BitLaw - Polycentric Law in Crypto-Space (part 2)

Maybe you missed the word “polycentric”, pal.

Nobody asked you to use it, although you apparently support the idea since you have your own self-centered sense of what law should apply to you. But if you want to force your stuff on others, rest assured you’ll get the same welcome as the current lineup of statist thugs.

1 Like

janitor, You are correct because of your own personal experience in you part of the world.
But I do not share the same experiences as you have or even start to even understand your political views.
Do I need your permission to speak about my feelings about polycentric law, all law is just legal fiction made up by man and commercializing is just another step into the gutter, it has no moral value or ethics it is based on cultural consensus of the crowd to impose a man made fiction into crypt-space called bit law is just blaaaah yuk boo !

As I know as anyone you want the law to change all need to create a red flag, one way or another bitcoin was going to have a fallen exchange and a drug scandal to create the view that bitcoin needed to be regulated, and many people where clapping there hands. So there is a bit of bitlaw should be recorded in the block chain… maybe they can work that into factom…

But this is my view point but hay at the end of the day it only piece of rendered code on my screen.
I not really bothered in make believe theories that will never effect my lifetime.

Like I said you should have looked up the term polycentric law. Here, from Wikipedia:

Polycentric law is a legal structure in which providers of legal systems compete or overlap in a given jurisdiction, as opposed to monopolistic statutory law according to which there is a sole provider of law for each jurisdiction.

I don’t need to “change” the law, I just need to apply it to my own action where appropriate.

And by definition in polycentric law nothing is or can be “imposed”. You can abide by whichever system you like.
If you don’t like what others use in the cryptocurrency space, make up your own. It’s up to you, not us, to prove that you have a better answer. If your version sucks, no one will want to deal with you. It’s simple.

Your question about “permission” is therefore completely misplaced. In PoW systems (probably in most other systems such as MaidSafe) transactions are permissionless. There’s a very basic framework - similar to basic respect for private property - and the rest is up to the participants and application developers. Read the fine manuals.

1 Like

polycentric law is financial agreement, I pay my union to have better employment conditions and better pay which negotiated with the employer. yes it is non-binding. But if the conditions are not meet the whole union can call for strike action across many sections of the industry.

The common smart phone is another version of polycentric law, to have one you are automatically in agreement, to be tracked and give up you privacy.
If i do not have one because I can not afford one, my option become limited, with friendship circles and employment opportunities.
I can not simply create my own cell phone, As the same I can not create a bitlaw crypto coin.
I can create a website for eCommerce but if i do not use paypal and credit card processor again I am disadvantaged and will make very little income from a bitcoin wallet.

As I have said polycentric makes different classes of people to have advantage over others and disadvantage whom least can afford it.

Okay so now it’s clear that you don’t understand what this all means.
To you to join a union is a manifestation of polycentric law. :slight_smile:
Like the ability to join two gyms with different membership fees. Lol.
A mobile phone|network contract is most assuredly not a legal system.

Also, you pay your Union to make it harder for the unemployed to compete with you for work.

Edit: to give you a correct example of polycentric law: two factories next to each other. One allows unionization, pays the minimum wage and uses the USD, while the other bans unions, has no minimum wage and pays in SAFE coin or silver, depending on what the workers prefer.

Here this whole thing was addressed earlier in the thread. I was in fact arguing your position quite a bit.

[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:71, topic:4755, full:true”]
One should be fully informed about any decision they make be it voting or spending money, that is any exertion of power and/or will. While switching to an anarchic system would change the form of this it would not get rid of the need of staying informed on various issues. Politics and economics will remain. It’s just one will be “voting” with their dollars or taking direct action rather than electing a proxie ruler into office.

And in that post we also talk a little about honor societies. Moving on.

See Andreas video in this post.

And this is where you hopped in @Al_Kafir So as you can see from this very long line of quotes I was in fact arguing your position there originally. So how would you suggest we consolidate reputation and anonymity?

Did you just deliberately quote almost the entire topic in a single comment? What’s the point?

My conclusions from this topic are as follows:

a) At the moment there is no solution to anonymous decentralized reputation and it won’t be found on this forum
It should be obvious that no one here (except you?) believes there’s something related can be accomplished on the SAFE network in the near term.
b) Statists appear confident in their “solution”, but their eagerness to see polycentric systems fail shows just how confident they are (“State is the best way to organize human affairs and that can be proven any day as long as we manage to successfully exterminate all competing systems”)

I think you underestimate how long this topic actually is. I quoted a specific segment of conversation concerning a specific subject change.

As for what the point was I believe that was obvious. @Al_Kafir is now arguing the same position I was at the start of that segment of conversation to which you rebutted. I AGREE WITH HIM for the most part but the problems you raised @janitor remain. How does one make an anonymous reputation system work? There is little point in me repeating what has already been argued nor getting flak for trying to solve logistical problems. And obviously he hadn’t read that segment of the conversation so I quoted it. That’s the point.

All hail Janitor the Prophet! Who shall be the first to innovate and cloud your vision and all knowing foresight? Dude there was a time there was no electricity and people would have called you crazy for saying you would one day have a magic box that allowed you to talk to people thousands of miles away. Just because a solution hasn’t been found yet doesn’t mean one does not exist nor is there any reason that solution may not appear on this very forum.

Um have you not been paying attention to the conversation? @Al_Kafir seems to definitely believe in decentralized anonymous reputation systems as he’s been debating with me recently about the subject in this very thread. Which incidently is why I quoted that segment of conversation. That’s at least 1 person besides me that holds that position. And there’s probably more.

So? What’s your point? Where’s the harm in letting people discuss and see if they can’t figure out a system and if a system can be devised then so long as it’s consentual, polycentric and one has the option to opt in and out then where’s the harm? I don’t care if a group of humans want to form into a commune or a city state or whatever societal configuration they wish just so long as I’m not forced to participate if I don’t want to. It only becomes an issue when their ideology is forced on the individual which is why I have an issue with geocentric law and states. But if you just want to create a legal code according to some set of ideals then fly at it just so long as people can opt in and out. Personally I don’t want anything to do with law. But when it comes to code and smart contracts even an honor based culture would require some kind of set of rules to define terms. That’s what it comes down to really: Different ideologies defining terms and identity through protocols and rules.

Even a lot of anarchiest have this rule about non aggression. Anarchy isn’t the absence of rules, just rulers.

1 Like

Al_Kafir puts too many smileys in his posts to be taken serious. I didn’t get the impression that he actually understands much. Example:

What freaking reputation is that, when everyone gets an equal share? The inclusiveness nonsense makes a thief as reputable as most reputable people anywhere.

Anyway, this topic has succeeded in luring people post 150+ meaningless comments without accomplishing anything and I’m not impressed.

If you’re really interested in making any contributions in this area, I recommend you to pick 1-2 projects that specialize in (anonymous?) decentralized reputation, help them make it happen sooner, and once one of them looks promising, advocate it here.
What you choose to do with your time is your own choice, but I am trying to point out the obvious because the lack of both meaningless ideas and any positive feedback doesn’t ring a bell.

Too many smileys? Seriously? You’ve got to be joking. Just because he’s a bit more light hearted about the whole affair doesn’t make his logic less sound.

Unless you missed it he wasn’t proposing designing a reputation system. He was designing a VOTING system. I was the one proposing a reputation system. He’s the one going on about distributing power and loving democracy. Totally different ideological purposes and therefore of course the two different systems would have different characteristics.

The goal here is not to impress you. The goal here is to brainstorm and discuss polycentric law and society. Your ego is irrelevant. So far we’ve accomplished quite a bit actually. We’ve discussed what might work and discounted what won’t work and why. Such is how innovations are discovered.

Though perhaps it would be a good idea to go through and record all the ideas posed, which ones might work, which one’s have been rebutted and proven (so far) not to work, and why, and what the problems faced so far are.

Not once have I suggested a reputation system…rather a voting system, hence equal votes. I don’t think you’ve followed what I’ve said at all tbh. [quote=“janitor, post:155, topic:4755”]

No need for examples - I’ve admitted as much in regard to tech and furthermore,asked for clarification on why my proposal won’t work (loss of anonymity claim) more than once in this very thread. Just saying things won’t work, without any further explanation, despite being asked doesn’t help me or others understand, nor furthers any discussion.
You don’t need to “get the impression” - you can just read the words.[quote=“janitor, post:155, topic:4755”]
Al_Kafir puts too many smileys in his posts to be taken serious.
[/quote]
I find being dismissive of others, not listening or explaining one’s position, denigrating behaviour, name calling etc to be a much more accurate indicator of a person’s seriousness… :smile: :smiley: :wink:
.

He suggested voting but in order to eliminate the need to measure and reward reputation.

How is that not related, then?

And of course the idea is based on the completely discredited socialist thinking that it’s bad to allow the “hoarding” of reputation by the capable.
Instead let’s make sure everyone has the same (i.e. none) reputation and implement “crypto-democracy” by way of distributing a voting crapcoin of sorts to everyone who can fog a mirror. Or maybe not even that, as the zero Proof of Work would allow bots to have the right to vote.

At least democracy may seem like a series of accidents, but to propose such a system on purpose is sickening. Disgusting!

Last week in another topic (created by Fergish) this was discussed and it is clear how that would work and that protocol-level changes would be required. Actual “design proposals” were done by others in a much shorter topic than this.

I still claim that for anonymous decentralized reputation.
For other (non-anonymous), I never said it can’t work, so this comment of yours is wrong.

It was done before. Bitcoin Nation was based on Counterparty/Bitcoin, and I’m sure altcoins (Bitshares, whatever) have their own little projects like that. Dash also has a voting system and they’ll get DAO features by next spring. There are also several reputation projects that work with any coin.

Anyone who wants to use non-anonymous reputation systems has several free and open source choices right now. It does exist, and it does work. But it seems what bothers you and Blindsite2K is not that there is no solution, but that existing software can’t work natively on the SAFE Network. Which is a different problem.

You are not trying to come up with anything new, but merely how to apply solutions that work on the Web to work on the SAFE Network, because that’s the main challenge for you.

In my mind the SAFE clients should have the ability to use Web apps, while a bunch of people here want to reinvent every possible wheel on the SAFE network. This discussion is another example of such misguided efforts.

Okay, I’m muting this topic now…

OK, now @Janitor has finished his usual party trick of disappearing after poo-pooing everything and not explaining why- I’ll resume the conversation with those others with something constructive to say. :smile:

Firstly, I suggested voting for no such reason - purely to have a voting system in place for things affecting the Safe Network that is given to the Safe Community of investors to be gradually more evenly distributed by a reducing formula each time votes are cast. This pretty much negates every other criticism made by @janitor.[quote=“janitor, post:159, topic:4755”]
And of course the idea is based on the completely discredited socialist thinking that it’s bad to allow the “hoarding” of reputation by the capable.
[/quote]
No idea what that even means really …unless its the usual Money= Power/reputation nonsense…yeah probably looking at it.[quote=“janitor, post:159, topic:4755”]
implement “crypto-democracy” by way of distributing a voting crapcoin of sorts to everyone who can fog a mirror.
[/quote]
Every member of the Community - as happens with every member of a Democratic Society - yes everyone is given a vote.[quote=“janitor, post:159, topic:4755”]
At least democracy may seem like a series of accidents, but to propose such a system on purpose is sickening. Disgusting!
[/quote]
Wow…just weird…[quote=“janitor, post:159, topic:4755”]
I still claim that for anonymous decentralized reputation.
[/quote]
Claim away…as usual…[quote=“janitor, post:159, topic:4755”]
For other (non-anonymous), I never said it can’t work, so this comment of yours is wrong.
[/quote]
Unfortunately…No…
A) You still haven’t explained how anonymity is lost
B) A Reputation system would necessarily be an “emergent” property of a voting system. If people vote/comment then reputation is formed. :smiley:
Edit:
C) The whole ridiculous argument that “You can’t have an Anonymous de-centralised reputation system” seems just plain daft. Why the Hell would anyone want one anyway……what use would one be? It’s like saying “That won’t work because you can’t make a bicycle for fish out of it”.
Firstly you could, secondly……wtf for?
What possible limited use case could anybody want to gain a reputation as an anonymous person…….pseudonymous I get. If you want to remain anonymous, then the last thing you want is a reputation……lol.
Is it just me or what? :smiley:

This + the 1st thread are serving a purpose for discussion, but I was wondering if anything is emerging from all these months of chat?

If anyone compiling documents that show current proposals, questions to be answered etc?

I’m skeptical, but interested in the concept, but can’t be bothered reading through loads of posts to find the current thinking of how this could work, especially when many posts are not constructive (or short).

If anyone is compiling stuff, could links etc be added to the OP?

All of the answers is on 150. Yeah, I am working on compiling some stuff, and formalizing. I got all of the ideas down, and learning how to coding. I got another project I am working on that involves meshnet. It is a stepping stone to allow us to build bitlaw, and sea steading. It is not part of bitlaw project, but with that project, I hope it’ll generate me some money so I can move over into bitlaw project.

This is the basic layout on my plan…The first part of the series is to focus on the jury / / court system. It is a uber style app mixed with moon is a harsh mistress jury system.

Second or Third part of the series is to build a reputation ID system. It is still on going investigation. It is put on hold for now. Safex will allow this to happen. The basic concept is to generate token between two parties right before the contract is completed. That token is a deem of reputation. This person gains a token as a mean of gaining trust… Think similar to Dota 2 reputation system. To give another person reputation only occurs during the game. You don’t know that person but based on his reputation, he seems like a great leader with lack of easiness. That kind of thing.

Keep in mind that we have conclude that actions does de-anonymize you. Even on tor, I2P, freenet,etc. just as long it is anonymous, and not able to track you is fine. Poly-centric law isn’t about anonymizing users but is about building a higher trust society, that is transparent and to prevent corruptions, and lastly to give more power to the individual, rather than collective.

The second or third part of the series is to build a COLA. New revolutionary idea. Jury nullification is the default. You can create new communities, new charter, new cities, sea steading, spaceships, and all of the things. This will emerge with jury system. We can now solve things ourselves, and hold each other accountable without the need to have a state court system, and it’s laws. Individuals get to establish the rules regardless of the imaginary lines, and the majority. Cola will abolish the democracy ruled system. If a minority cola lives in the majority ruled cola, they still cannot pose the rules on minority. Aka, I didn’t sign the contract. Also this will allow private property to have their own security. IE, mall security. So majority cannot invade the minority with violence. One could have two cola that overlaps, but does not support each other clause. One could fork both, and emerge into one. Boom, new cola This will allow stackable cola system. It will tighten up the community for sure, but it will also build a prosperity.

Cola is forkable. Forking is healthy for the universe. Every contract comes with git version.

Lastly, the security is being development by others, and can be used. cell411 or peacekeepers. So no worries there.

Cola could used in gaming as well as larping. It could used in grocery stores. Scan the barcode, cola pops up and gives you list of details of the product, and reviews. That said cola is a 3rd party contractor that gives an stamp of approval for quality assurance. So it is very flexible system here.

2 Likes

Yes but what ensures anyone respects any given COLA? And what prevents the conventional legacy government from trampling all over the new system?

I just build a very basic cola creator. It takes a header (Article of Whatever), body (insert rules here), and signature, (the creator of contract).

I have been thinking how to deal with signatures and would like some feed back. There are several ways to do this but by unitizing safenet, I am uncertain how it plays out.

1: When user enters the establishment, the phone notifies him about the rules, and such. It only needs one time signature from him, and he could re access to the establishment without resigning it. The contract is created, and signed. It is stored in establishment directory, and also stored in user directory. However, this cost safecoin. This also means a lot of duplication of same contracts.

Which leads to a different perspective…

  1. Same scenario as above but all of the signatures are stored in one file, and attached tor the contract.The contract itself is copied to user directory. The establishment user pays the coin for updating the contract signatures. Signatures needs to be linked to the said contract by using non collusion hash. This could reduce the duplication, and the cost.

Or another perspective…

  1. There is no signatures. By downloading the contract, you agree to the rules. Removing the contract from your directory means you nullified the contract. Contracts are active when users enter the establishment. This could be a good choice. Different example, when user downloads a 3rd party food certification, it can scan food bar code, and see if there is a stamp of approval. If there is a stamp, the food is trusted. The contract inside contains list of products that are approved. If he removes the contract, he could scan the bar code but will not see the 3rd party certification. No signature needed. However, the question arise, if there is no signature how do we make a proof that a user did violate the rules without the proof of signature?

edited: I have no clue numbers are not working. It says 1. 1. 1… In the editor, it says 1. 2. 3. >.>

How about option 4. Create modular contracts. I’ve always, always, ALWAYS hated electronic contracts because the idea of signing a complete contract without being able to edit or negotiate terms seems insane to me. More so is the idea that by downloading a contract you agree to it. You could just want to download it to read it or share it.

So how about this. What if we stop think about a contract as a piece of paper that one must agree to or not agree to but rather like… a collection of gems. Each “gem” represents a different value. Each “gem” is unique and represents one specific belief or rule. Like one gem could be for “Thou shalt not kill.” And that’s it. Another could be “If you are caught killing you get hung upside down over an active volcano.” Obviously not everyone is going to agree to the SAME rules and the SAME consequences. So while some people might agree with “Thou shalt not kill.” They might opt for a different “gem” for a consequence like “You get 20 years in prison.” A COLA could chain these gems together in sequences like a collection. However the gems, rules, beliefs, would still exist in a database somewhere for others to assemble into new collections of their own. When a user “signed” the COLA they would simply be collecting these “gems.” Another way to put it would be that a requirement for a particular COLA would be that one have a prerequisite that one agree with a set of rules beliefs, similar to how there is a prerequisite of minimum software and hardware requirements when you want to run any particular app. If you haven’t collected the right (or perhaps have collected the wrong) gems then you can’t join the community in question because you don’t meet the minimum belief system requirements.

So how this might be coded is each belief would have it’s own hash. It would be a very simple rule, preferably binary. It COULD refer to other rules but must in itself be extremely simple. If else statements or true or false statements. Nothing more complicated than that. Another reason for this is so that if one rule links to another rule one can set it into code. If person is proved to do x and punishment is to be fined y then system automatically deducts y from his account and awards it to plaintiff. Minimum of beaurocracy. Or situations like that. Of course it can’t be that simple as there’s things like poverty and what not but you get the idea.

1 Like