That’s it in a nutshell…exactly what the problem is -this is impossible to do …just think about it…please! Everything you need to understand the nature of the problem is contained within this sentence 
So what you are actually suggesting making is a club with rules that everyone agree to do whatever they want essentially. There is no way of enforcing anything and it has nothing to do with “Laws” and everything to do with “club rules” you are either asking about how to go around de-centralising club rules agreements or alternatively you are asking about how smart contracts work…
The club appears to be one for those with internally inconsistent ideologies who want/have to sign a none aggression pact, that even your very first interested party willing to sign, at least talks like he has absolutely no intention of abiding by - good job the police intervened, otherwise I’m sure he’d have ripped that neighbour apart for upsetting that Judo guy…
What will you do with such hard nuts, that you wouldn’t want to meet on a dark night, that are obviously extremely aggressive. What happens…are they thrown out of the club, or would it be OK if his political ideology was that he was under no compunction to honour contracts,?
This in not only a club, but an exclusive club…yes?
Isn’t the essence disintermediation of legal contracting and enforcement? Isn’t that it, and really as far as this can go? It can’t eliminate the social-governance structures altogether, but it can provide alternatives that individuals can use as and when they choose.
I don’t see a problem with that. The more alternatives the better, but it does in the end rely on something other as well, and I think that’s where the contention arises.
Isn’t this sort of what they said about the internet and it’s potential when it was first introduced? And now the internet is a nessesity for practically everything we do.
Yes, as far as I can see, that’s exactly it.
EDIT - except for the enforcement bit in the way intended here.
This is the bit struggle with…I’m not seeing how it can impact social governance in any way, in the way it is suggested here. Smart contracts generally can in some indirect way affect governance, removing some bureaucracy perhaps, but insofar as this is intended to be implemented and explained, I am not seeing how?
Its eems its like a bicycle for fish, made with the intention of flying it around the moon…the bicycle bits OK and is useful for whatever a bicycle is useful for.
The rest sounds…well like I said it sounds.
Lol…metaphorically speaking I know very little about bicycles…so don’t want to make too many bicycle based claims…I’m concerned only with the other bits.
Edit:
OK, I’m going to stick my neck out here… (.just for the hell of it…. 
.lol) and now request that the OP be re-titled to correctly reflect the true nature of the piece. I think it should be called “Bit Club rules - Polycentric Club Rules in Crypto space.”
At your earliest convenience - cheers…lol
You know what the mind projection fallacy is? Look it up. You didn´t catch the problem.
Smart contracts can improve social contracting systems, that´s it and anything beyond - oh, well, as long as you don´t use drones to self-enforce, I guess, which I´d find pretty scary.
The state, any state, derives funds via taxation and exerting force on the populace and justifies that by providing services. 1) On SAFE you cannot monitor one’s transactions unless they allow it and therefore taxation will be a CHOICE rather than mandatory for all groups. 2) Fiat currencies are dying, especially those backed by the U.S. dollar. And what with the ubicuous nature of SAFE and safecoin people will be motivated to transfer their money into safeocin to avoid devaluation. 3) SAFE is decentralized. You cannot bomb it. Like it or not at the end of the day SAFE means the end of coercive money aquisition through use of force. It might take LONGER if statists resist but it will happen. Statists will whine and moan about the “unethical action of tax evasion” when in reality it’s just protecting oneself from being robbed. 4) Anonymous comunication will prevent the state from censoring people and combining this with the encryption and security will prevent the state from monitoring them.
These four points ALONE WITHOUT ANY SMART CONTRACTS AT ALL will change the face of politics and society. There is ALREADY an actual war brewing between the U.S. and China because of how China is selling off U.S. debt.
Having smart contracts to enforce social contracts and philosophical ties is a big thing and DOES have real world implications. If you’re a politician and people don’t like your ideology, or think you’re corrupt and start opting out of your system and choosing the other guy that affects your political power and campaign contributions. If you’re a business then obviously your ideology is affects who will choose to work for you or buy from you. So BitLaw will play into not only legal and political standing but also whatever reputation system we build. What is law but a set of rules people agree to play by and if they don’t then there’s a use of force. But then there’s usually a use of force anyway anyone that has significant power against anyone that doesn’t agree to attach to them and play by their rules. And that’s what we call the state be it a democracy or a dictatorship. If it’s a democracy it’s a majority oppressing a minority. If it’s a dictatorship it’s an individual or minority oppressing the majority. What’s the difference? Does passing a 51% vote making hurting someone or violating someone okay? If you have a crowd of people and in the middle of it there’s a child being burned to death is that okay because the crowd AGREES it’s okay? (Yes deliberately offensive designed to provoke emotion and make you THINK! Is it okay to do harm to human beings if it’s what the majority wants?) I think what I’m getting at here is things like the tyranny of the majority vs straight up tyranny and in either case it’s coercion. What bitlaw and smart contracts allow is a better system.
What happens is if someone does not respect a smart contract and ownership then it would be entered into the record. So say I proved I owned a piece of land. I’m happy with my purchase, the previous land owner is happy with their money, I have the deed, it’s all good. If someone comes along and doesn’t recognize I own the land, and the previous owner doesn’t own the land, nor any of the realeste agencies that verified the transaction are correct, and tries to forcibly take the land then it would be entered into the record somewhere that the land was forcibly seized against my will. And if I ever managed to retaliate, either with a lawsuit or with an army then I’d have a record of the incident and be able to claim an ammount of compensation for my trouble; either in money, time, labour, resources or so forth. I think having a convicted offender do something constructive for the victim would be a lot more beneficial than leaving them to rot in a jail cell and wasting resources to keep them there. Also it would ensure that offenses were limited to “crimes” that actually had a victim.
I think if we can’t have an extensive and comprehensive system already in place we need to have really good map making tools. And I don’t mean just GPS mapping tools. I mean topography and symbolic drawings as well. A simple map is better than NO map and can often progress into BETTER maps. A map making app would be a project unto itself but I feel it would be essential for a project such as BitLaw to flourish. And considering we DON’T have satilites we need the next best thing which is awesome tools, decentralization and lots of contribution.
Btw I created a new thread for the map making project.
What if some people rather not live in an area where radio frequencies are heavily regulated; No microwaves, no wireless setups, and so forth. There are people who are sensitive to frequencies. Some frequencies are known for healing, or [damage your brain.]((Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - Wikipedia) It can alter your brain patterns.
In those type of zone/city, they would opt for having fiber meshnet. Personally, everybody should be pushing fiber meshnet regardless of the cost. I just recently started a business in fiber meshnet. All I do is go around, talk to neighbors to see if they are willing to do something like this. All it needs is just one street to begin the project. Once they see how beautiful this is, it will start to spread.
What is the point of posting on this particular thread? Well… With this type of application, these people could easily live in radio free zones. And it can be done without the need of coercion. Crowd funding would be even easier because the money would pool into the project, instead of pooling into the one guy who is responsible for holding it. The project would automate spend after the company does it job. One idea is have the people who crowd funded it, approves that the company already did the job on dig/lay down wire. For every approval, each chuck of money goes to the company. This is one way of dealing with automated payment process. There are many other ways we can do with this payment.
Last week, I started working on the contract system in a basic form. It won’t be attributed to the safenet since safenet code is still in infancy. Once I see the connection, I’ll begin the merge.
One of the connections that I perceived…
Contracts sit between user, and DataStructure, very much like Ethereum; contract sits between user and blockchain.
As it was stated that the coin can be linked to the DataStructure, inside of that DataStructure is bitlaw engine that sole task to create malleable system of your (and party) choice. The contract could sit inside of the coin for between two parties, and then distribute the coin once it is signed. The DataStructure inside of that coin becomes immutable(is this possible?). It means you put a trust into this partnership. If the contract is broken, or finished, the coin would return to rightful owner, or whatever the contract has explicitly said. The DataStructure becomes mutable. Contracts has become valuable because of the coin itself is valuable.
Or am I over designing this? Maybe just build basic contract system on communication channel, and have it stored in their own private directory, and lawfirm of choice directory?
Mathematically proof of why Democracy does not work. Checkmate.
First, I want to make the claim that the reason for government to exist is to correct market failure. Thus, to justify a type of government, one must be able to show that we should expect a reasonably lower rate of market failure than under anarchy. Democracy does not meet this due to the problem of rational ignorance.
As a voter, you have the option of investing your time to become more informed about the issues surrounding the upcoming vote. There are two reasons in favor of doing so.
The first is to build a general awareness of the issues in order to increase social capitol when the subject comes up in conversation. This does not require a full understanding of the issue, and far from it. It requires a very low understanding of the issue. For instance, most americans, left or right, oppose ending tariffs and allowing for global free trade, even though the vast majority of economists believe it would be beneficial for America and the countries we traded with.
The second level of understanding would be enough that you are sure it is the right decision. This requires an extremely large time commitment, far beyond what will be enough for fulfilling social capitol. However, this is a necessary amount of research for democracy to work better than anarchy. You cannot expect legions of uninformed voters to make decisions greater than the people directly involved with the issue in a market. So is there any way possible to have a large portion of the public become informed?
There isn’t. Because no matter what you do, the expected return on investment of the time you spend researching is negative. Your vote matters just as much as any uninformed member of the public. The chance that your vote will change the outcome of the vote overall is extremely small, even if there were only 100 people voting. To elaborate, say your vote was the last to be counted when voting for an issue. Say that for any person in a population, there’s exactly a 50% probability that they support the measure. You know that the measure is good and want it to pass. Well, if we only have 10 people voting, then there’s about a 20% chance that your vote mattered in the measure. 100 people? 8%. 1000 people? 3%. 10000 people? less than 1%. With a million people, on the most divided issue possible, the probability of your vote effecting the outcome is still about one tenth of one percent. The expected benefit of investing your time to know about an issue, even in the most hypothetically close issue imaginable, is practically nothing. Here’s my code if you want to test it yourself: It’s in the R language which is free to use and compatible with any platform.
CanDemocracyWork<-function(n,trials=10000){
successes = 0
for (i in 1:trials){
if (sum(rbinom(n-1,1,.5))==n/2){
successes = successes + 1
}
}
return (successes/trials)
}
But the result isn’t neutral for actually learning about the issues, it’s negative. You spent all that time learning about the issues when you could have done something more productive. Say you enjoy learning about it, like you or I might. We need most people to be this involved in the political process at a natural level with no expectations that their efforts will make any difference. To think we can change a society that dramatically is absurd.
Furthermore, we would not just need people to understand the issues, but to read the entirety of every measure they vote on, something not even congressmen do. How easy would it be to pay somebody who drafts such measures to slip something in that would help your business at the expense of other businesses. It wouldn’t even have to be specific to your business. Say you ran a manufacturing plant. You could have them add a tax on foreign imports in order to “help save American jobs”. I don’t see why that wouldn’t pass a judicial panel.
Simply put, we cannot expect a public to learn about the issues when there is no incentive to. And there’s no way to change those incentives significantly. If we can’t expect people to be informed, and can’t expect bribery to not occur, then why would we expect the result to be better than total market anarchy?
Just a thought here. Why not have anyone participating in the bitlaw system have their own altcoin for reputation sake. When someone contracts with someone they buy some of that person’s altcoin, that is they invest trust in that person. If that person breaks that trust then the offended party would sell the person’s altcoin thus reducing their declared public trust in the person. The more people buy your “reputation” altcoin while performing various interactions the more declared trust the system has in you. This way if someone wants to contract with another they can compare reputation easily. Why would you contract with someone with no reputation?
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.
Speaking of trust…In the last month, I been studying into propertarianism, ethics, morals, and other means to net better knowledge on building a bitlaw platform. The high trust society this guy is talking about iis spot on, and eye opener. Even there are statist philosophy in the culture, there are still trust throughout history. There are variety type of trust in each community.
I begun to realize what is happening in Europe. Sweden are getting massive migration. There are headaches, and other psychological factors that causes undesired actions. Like pregnant woman got killed by immigrant man just because his mom said she was crazy. Putting low trust society into high trust society causes disasters on both ends. Savage people into civilized society doesn’t work unless there is a way to tame them into the society. Low trust society doesn’t always mean savage though. It could be tribalism. Tight community trust, with no outsiders trust.
There could be a variety type of trust. Say, a group of people would totally beat each other up, and have fun. Russia Larp. (Or russian gov preparing them for the fallout. /s)
It’s amazing to see that voluntary organization pool in money, initiate larp, and beat each other up. These voluntary organization paid to get property, build the fortress, and other means to ends. But then take a good look at the the godvernment who sends psychosocial worker into the field, kill, and get paid.
There is a huge difference type of trust between usa larp, europe larp, and others if you dive into larp culture. If you put usa larp into russia larp, usa would lost within minutes because usa uses cardboard weapons, or such, while russians are using blunt. USA is more interactive model with less violence. While russians are interactive model but with hardcore violence.
After intensive of research, I do believe we are heading towards this new revolutionary idea of interactive culture for the world to use.
With the historical facts, we need focus on three things, short, mid, long term changes. Progressives are great in short terms, aka venture capital investments. Libertarians/ancaps are great in long term, and economical sound. Conservatives are great in keeping it consistency.
Bitlaw does require trust on the users, just as users does require trust on the farmers.
So perhaps we also need a third option somewhere that allows people to declare “Trust in what?” as well as “Trust in whom?” So it’s not enough to declare you’re honest. A psychopath can be honest with you. He can be totally honest with you that he’s going to chop your head off, have sex with your corpse and eat your liver for desert while spending your money to buy a new big screen TV. It might be majorly DISTURBING but hey it’s honest. But do you want to invest in the cannibal psychopath just because he’s straight with you or do you want someone that, while is still honest and reputable, has similar moral values and won’t eat your face? Hence the whole “Trust in what?” equation.
I think this would need to be more like a proof of resource equation. Again like how we had people have their own personal altcoins one could have different belief system altcoins. Humantarianism, women’s lib, evironmentalism, anarchy, socialism, activism of various kinds, religious belief systems, you name it, every belief system could have their own coin. And various groups set up various tasks and award their coin for completing them. Think about it like experience. The more experience you have the more you are showing your advocacy in a particular belief system. Now why use a cryptocurrency for all this? Well in order to perform any activism or support any cause you need to spend money right? Banners, flyers, buildings, supplies, loudspeakers, all that bruhaha costs money. So at some point merchants would either accept various “beliefcoins” directly for specific wares or they’d need to be traded in for safecoin AND if a specific beliefcoin was trading at a high value it would be worth more. And basically if people are just buying a belief coin because of it’s value they’re also affiliating themselves with the organization. So you could be the “Cult of Crazy Child Killers” with lots and lots of cash but do people REALLY want to be associated with your group?
Basically what I’m getting to here is that altcoins could start to represent individuals, belief systems and tribes and therefore lines of trust and reputation. The more you “buy into” something, both literally and figuratively, the more you show trust in that system. But to disassociate yourself from that system you simply sell your coin. Of course emotionally and spiritually it’s never quite that simple but once people get used to using the symbolic link then buying or selling coin should help them adjust. Perhaps have a personal setting somewhere to have you automatically buy x amount of coin from y individuals and groups you trust or z timeframe. Or sell for vice versa.
Of course with so many altcoins running around one would need an app to manage all these. It should be noted these altcoins are not primarily used for economic gain. Their primary use would to be establish the value of trust one has in various entities. Also one should have the option to hide or reveal what amounts of what coins one holds similiar to how one keeps some relationships private, some semi private and some public.
…can be graded once per player. So back to safe, how about one account | one trust. Transaction trust should not be bought nor sold.
DECENTRALIZED ID SYSTEM
Few weeks ago, I reworked on a excelsheet - DnD character account
with reputation system, 52 weeks calendar, todo list, anti-list sheet,
do not break the chain, and self-review. They all add up, and expose
your strengths, and weakness in your areas. The performance is awful but
likewise, it was a prototype for a decentralized global ID system, that
anybody can see/review personal/anonymous identification.
What if we give an account 5 options to build a reputation system;
Ethics, Morals, … When user gives an review, it creates a 5 point
graph. Users obviously want to see account before purchasing. With this,
it can see the person’s reputation, reviews, 5 point graph, work
history, resume, and his transaction (if desired). Why 5? Because 2-3
isn’t enough to provide information, and nobody has time to response
more than 5 questions.
This ID is pluggable into any of the safe apps like games.
Why recreate new account when one should sufficient?
Why recreate reputation system in every game, when one account will do?
Why rewrite a job application when one could look at his profile?
Why submit/print resume when one could give him a link to his account resume?
List goes on…
A five point graph? So you plan to break all human interaction down into 5 catagories? Or am I missing something here. I think you need to clarify the details a bit more man. Also what’s to motivate app developers to incorporate this reputation system into their apps?
Ah I was just rambling. I was thinking something like dungeon and dragons, where one is excel at con, str, wis, intel, or cha.
You could grade a player performance, do a background checks, his work / ethics history, rewards, etc. Isn’t it annoying that if you want do a background check on a person, you have to go through state process, and wait for many days to get it. Meanwhile, wikipedia has history on anybody if they desire to put in there.
Why not have a personalized accessible identification, that is completely customized. Public or Private…?
Decentralized issue ID. Anybody scans their card to check the validation of the person before allowing them into private property like clubs, bars, etc.
But what good is a decentralized reputation system for a background check? I mean you could have one account and be an utter saint and have another account for all your dark backroom deals.
Yeah, so?
Nothing stopping people from creating fake IDs.
The point of a background check is to ensure the person you are interacting with is reputable. Moreover if you are inferring there is nothing in the real world stopping one from creating fake IDs that would largely depend on one’s community. If one lives in a city where one is largely anonymous and unknown without an ID then no it would be much easier to do so but in small towns or rural communities where people know you personally and not by your ID that is nearly impossible to do. In short if one can easily create “fake ids” then one’s reputation is not in association with them but with an identification profile. Which again means that it’s of limited security. Just because you check out on one profile doesn’t mean you don’t have another shadier one and because of this does this not negate any security gained from a so called background check? It’s like saying “Your history is clean as far as we know.”
I guess you’re right. Background checks have always been of such limited security. It just seems rather naive to rely on them.
Anyway on a different note I ran into this on Facebook. Thought I’d post it here.
Honour as a code of behaviour defines the duties of an individual within
a social group. Margaret Visser observes that in an honour-based
society “a person is what he or she is in the eyes of other people”.
In the early medieval period, a lord’s or lady’s honour was the group
of manors or lands he or she held. “The word was first used indicating
an estate which gave its holder dignity and status.” For a person to say
“on my honour” was not just an affirmation of his or her integrity and rank, but the veracity behind that phrase meant he or she was willing to offer up estates as pledge and guarantee.
Note that Saint Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033 – 1109) in Cur Deus Homo
extended the concept of honour from his own feudal society to postulate
God’s honour.
An emphasis on the importance of honour exists in such
traditional institutions as the military (serving officers may conduct a
court of honour) and in organisations with a military ethos, such as
Scouting organisations (which also feature “Courts of Honour”).
According to Richard Nisbett, cultures of honour will often arise when three conditions exist:
- a scarcity of resources
- situations in which the benefit of theft and crime outweighs the risks
- a lack of sufficient law-enforcement (such as in geographically remote regions)
Historically, cultures of honour exist in places where the herding of
animals dominates an economy. In this situation the geography is usually
extensive, since the soil cannot support extensive sustained farming
and thus large populations; the benefit of stealing animals from other
herds is high since it is the main form of wealth; and there is no
central law-enforcement or rule of law. However cultures of honour can
also appear in places like modern inner-city slums. The three conditions
exist here as well: lack of resources (poverty); crime and theft have a
high rewards compared to the alternatives (few); and law enforcement is
generally lax or corrupt.
Once a culture of honour exists in a
society, its members find it difficult to make the transition to a
culture of law; the law requires that people become willing to back down
and refuse to immediately retaliate, and from the viewpoint of the
culture of honour, this tends to appear as an unwise act reflecting
weakness.
Note how the SAFE network may very well have all the earmarks of a culture to develop a code of honour as opposed to that of law.
But with anonymity and the inability to independently execute decisions that penalize dishonorable behavior, how would that work?
Bitcoin and other crypto is having the same problem, although it’s slightly different there because they have multisig and other things that slightly improve the situation.