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

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

Great explanation there. So there would be two different folders. One folder is for collecting contracts to modify them and such. Another folder is the “gem.”

I’ll fork cargo repository, and do some modifications. It’ll use toml for the dependencies. Here’s an example…

[package]
name = "safe_community"
version = "1.0"

[Dependencies]
thou_shall_not_kill = "1.0"
repercussions = "0.6"
geo_location = "1.0" 

Inside of the repercussions,

fn repercussion() {
let put_user_jail = 1btc_fee + 10years_community_service;
}

fn main () {
if thou_shall_not_kill == true {
    pass;
} else {
    repercussions.init(); 
}}

Inside of the “gem” folder, it will contain many different kinds of folders. For this example, safe_community is a folder. Inside of that folder contains all of the contracts.

Awesome. That really helped out.

1 Like

I really need to learn rust so I can follow your code. I may not be able to code that well but I can do logic. :smile:

Well the first part is the cargo.toml

cargo build is the command to compile the project. After the compile, you can cargo run which runs the program. Cargo can push the project to the crates.io repository when requested. So cargo needs to be forked, and do some modifications so that it’ll push to bitlaw repository.

The second part is way too basic, but that’s the gesture of it.

You should learn rust, so you can help me. :stuck_out_tongue: It isn’t that hard once you pick up the pace. The logic is actually harder than it seems. I started studying rust when it went stable 1.0 back in may but I didn’t have time to actually mess with rust until last month. Now I got all the time in the world so I’m putting all energy into rust, and this project.

1 Like

I just met the founder of https://followmyvote.com/

These guys are legitimate. It is really beautiful piece of technology. They want to release it in July-ish to get ready for the 2016 election cycle. The reason being that they want to expose the voting fraud. One could use their software, and gov software and compare of the two. The non-anarchist will soon realize how corrupted the system is. That is their goal.

I told the founder about the COLA, and bitlaw. He happens to be thinking exact same thing and want to build that kind of platform. They want me to collaborate, and contribute their project. I may able to. This is just amazing!

1 Like

I created a theme for BitCola. The application doesn’t work but it’s a progress. This is something I had in mind, and something that it should look like. All ants has it’s own thread. The colony (organization, crowd funding, etc) has it’s own thread and is immutable. When the ants plug into it, the Colony creates a new thread which any ants can plug into, and interact with mutable data. This is very flexible.

I just set up the gitlab repository. Anybody can look it up now!

BitLaw

If you recall from Heinlein’s MIAHM, the Judge was also selected and paid, and presided over the trial. Also note that bad behaving jury members (like the jury member that fell asleep during the trial) were penalized. This kind of thing should be worked into BitLunar. Perhaps you should reread MIAHM if you’re going to base parts of BitLaw on it. Also I’d suggest citing Heinlein in the documentation as it was his book. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Ah right, I did forget about that part. I’ll have to re-read it again.

Also, if you read the roadmap, it has a theme around it. :stuck_out_tongue:

Why no windows support? You know if you don’t add it your code will either be forked or rejected.

Good point. Just changed it. FYI, I am against spydoze 100 percent so… Anybody is free to contribute to build for windows.

If it’s about spying then I don’t see why you support Mac then given that Mac is proprietary software as well and also reports to the gov’t. Just look at what they do with icloud. Yeah Apple is in a battle with the FBI right now over crypto so they don’t break cryto on an iphone but that doesn’t change that information on icloud servers can be leaked. While I agree windows is an epic fail from a security standpoint Mac is no better. Android isn’t actually much better either considering it’s been forked so much and filled with google bloatware.

People don’t use corporate software for the security. They use it because of the majority adoption rate. And if it isn’t supported you’re going to take an adoption rate hit.

Question: Is mankind going full-circle regarding “Law”?: While “Polycentric law is [defined as] 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.” - according to Wikipedia; The [American/English] Common Law is defined and adjudicated by “the People”. This is true regardless of jurisdiction.
As a matter-of-fact, “statute” is NOT law. It’s statute. If anyone finds this hard to believe, simply pull historical law dictionaries from the 1800’s til now. The most memorable instance of the use of “common law” is the Neuremberg Trials where the criminals could not be tried by their “…I just did what I was told…” notion of “law”.