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+dude

I hear he abides.

[CryptoN8]

umm... is that... you? 

I wish... it's The Dude.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+dude

[jae208]

I read through it all, and I love it. So very exciting to be involved with this project, company, and mindset. It's going to be big!
Sorry, I had too... It's the feeling I get after reading threads like this.

umm... is that... you? 

[CryptoN8]

I read through it all, and I love it. So very exciting to be involved with this project, company, and mindset. It's going to be big!
Sorry, I had too... It's the feeling I get after reading threads like this.

[danonthehill]

Good answer.

[bytemaster]

Point noted about extreme political views...  Unlike debates with left vs right, communism vs democracy, gay rights, etc all of these views require everyone to adopt their system and threaten to hurt those who do not get with the program.   I merely promote views that don't threaten to hurt anyone.   Though, I suppose most other views by their very nature would threaten to hurt me for not getting with their program.   Look what happened to Jesus for simply telling people to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, give to the poor, go two miles if you are compelled to go one.   

Do you believe that the myth of Jesus is actually true? Would you describe yourself as any of the following: atheist, theist, deist, Christian?  Just so that I can understand exactly where you are coming from.

None of the above.  After seeing the complete ignorance of the vast majority of society on every other area of inquiry (Money, Economics, Government, Electricity, Health, etc) combined with the complete corruption of any kind of commitment to the truth by every political entity since Genesis was first penned I have no trust in any other individual to accurately convey a message over 2000 microseconds let alone 2000 years, through multiple cultures and languages.   Always and everywhere the history books are written by the victors to serve as propaganda for their rule.   Lies and myths are accepted as truth today despite clear evidence to the contrary from first hand experience.   People DIE for these lies thinking they are fighting for freedom.   

Does God exist or do we live in the matrix?  I believe the answer can only be found within.  All of history is a myth and the future a dream.  Only now, in this moment, do they exist and are available to guide our next action. 

[toast]

Maybe I'm not looking at this from a broad enough perspective, but it seems to me that if drugs (or another easy revenue source for street-level criminals) became illegal, that other forms of illegal activity would rise. Maybe personal assault to steal the iGadget and sell (or could we make this not a possibility?)

I don't think "street-level criminals" like that exist. There are poor drug addicts who steal shit to buy crack and there are businessmen who are providing an illegal service and are only in it for a profit. I don't think drug dealers would become thieves or conmen if their business disappeared.

[progmac]

It's all a matter of tools. In the society of today the vast majority of people don't have the tools to survive and are in a state of desperation. Living day to day, paycheck to paycheck, or worse they are risking their lives and freedom to get beyond "street level".

We should be asking why are people so desperate? We should also be asking why government encourages people to have dependency on it's services but sets monetary and legal policies which may in fact contribute to the desperation people are under?

Finally we have to ask what can we do about this?  Crime exists where ever human beings are desperate and the laws interfere with the free market. In a free market where selling drugs is not illegal then the drug dealing industry wouldn't necessarily be violent anymore. But let's be honest about it and also admit that if there were better opportunities the vast majority of people who sell drugs for a living would be convinced to do something else.

So until we provide better opportunities for people by building tools which cannot easily be confiscated, banned, outlawed, or have the access restricted, then nothing can be expected to change. The other invention we can provide is deflationary currencies/DACs.

Anyone can benefit from using their own currency so that they can avoid certain poverty traps. People who don't have good credit cannot go to a bank to get a business loan, but they can go into debt for college. Who decided that college is more important than starting a business?

The other important distinction is the distinction between currencies which inflate which means every year the holders will become more desperate and competitive to maintain their position, and currencies which are deflationary which don't require desperation but instead patience. When you have the currency itself programming people into thinking like a criminal because if they don't get all they can and spend it all as fast as they can't it wont be worth anything, then how are you supposed to get people to think long term or set long term goals, save or plan ahead?

Those who are promoting the inflationary model are promoting the thug mentality without realizing it in my opinion and we should look very carefully at the effects of deflationary currencies on different demographics to see if it results in a behavioral change.

From what I've seen in the Bitcoin community I've noticed it's remarkably well behaved with not very much violence. I also know most people in the Bitcoin community are not rich at all. So there might be an opportunity for a case study on the effects of deflationary currencies on different populations, could it be that deflationary currencies deter crime because people think if they just have patience and save they can get everything they'll need without having to hurt or compete with other people?

Pretty insightful and rich content above.

Maybe I'm not looking at this from a broad enough perspective, but it seems to me that if drugs (or another easy revenue source for street-level criminals) became illegal, that other forms of illegal activity would rise. Maybe personal assault to steal the iGadget and sell (or could we make this not a possibility?)

On the other hand, the current source of most petty theft and break-ins is drug users, not dealers.

Mostly my random thoughts at this point. I need to think about this some more and do some more reading.

[danonthehill]

Point noted about extreme political views...  Unlike debates with left vs right, communism vs democracy, gay rights, etc all of these views require everyone to adopt their system and threaten to hurt those who do not get with the program.   I merely promote views that don't threaten to hurt anyone.   Though, I suppose most other views by their very nature would threaten to hurt me for not getting with their program.   Look what happened to Jesus for simply telling people to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, give to the poor, go two miles if you are compelled to go one.   

Do you believe that the myth of Jesus is actually true? Would you describe yourself as any of the following: atheist, theist, deist, Christian?  Just so that I can understand exactly where you are coming from.

[Ben Mason]

I find I'm so excited I can barely sit still or hold a thought in my head. I think it is the excitement only a free man can feel, a free man at the start of a long journey whose conclusion is uncertain. I hope I can make it across the border. I hope to see my friend, and shake his hand. I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams. I hope.   (Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding, Shawshank Redemption)

[Ben Mason]

It was one of those days when it's a minute away from snowing and there's this electricity in the air, you can almost hear it. Right? And this bag was just dancing with me. Like a little kid begging me to play with it. For fifteen minutes. That's the day I realized that there was this entire life behind things, and this incredibly benevolent force that wanted me to know there was no reason to be afraid, ever. Video's a poor excuse, I know. But it helps me remember... I need to remember... Sometimes there's so much beauty in the world, I feel like I can't take it, and my heart is just going to cave in.' (Ricky Fitts, American Beauty)

The creative use of this technology can change the course of human history and allowed to mature, offers the genuine prospect of social justice. I choose to believe invictus has both the creative genius and the integrity to communicate this incredibly benevolent force to the world.

[luckybit]

I am very excited about the potentials for society and you gave a great talk on that radio station yesterday! Everyone should listen.
Some differentiation: Would you agree that consensus technology can make civil law (partly) unnecessary but not penal law. Or would you want to challenge the centralization of the right to use force by the state? If so how would you want to make sure a violant person (for example a killer) gets arrested?

A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution.   

Can't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.

The problem with work facilities is that the current justice system willingly frames people or creates conditions for people to find themselves paying restitution for life. There are many debt traps, poverty traps, or traps which will put decent people in for profit private prisons.

We have a lot to fix with the justice system and the prison system. I think in general what we should focus on is reducing the scarcity and cost of living. People will not have to resort to crime or government support if the market were deflationary enough that everyone could just have their basic needs met. It's only when people become desperate that they begin to take chances they would not ordinarily have taken to earn $.

The rest of what you're saying I agree with. I do think that having more opportunities to make a living in an information based economy benefits everyone. No one has a monopoly on information at this time. But I think we should not limit what we are doing to just information alone because information can be made physical with 3d printers.

That means poverty as we know it can be dramatically reduced without government involvement. I would expect that as poverty is eliminated and the needs of people are met then we will have less street thugs selling drugs to pay for themselves and child support.

Can't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.

More generally, where there are imperfect humans there will be crime and violence.  The question is how to minimize it without participating in crime (by which I mean the violation of rights) or initiating violence.

I think about it a lot. Largely because I live in a neighborhood where i witness drug deals with some regularity and crime in general (petty theft mostly) is higher than average. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if nobody bought their drugs on the street and put the street-level dealer out of business. But then I figure that the people into dealing drugs are mostly poor kids who would be getting their money more violently if they couldn't sell dope. Young, uneducated, generally uncivilized -- how will they participate in the economy? What role would these type of people have in a new economy?

It's all a matter of tools. In the society of today the vast majority of people don't have the tools to survive and are in a state of desperation. Living day to day, paycheck to paycheck, or worse they are risking their lives and freedom to get beyond "street level".

We should be asking why are people so desperate? We should also be asking why government encourages people to have dependency on it's services but sets monetary and legal policies which may in fact contribute to the desperation people are under?

Finally we have to ask what can we do about this?  Crime exists where ever human beings are desperate and the laws interfere with the free market. In a free market where selling drugs is not illegal then the drug dealing industry wouldn't necessarily be violent anymore. But let's be honest about it and also admit that if there were better opportunities the vast majority of people who sell drugs for a living would be convinced to do something else.

So until we provide better opportunities for people by building tools which cannot easily be confiscated, banned, outlawed, or have the access restricted, then nothing can be expected to change. The other invention we can provide is deflationary currencies/DACs.

Anyone can benefit from using their own currency so that they can avoid certain poverty traps. People who don't have good credit cannot go to a bank to get a business loan, but they can go into debt for college. Who decided that college is more important than starting a business?

The other important distinction is the distinction between currencies which inflate which means every year the holders will become more desperate and competitive to maintain their position, and currencies which are deflationary which don't require desperation but instead patience. When you have the currency itself programming people into thinking like a criminal because if they don't get all they can and spend it all as fast as they can't it wont be worth anything, then how are you supposed to get people to think long term or set long term goals, save or plan ahead?

Those who are promoting the inflationary model are promoting the thug mentality without realizing it in my opinion and we should look very carefully at the effects of deflationary currencies on different demographics to see if it results in a behavioral change.

From what I've seen in the Bitcoin community I've noticed it's remarkably well behaved with not very much violence. I also know most people in the Bitcoin community are not rich at all. So there might be an opportunity for a case study on the effects of deflationary currencies on different populations, could it be that deflationary currencies deter crime because people think if they just have patience and save they can get everything they'll need without having to hurt or compete with other people?

[bytemaster]

They can make money speculating in the success and failure of music... BitDope, etc.   What we are doing will create millions of jobs for people of all classes with access to more accurate information.

[progmac]

Can't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.

More generally, where there are imperfect humans there will be crime and violence.  The question is how to minimize it without participating in crime (by which I mean the violation of rights) or initiating violence.

I think about it a lot. Largely because I live in a neighborhood where i witness drug deals with some regularity and crime in general (petty theft mostly) is higher than average. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if nobody bought their drugs on the street and put the street-level dealer out of business. But then I figure that the people into dealing drugs are mostly poor kids who would be getting their money more violently if they couldn't sell dope. Young, uneducated, generally uncivilized -- how will they participate in the economy? What role would these type of people have in a new economy?

[Troglodactyl]

Can't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.

More generally, where there are imperfect humans there will be crime and violence.  The question is how to minimize it without participating in crime (by which I mean the violation of rights) or initiating violence.

[progmac]

I am very excited about the potentials for society and you gave a great talk on that radio station yesterday! Everyone should listen.
Some differentiation: Would you agree that consensus technology can make civil law (partly) unnecessary but not penal law. Or would you want to challenge the centralization of the right to use force by the state? If so how would you want to make sure a violant person (for example a killer) gets arrested?

A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution.   

Can't say I understand this particular idea. Where there is relative poverty, there will always be crime and violence. I hope I'm wrong.

[xeroc]

I like where all of this is heading to ..  thrusters!

[coolspeed]

A little like Ant Colony Optimization. It's about emerging. Social discovery. Just like free market.

We should put these vision on our site, in case of other DACs use our advertisement.

[bytemaster]

Hi Bytemaster,

This is all great, and I completely agree with how everything described here is possible with a good consensus building system.  But help me understand what you mean by "Consensus Technology"?

In my mind ONE of the hardest parts about building consensus, is that everyone quickly finds some minor point they disagree on, the conversation always moves down to that level, no matter how trivial and less important.  Immediately, the infinitely repetitive flame, edit, censor wars start, nobody can agree at that level, everyone get's hurt, no progress is made, everyone leaves, any possible consensus is destroyed.  And that's just one of the problems.  Canonizer.com's goal is exactly to solve all such problems with consensus building, and to be able to rigorously measure for exactly how much you have, in real time, and find out who is still not on board, so you can know, concisely and quantitatively what is required to get most of them to support your camp..

Brent Allsop

I mean block chain technology that establishes the official record.   Technologies such as Canonizer can never get 100% consensus suitable for changing human action.  It is a great platform for discussion, but lacks self-enforcing rules that motivate individuals to take specific actions out of self interest.   

I do recognize that Consensus Technologies is very broad.

[Brent.Allsop]

Hi Bytemaster,

This is all great, and I completely agree with how everything described here is possible with a good consensus building system.  But help me understand what you mean by "Consensus Technology"?

In my mind ONE of the hardest parts about building consensus, is that everyone quickly finds some minor point they disagree on, the conversation always moves down to that level, no matter how trivial and less important.  Immediately, the infinitely repetitive flame, edit, censor wars start, nobody can agree at that level, everyone get's hurt, no progress is made, everyone leaves, any possible consensus is destroyed.  And that's just one of the problems.  Canonizer.com's goal is exactly to solve all such problems with consensus building, and to be able to rigorously measure for exactly how much you have, in real time, and find out who is still not on board, so you can know, concisely and quantitatively what is required to get most of them to support your camp..

Brent Allsop

[38PTSWarrior]

That was nice, some nice words, now I can fall asleep ad know the world will be ok zzZz

[bytemaster]

"I advocate consent of the governed where every Keyhotee ID publicly signs which laws they will follow and by which agencies they are willing to be judged.   Then phone software can validate that two people have compatible systems of law and dispute resolution before you do business."

Great man! I always tell the people that I would like to have two passports. One of the nation I was born in, ad another one with my own constitution and laws. Then I could say to the national policeman:" But hey, in my own one-man-country I am allowed to do this", and he would have to accept it.

But you are, I don't want to slime, a very smart person who can put your ideas to paper and think stuff out on a high intelligence level, you have my big respect Mr. bytemaster. Thank you for all your work!!

I my system, such a police man who stopped you would be flagged for detaining you and then invited to arbitration for initiating aggression against you.   Of course, he wouldn't show up.  It would be noted in the public record as an open judgement against him.   He could of course, agree to arbitrate the dispute in the future and clear his record, but until then everyone in the liberty movement would refuse doing business with him or they would be liable to pay his judgment for him.

Of course, if the liberty movement is small the cop may not care, but if it grew to a certain size then all of a sudden it starts to have consequences that matter to the cop. 

I would of course advise everyone to pay the ticket and fines being coerced out of you for harming no one.  Don't fight the 'system' instead deal with the people in the system.   Don't harm them, or threaten them, just refuse to associate with them until they make right what they did wrong.   

Unlike Gandhi, I do not advocate passively taking a beating in an attempt to make the psychopaths feel bad for hurting you, instead I advocate finding market solutions that are entirely legal.

   

[38PTSWarrior]

"I advocate consent of the governed where every Keyhotee ID publicly signs which laws they will follow and by which agencies they are willing to be judged.   Then phone software can validate that two people have compatible systems of law and dispute resolution before you do business."

Great man! I always tell the people that I would like to have two passports. One of the nation I was born in, and another one with my own constitution and laws. Then I could say to the national policeman: "But hey, in my own one-man-country I am allowed to do this", and he would have to accept it.

But you are, I don't want to slime, a very smart person who can put your ideas to paper and think stuff out on a high intelligence level, you have my big respect Mr. bytemaster. Thank you for all your work!!

[toast]

Too often "reasonable" goals are defined as the final target, and then we compromise from there until nothing of value is left.

 ...

Unlike most other radical political proposals, the only threat to any existing structure here is if that structure is later discarded as superfluous.

Yeah, why risk being nipped in the bud when you can write software and make the idea unstoppable. IMO if I3 can get to even a quarter of bitcoin's scale without running into problems with the incumbents then it's smooth sailing towards a better world

[Troglodactyl]

I think this sort of conversation is essential to humanity.  We need idealism, as it's the only reasonable way to define ultimate goals.  Too often "reasonable" goals are defined as the final target, and then we compromise from there until nothing of value is left.

That said, change doesn't happen instantly, and I think we have to be willing to embrace any slight improvement while developing a path that draws nearer to the ideal.

Progress is by nature imperfect, and the danger of idealism is when it makes enemies of improvements for their impurities.  The parallel nature of these consensus systems is one of their greatest strengths.  They're internally based on free market principles, but their adoption is free market based as well.  Unlike most other radical political proposals, the only threat to any existing structure here is if that structure is later discarded as superfluous.

[bytemaster]

I believe that consensus technology can make both civil and penal law irrelevant.   For starters, it can make it possible to come to a consensus about who-dun-it.  Then they can be cut of from economic life.   The police wouldn't dare harm someone or attempt to lock someone up because if they are wrong the market can hold them personally accountable. 

A violent person would eventually be put down in an act of self defense, but everyone always has an opportunity to pay restitution and get back in good standing.   Imagine how much crime there would be if every time you enter a business and attempt to buy something they get an instant criminal record and if they do business with you they become liable for paying back your restitution as well?

A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution.   

Bottom line is that I believe there are market solutions that eliminate the need to use violence in any way except immediate self defense.   I believe that insurance systems can make victims of violent crime whole while the insurance company focuses on collecting the compensation from the perp.

Two points here:

1) I think you're underestimating the impact of human bias on decisions justice. I would not take any justice DAC seriously until it demonstrated awareness of such biases.
2) Be careful about how extreme the political views you express on these forums are, you might be getting a lot more scrutiny than you anticipate soon and it'd be better not to give your opponents ammunition (even if you're right "in the end")

Point noted about extreme political views...  Unlike debates with left vs right, communism vs democracy, gay rights, etc all of these views require everyone to adopt their system and threaten to hurt those who do not get with the program.   I merely promote views that don't threaten to hurt anyone.   Though, I suppose most other views by their very nature would threaten to hurt me for not getting with their program.   Look what happened to Jesus for simply telling people to love their enemies, turn the other cheek, give to the poor, go two miles if you are compelled to go one.   

I think I addressed your first point... the above.. the DAC wouldn't make any judgments, that would be left to arbitration.  The DAC would merely record the results in the public record.

[Stan]

I believe that consensus technology can make both civil and penal law irrelevant.   For starters, it can make it possible to come to a consensus about who-dun-it.  Then they can be cut of from economic life.   The police wouldn't dare harm someone or attempt to lock someone up because if they are wrong the market can hold them personally accountable. 

A violent person would eventually be put down in an act of self defense, but everyone always has an opportunity to pay restitution and get back in good standing.   Imagine how much crime there would be if every time you enter a business and attempt to buy something they get an instant criminal record and if they do business with you they become liable for paying back your restitution as well?

A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution.   

Bottom line is that I believe there are market solutions that eliminate the need to use violence in any way except immediate self defense.   I believe that insurance systems can make victims of violent crime whole while the insurance company focuses on collecting the compensation from the perp.

Two points here:

1) I think you're underestimating the impact of human bias on decisions justice. I would not take any justice DAC seriously until it demonstrated awareness of such biases.
2) Be careful about how extreme the political views you express on these forums are, you might be getting a lot more scrutiny than you anticipate soon and it'd be better not to give your opponents ammunition (even if you're right "in the end")

Passionate advocacy of non-violent solutions is radical?   

Yeah, in this day you may be right!   

[Empirical1]

  Wow, great vision, something special here.

[bytemaster]

Your argument makes assumptions about how I would approach things with your number 1 argument being that *someone* must be allowed to initiate force.   So of course, attacking a straw man is easy.   I do not advocate trials of public opinion as you suggest: it does not scale, and is not just.   I advocate consent of the governed where every Keyhotee ID publicly signs which laws they will follow and by which agencies they are willing to be judged.   Then phone software can validate that two people have compatible systems of law and dispute resolution before you do business. 

Of course there is injustice insurance which to qualify for you must also agree to certain rules and post collateral on your own behavior.   People are only systematically shunned when they are found guilty of violating a law they agreed to follow by a court they agreed to submit to. 

Note: if you assume that someone must be allowed to initiate force you automatically limit your creative problem solving ability by limiting your search space.   

I take the stance that it is not necessary to initiate force based upon a very simple premise: "don't do unto others what you don't want them to do unto you".   From this position I do not want any one to use violence against me just because they think I am guilty or because a court they select found me guilty.   Even if I am guilty I don't want force used against me. 

As soon as you give even an inch and grant someone a monopoly on initiating violence then over time that institution will turn into what we have in the USA today.   Now you have to decide who is exempt from the law and who gets to make the final call.... they will use this power to exempt themselves.  Then the laws will start to become arbitrary as well as the court decisions.   You remove market forces from a situation and quality declines and prices increase.   You then necessitate taxes to fund your laws and thus implement a socialist justice system where new victims are created to punish perps. 

Bottom line... I may not have the solutions yet, but I believe there exists a structure that will allow the vast majority of good men and women in the world to secure their life, liberty, and property without resorting to stealing from each other or stooping to the same level as the very people they are trying to stop.   

Idealistic?  Maybe... something to strive for... definitely.    Impossible?

[toast]

I believe that consensus technology can make both civil and penal law irrelevant.   For starters, it can make it possible to come to a consensus about who-dun-it.  Then they can be cut of from economic life.   The police wouldn't dare harm someone or attempt to lock someone up because if they are wrong the market can hold them personally accountable. 

A violent person would eventually be put down in an act of self defense, but everyone always has an opportunity to pay restitution and get back in good standing.   Imagine how much crime there would be if every time you enter a business and attempt to buy something they get an instant criminal record and if they do business with you they become liable for paying back your restitution as well?

A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution.   

Bottom line is that I believe there are market solutions that eliminate the need to use violence in any way except immediate self defense.   I believe that insurance systems can make victims of violent crime whole while the insurance company focuses on collecting the compensation from the perp.

Two points here:

1) I think you're underestimating the impact of human bias on decisions justice. I would not take any justice DAC seriously until it demonstrated awareness of such biases.
2) Be careful about how extreme the political views you express on these forums are, you might be getting a lot more scrutiny than you anticipate soon and it'd be better not to give your opponents ammunition (even if you're right "in the end")

[santaclause102]

I believe that consensus technology can make both civil and penal law irrelevant.   For starters, it can make it possible to come to a consensus about who-dun-it.  Then they can be cut of from economic life.   The police wouldn't dare harm someone or attempt to lock someone up because if they are wrong the market can hold them personally accountable. 

> Such a common consensus would put public opinion above all individual rights (human and civil). The need to objectively prove someone's crime is a good thing. Imagine a case where a member of a minority group is suspected to have committed a crime. If society is heavily split into opposing groups there is no justice and no neutral court to decide (neutral court is an approximation). And who votes? Everyone (in the world, in a nation, in a town?) has to vote or do people only vote when they want to? 

A violent person would eventually be put down in an act of self defense, but everyone always has an opportunity to pay restitution and get back in good standing. Imagine how much crime there would be if every time you enter a business and attempt to buy something they get an instant criminal record and if they do business with you they become liable for paying back your restitution as well?

> The latter example with the business and the reputation makes a lot of sense to me. But its limitation is in that that would be total surveillance again. Everyone knows what bad things you have done. Doesn't feel free probably.
When does self defense begin? If someone would walk around your neighborhood and shoot people (that happens sometimes and reputation loss is the least thing that would keep people from such actions) and there is no entity that is given the right by the community to use force and only self defense is allowed you would have to wait until that guy comes to your house. If you defend your community and bring the violator down because he is a threat to others that is the same acceptance of violance as now its just not centralized. How do you then judge of the "extended self defense" was justified (the example is obviously but what if someone just steals something from an innocent person?). So as long as the is violence there is a need to counter it. If there is no central authority with the unique rigth to use violence everyone has to have the right to use it. Then who restricts the individual's right to use violence?
Also who would arrest the person which the consensus majority thinks has commuted the crime? 

A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution.   

> I think any violent action (physical or psychological) is irrational in the sense the it worsens your conditions and still people do it. People use violence against themselfs (eg. by abusing drugs) and against others. All conditions are in place today to make that make sure that (mostly, in terms of violence at least) you are very bad of when you harm society. And still people do it. This is not rational and can often not be countered by rational incentives.   

Bottom line is that I believe there are market solutions that eliminate the need to use violence in any way except immediate self defense.  I believe that insurance systems can make victims of violent crime whole while the insurance company focuses on collecting the compensation from the perp.

> Overall my advocatus diabolo position here would be the one of Hobbes. He lived in a violent society in the 17th century with a lot of opposing groups all seeking to achieve the power over the other ones. He gets abstract and describes a situation where everyone has to be afraid of the other one (or the other group) because everyone is equally capable of killing the other one (no one is physically superior enough to dominate the others which can form coalitions if needed). In that situation you better kill the other one before he kills you (preventive self defense). The only solution then is for everyone to agree to give away the individual right to use force to some entity. Nation states are based primarily on this concept and i think it works if that entity is heavily controlled / restricted / supervised. But it is not an optimal concept and I would like to get convinced (by some practical examples/applications that are broken down to the individual's incentives (material or immaterial incentives).

[Empirical1]

I agree, it can bring about such positive change! 

The problem is however great the system is that someone designs, isn't the problem always going to be the fiat to crypto gateway?

This is kind of a re-quote from an article I read today...

"Due to the nature of its structure, banning crypto-currencies will of course not eradicate them. But what it will do is make it impossible for law-abiding individuals and businesses to use them — and thereby render them practically useless anyway."

Everything is legal somewhere.... this would certainly slow things down, but there are just too many benefits to society and individuals who use the coins to keep it down forever.

Yes that's true.

Bitshares can probably only go up in if it works well regardless.

But I think yes Bitcoin can be slowed down/lose a lot of its current value if the West decides to come down hard on it.

[bytemaster]

I agree, it can bring about such positive change! 

The problem is however great the system is that someone designs, isn't the problem always going to be the fiat to crypto gateway?

This is kind of a re-quote from an article I read today...

"Due to the nature of its structure, banning crypto-currencies will of course not eradicate them. But what it will do is make it impossible for law-abiding individuals and businesses to use them — and thereby render them practically useless anyway."

Everything is legal somewhere.... this would certainly slow things down, but there are just too many benefits to society and individuals who use the coins to keep it down forever.

[bytemaster]

I am very excited about the potentials for society and you gave a great talk on that radio station yesterday! Everyone should listen.
Some differentiation: Would you agree that consensus technology can make civil law (partly) unnecessary but not penal law. Or would you want to challenge the centralization of the right to use force by the state? If so how would you want to make sure a violant person (for example a killer) gets arrested?

I believe that consensus technology can make both civil and penal law irrelevant.   For starters, it can make it possible to come to a consensus about who-dun-it.  Then they can be cut of from economic life.   The police wouldn't dare harm someone or attempt to lock someone up because if they are wrong the market can hold them personally accountable. 

A violent person would eventually be put down in an act of self defense, but everyone always has an opportunity to pay restitution and get back in good standing.   Imagine how much crime there would be if every time you enter a business and attempt to buy something they get an instant criminal record and if they do business with you they become liable for paying back your restitution as well?

A violent person would thus be in a virtual jail, living in poverty, until they voluntarily check in to a work facility that provides them food, shelter, and clothing while they work to pay off their restitution.   

Bottom line is that I believe there are market solutions that eliminate the need to use violence in any way except immediate self defense.   I believe that insurance systems can make victims of violent crime whole while the insurance company focuses on collecting the compensation from the perp.

[Empirical1]

 

I agree, it can bring about such positive change! 

The problem is however great the system is that someone designs, isn't the problem always going to be the fiat to crypto gateway?

This is kind of a re-quote from an article I read today...

"Due to the nature of its structure, banning crypto-currencies will of course not eradicate them. But what it will do is make it impossible for law-abiding individuals and businesses to use them — and thereby render them practically useless anyway."

[santaclause102]

 
I am very excited about the potentials for society and you gave a great talk on that radio station yesterday! Everyone should listen.
Some differentiation: Would you agree that consensus technology can make civil law (partly) unnecessary but not penal law. Or would you want to challenge the centralization of the right to use force by the state? If so how would you want to make sure a violant person (for example a killer) gets arrested?

[CLains]

I love posts like this!

[toast]

 

[phoenix]

 

[oco101]

   

[xeroc]

   nice reading

[bytemaster]

The long term benefit of decentralized autonomous companies is the creation of millions of information-based jobs that allow everyone to make money by contributing what they know to the market.  Whether you love music, inventions, news articles, insurance, or currency speculation there will be ample opportunities for people to make money on what they know.   

Consensus technology has the power to do for economics what the internet did for information.

Consensus technology has the power to make governments irrelevant to the provision of law, courts, crime prevention, contract enforcement, voting, or any other so-called public good. 

I am not claiming that governments will be overthrown or that people will vote them out of office, instead I mean to say that their rulings and opinions will be of no practical significance once superior consensus technologies are able to garner more influence and power through voluntary, nonviolent, entirely legal action than governments can wield at gunpoint.

Consensus technology can harness the combined power of all humanity to coordinate the discovery and aggregation of real-time knowledge previously unobtainable.   This knowledge can be used to more effectively coordinate the allocation of resources toward their most productive and valuable use.