Topic: An Online, Distributed, Decentralized, Purely Democratic, CryptoGovernment - page 2. (Read 3267 times)

The OP has no understanding of history, has gotten a ton of facts wrong and may be somoing some really serious stuff.

While it is certainly not robust enough for running a huge government, the fundamentals are there. I am starting small on purpose.

However it is not set up for running government the way we know it today. BitPools would allow for the ability to run as the "government" of a Galts Gulch type of city where there is no centralized authority but people still want to pool their money for city projects and have sway over how their money is spent through proposals and votes.

Similar to governments but with control over your money.

In some forms of pure democracies yes, but not this one. A lot of people here seem to be very confused as to what liberty means. I'll give a much more robust outline of liberty in the updated constitution.


You're delusional, and I'll show you why...


It's not any harder to make it work on large-scale than it is on small-scale, because both scales are automated the same way. Voting can't be hacked on a distributed cryptographic network, just like you can't double-spend bitcoins. When a transaction goes through, it's gone through, everyone agrees on it, end of story. The information of that transaction can be anything, so votes can't be double spent either.


Voting on a crypto network is not a novelty, the bitcoin network can be used for voting, as can many other cryptocoin networks; voting isn't enough, your platform is not suitable for running an entire government system off of. We aren't just talking about voting, we're talking about the entire government, ran and automated on this distributed cryptographic network. Your platform would have to be many factors more robust in order for this to work.

Voting can already be done at http://www.bitpools.com

Example vote result:

Sounds like you really put a lot of thought into this. But a lot of the problem with having a system like this is basically the same problem the Soviets had with implementing Communism. It's hard to make it work on a large scale simply because there's a massive catch-22. You need to have somebody making sure that somebody doesn't get greedy and hog all the doughnuts. But what do you do if the people in charge of distributing doughnuts suddenly decide they're hungry and start eating them all. It's kind of hard to do anything about it once you start noticing empty boxes of doughnuts except maybe take the remaining doughnuts away from them and put somebody else in charge of distributing them. And you're also going to need somebody who is in charge of the machine that counts the votes but that machine can be hacked and its programming changed to, say, counting a "yes" vote on a certain issue twice and a "no" vote only once. However, it's relatively easy to make it work on a small scale like, say, a communal farm because the system is simple. Everybody can get a say in making decisions (with the catch that you have to take your share of the responsibility for a foolish decision), everybody takes up their fair share of the work, and everybody gets a fair share of the produce.

I'll be sure to keep an eye on this thread.  If the idea takes off, then I'm certainly interested.  Disillusionment with the current outmoded system of elected representative is damaging to what little democracy we have left.  The less people care, the more those in power get away with, the worse things get, the less people care.  It's a spiral of increasing failure.

In a pure democracy, 51% can vote to kill the other 49%, and it's "legal".

Then I guess it's a good thing the people in Ohio won't be seeing what the people in Prague say... read the OP before you display your ignorance so boastfully.

Yes, further centralizing political power would be a disaster. If you think people in Ohio are going to give a shit about what some politician in Prague says you might be in for a surprise. 

Said every failed state ever.


Maybe you didn't hear me. I pretty specifically said the democratic gov that would nest on top of this platform is based entirely on the formal logic principles of liberty. Your friends are not at liberty to decide who pays for the meal, and neither are you. You all entered private property, the restaurants. As far as the restaurant is concerned, it cannot see if four individuals entered the restaurant or if a group of people entered the restaurant and so you are all left to pay what you each owe to the business.


I finally got more time to re-write the doc and upload more to the op, you'll see that the turnaround for a law in this system, from the law's inception to the end of the voting and enforcement phase is only a month. City hall is slow because there's humans involved in a process that should be totally automated.

I agree that history is full of governments abusing people, because for all of history government were ran by a very small, disproportionate group of people, separated from those they govern. This can't happen in a pure democracy. Especially since this one is pinned almost entirely on liberties alone.

"to gradually and peacefully transition the human race into a singular government system, this change needs to happen soon, very soon."

hell no.  It's hard enough to get things changed at your local city hall, let alone some "world hall" in some distant country.  history is full of governments abusing people, and the more powerful they are the worse it is.

Good example. That's how fascism of the majority (also known as democracy) works.

you had veto rights :p

Democracy is a terrible basis for a system of government.

I go out to dinner with 3 of my friends. At the end of the meal, the bill comes. I say "let's split this equally", another says "no, let's just pay for our own", and another says "why doesn't 5flags just pay for it all?" We discuss it, and take a vote. All three of my friends vote that I should pay the whole bill.

Does this create a right? Do my friends have the right to have their dinners paid for? Does it create an obligation? Do I have an obligation to pay the bill?

Most people would answer "no" to both those questions. Majority will creates neither rights, nor obligations.

Ever seen a picture of three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?

They will be left out of citizenship, in their hypocritical nature.

No, unless you were a citizen. Citizenship isn't mandatory, it's voluntary. I'm going to add that whole section into the op, gimme a couple hours I got other things to to. The quick version is that there's two parts to this system, the platform the government runs on, and the government itself. The platform would be like etherium but much more robust, where anyone can build their own form of government on it, and then there's the government system itself, the first of which I'm proposing as a pure democracy to instantiate and popularize the platform. The reason I chose a pure democracy is because (based on every comparative politicist with a PhD I've talked to, and I've talked to dozens about this over the years) it's the only form of government that can peacefully transition the world into a singular world-government. I thought about the nested government "wikigov" idea and that sounds like it would alleviate the problem of having hundreds of altgovs spawning from this, so I'll be adding that to the op as well.

If you don't want to be a citizen of this gov, you don't have to be, just as you can register citizenship, you can relinquish it. However, the crowd-sourced constitution is based entirely on the formal logic principles of liberty, so you're protected by the governments constitution citizen or not, kinda like a much more effective united nations.

If I disagree with a vote, am I obligated to go along with it? Will I be coerced into going along with it? Would I be kidnapped at gunpoint and put in a cage if I don't go along with it?

What about the people who don't like democracy?

I don't have to explain that. What this system would do is technically make it so that there is no "government" because there are no people ruling, the democratic process aspect of it is the entire "government", it is simply the democratic process being put into direct enforcement. That's the entire thing in its simplest form. There's nothing to legitimize about it, that's it, just the process, with very little room for fuckery.

OK. But you would still need to explain why a democratic process gives any government legitimacy, whether it is many governments, or one government.

This would mean far less governments, like just one government by the time it's done...