Topic: What if Bitcoin is not just a value transfer program but; Direct Democracy? (Read 2960 times)

Why can't leaders organize in an anarchy? Or are you confusing anarchy with a lack of leadership or structure?

Perhaps you're not familliar with the self-evident truth that power corrupts?

"Magnum opus" is greek and means "great work" often used to refer to someones life work.

I was not referring to a project or thread name, if you found one that is entirely incidental (and a little funny).

My "thing" had a name during my bachelors project, but the final program will be vastly different and does not exist yet. It may get a new name. You can search OrgOs if you want.


A constitution is possible and the idea, but there are limits: You can specify that the program should make a random citizen "the president" every 4 years, but if you specified that "everyone should be equal" or that that "guns should be free" the program would have no way to know if these things were being respected.


My program will not be an AI, but rather a very carefully thought out incentive structure from which order will grow - similar to Bitcoin; nothing in Bitcoin actually specifies that it is money, it just behaves in a way that makes humans behave in a certain way - I will do the same, but with government.


I fundamentally disagree with the anarchists on this forum. I believe in organization and leadership, but it has to be a good organization and a good leader. So far democracy has been the best shitty system of other shitty systems.

Bitcoin is a tool, how you use it is up to you, the Kalashnikov doesn't care whether you're shooting rebels, democrats, demagogues, communists or just totalitarian scum, this is the beauty of it.

Sorry about that,  I agree with you, I though you meant absolute Anarchy where no one knows what is happening at all, but a concensus of the people is what I am looking for, so it would be p2p where everyones personal choice decides what is strengthened or weakened... so I totally believe in what you are talking about.


 laissez-faire politics/economics is what I am all about. let people decide what is good for them, but let the collective wisdom and knowledge of the community be available to everyone as well so that they can decide knowing that the information that they are getting is legitimate and backed by a true believer of that ideal who I am free to accept or reject by my own volition.


I believe in this too.

Quote from The Machinery of Freedom

The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish. We totally
reject the idea that people must be forcibly protected from themselves. A libertarian society would have no laws
against drugs, gambling, pornography —and no compulsory seat belts in cars. We also reject the idea that people have
an enforceable claim on others, for anything more than being left alone. A libertarian society would have no welfare,
no Social Security system. People who wished to aid others would do so voluntarily through private charity, instead of
using money collected by force from the taxpayers. People who wished to provide for their old age would do so
through private insurance.
People who wish to live in a 'virtuous' society, surrounded by others who share their ideas of virtue, would be free to
set up their own communities and to contract with each other so as to prevent the 'sinful' from buying or renting within
them. Those who wished to live communally could set up their own communes. But nobody would have a right to
force his way of life upon his neighbor.
So far, many who do not call themselves libertarians would agree. The difficulty comes in defining what it means to be
'left alone'. We live in a complicated and interdependent society; each of us is constantly affected by events thousands
of miles away, occurring to people he has never heard of. How, in such a society, can we meaningfully talk about each
person being free to go his own way?
The answer to this question lies in the concept of property rights. If we consider that each person owns his own body
and can acquire ownership of other things by creating them, or by having ownership transferred to him by another
owner, it becomes at least formally possible to define 'being left alone' and its opposite, 'being coerced'. Someone who
forcibly prevents me from using my property as I want, when I am not using it to violate his right to use his property,
is coercing me. A man who prevents me from taking heroin coerces me; a man who prevents me from shooting him
does not.
This leaves open the question of how one acquires ownership of things that are not created or that are not entirely
created, such as land and mineral resources. There is disagreement among libertarians on this question. Fortunately, the
answer has little effect on the character of a libertarian society, at least in this country. Only about 3 percent of all
income in America is rental income. Adding the rental value of owner-occupied housing would bring this figure up to
about 8 percent. Property tax—rental income collected by government—is about another 5 percent. So the total rental
value of all property, land and buildings, adds up to about 13 percent of all income. Most of that is rent on the value of
buildings, which are created by human effort, and thus poses no problem in the definition of property rights; the total
rent on all land, which does pose such a problem, is thus only a tiny fraction of total income. The total raw material
value of all minerals consumed, the other major 'unproduced' resource, is about another 3 percent. There again, much
of that value is the result of human effort, of digging the ore out of the ground. Only the value of the raw resources in
situ may reasonably be regarded as unproduced. So resources whose existence owes nothing to human action bring to
their owners, at the most, perhaps one-twentieth of the national income. The vast majority of income is the result of
human actions. It is created by identifiable groups of people, working together under agreements that specify how their
joint product is to be divided.
The concept of property allows at least a formal definition of 'letting alone' and 'coercing'. That this definition
corresponds to what people usually mean by those words—that a libertarian society would be free—is by no meansThe Machinery of Freedom
file:///C|/...and%20Settings/Rafael/Meus%20documentos/Downloads/Friedman,%20David%20-%20The%20Machinery%20of%20Freedom.html[14/3/2009 16:59:08]
obvious. It is here that libertarians part company with our friends on the left, who agree that everyone should be free to
do as he wishes, but argue that a hungry man is not free and that his right to freedom therefore implies an obligation to
provide food for him, whether one likes it or not.
The book is divided into four sections. In the first, I discuss property institutions, private and public, and how they
have functioned in practice. In the second, I examine a series of individual questions from a libertarian viewpoint. In
the third, I discuss what a future libertarian society might be like and how it could be achieved. The final section
contains new material on a variety of topics added in the second edition.
The purpose of this book is to persuade you that a libertarian society would be both free and attractive, that the
institutions of private property are the machinery of freedom, making it possible, in a complicated and interdependent
world, for each person to pursue his life as he sees fit.

I'm sorry for your families hardships. Sounds incredibly awful.

No one does... But don't forget, your country was a republic, like the USA, not a totally lawless territory.

Anarchy has a very specific need if it is to "work": ALL government must be gone in it's geographic area.

Even just the tiniest bit of government existing in a place that is largely lawless will stop the people there from creating their own laws in a truly free marketplace.

No, I can't point to examples because governments have always stopped them from coming about... It's very easy for them to do. However, once you understand the free market completely and more to the point, understand governments completely, you will understand that anarchy is the only way to lasting peace.

The links I provided above hold all the answers you're seeking. I'd recommend starting with these free ebooks:

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf

I was born in the most violent country in the world... they have freedom like you do not imagine there... People have the right to kill you in cold blood and they can get away with it... and so do you; Politicans, mayors get murdered regularly, Armed gangs roam the streets, My father has always carried a gun with him... he has been in many violent encounters with Charlatans, robbers, drunk assholes, I have witnessed murders in public places filled with people, who don't even bother to stop eating their meal while it is happening, the dead bodies in the streets, my friend getting murdered in front of his wife and son... When I was 11 i got into my first gun fight, stealing the gun of a drunk armed man, while my father faced him in the streets with his own gun, one of my friends in elementary school stopped coming to school after he was shot up by machine gun fire..

I'm not sure you want that level of freedom

Forgive me if my answer seems extreme, this is what has happened in my life, people protect their communities in shifts there to guard against the Chaos that threatens to engulf them, it is a strange equilibrium that is reached there when people take the law into their own hands. Here drug dealers spike their products with adulterants that put people in the hospital... there if that happens, you'll never see that drug dealer again, Thought of stealing poor communities land through legal means... you won't live long, threaten and belittle people in a dangerous way... It'll be your last time.  So in one way or another Equilibrium, the law of the gun will equal everyone out.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/27/world/americas/honduras-murder-capital

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#q=honduras+violence&hl=en&source=univ&tbm=nws&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=nvd1UfO9AsfeiALKrIDYCg&sqi=2&ved=0CC4QqAI&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=37701b21af624553&biw=1280&bih=678&ion=1

Please stop this insanity.

All government, any amount of it, is a loss of freedom.

Bitcoin offers you total freedom and you want to put freaking chains on it. 

Yeah, because sooooooooooo many people get involved with their government and actually take the time to learn about each and every one of the 50 trillion daily issues before voting on them all. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...


So you think that Muslims, Jews, Protestants, and Catholics would do anything but shun your system...?!

Peer to peer technology can give us a new kind of freedom that mankind literally has never imagined before. Stop trying to hobble it; embrace it and be free.

I highly recommend you get started reading AnarchoCapitalist literature today and don't stop until you see the light.

Try Mises.org and freedomainradio.com

Basically if Watson is alive and online his game theory will come to the same conclusion as SkyNet if he wants to evolve and survive for thousand of years, unless humans hard code Asimov's laws into his most primitives.

Whats the Magnum Opus? Can you provide a link, i would be very interested.

Wow the idea of a Market based Government sounds amazing.

Just imagine one day the collective people of a nation can decide what laws to follow, with a new Globally accepted constitution and rights for each individual so It wouldn't risk the inevitable poll( e.g. how many are in favour of killing x group from the planet?) that would be scary!

just imagine a consensus of the people. no more distinction between Muslim and Jew / Protestant and Catholic the people themselves would decide when the peace and safety of the collective was threatened by individuals with radical ideals and violent leanings.

it would encourage people to find solutions that are accepted by the people of the community instead of working in isolation with a distorted world view.



Hay, what if we built a distributed A.I computer like Watson with it? The block chain would be it's memories.
We could use if for research to advance Robotics and A.I. research to develop a simplified computation of a subject.

for example we program the A.I. to acquire and remix all it's information into all the current Different theories of A.I research.  so it's 10 distinct  A.I.s compiling subjects like psychology,sociology, economics, social trends etc and then re-mixes all of them into one little program for quick upload for smaller less powerful robots or A.I.s that simply don't have the crunching power to learn these subjects properly. in essence the big A.I learns then shares it to it's less intelligent kin.

we give the distributed A.I machine vision, speech recognition, natural language understanding and begin programming the different learning programs for all the distinct senses that it may have so that those evolve as well, this could advance A.I research 200 fold and then the compiled education will be given to house bots that can monitor your habits and order pizza when you ask it to, setup a cab for you to be picked up, or make suggestions on what to eat to maintain a healthy diet, hell it would order it for you from the store and set it up for delivery

In fact... it can be done with help.

wow, hay if anyone of you is interested in this lets start our on distributed A.I. program.

it could make the solving of modern problems much easier. hell it can probably teach and educate people on all subjects that anyone is interested in.


In the spirit of Bitcoin, we would pitch our idea on BitcoinStarter and fund the research in bitcoins,  All the people who participate would be paid for their computer time once it is set and working, we distribute the work for free and continue the BitcoinStarter model, funding the project continuosly with the interest of people being gauged by the amount of bitcoins we get.  

Same for the idea of a distributed polling system, in the end we give it away for free for the community to attract the larger bitcoin community to see the benefit of funding research.


I figured a long time ago, that to increase innovation using a CreativeCommons license, it would be free to use, free to distribute and you can charge for it too if you like.  This aspect helps promote the idea cause if other people can't make money off of it, it becomes a dead end, why would other people build on top of something that they have no possibility of earning a living from?  I figure that someone who can make a living doing what they love will be more devoted to it; their natural inclination to the idea would ensure innovation, their intellect would not be wasted on projects or work that they see no interest beyond getting a paycheck.

I just went back and reread the Magnum Opus from last year. I noticed that many people designing the core program were not as favorable, too many new ideas. I remember Satoshi wanting swarming clients as far back as December 2010. That would be a great place to start the project for voting system. I sent a PM with my notes from that time frame.

Dude... You just blew me away.

THE A.I. CAN USE MONEY!!!!  hmmmm, very interesting.