Bitcoin Forum

Hear me out here,

I was trying to figure out how to respond to another members response to my reason for thinking that Bitcoin was made to spread wealth across the globe and I kept
reading this and then I noticed something... This system looks a lot like Democracy.  correct me if i'm wrong but, this is what I see in it, what do you see? can you read what I read?

I changed the wording just a little bit and kept the orignal text for comparison.





The proof-of-work(facts) also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote(representative), it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate(control) many IPs(representatives). Proof-of-work(facts) is essentially one-CPU-one-vote(information). The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain(group concensus), which has the greatest proof-of-work(facts) effort invested
in it.

If a majority of CPU(information) power is controlled by honest nodes(people), the honest chain(group) will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains(groups). To modify a past block(historical event), an attacker would have to
redo the proof-of-work(facts) of the block(historical event) and all blocks(historical events) after it and then catch up with and surpass the
work of the honest nodes(people). We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up
diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks(historical events) are added.

5. Network

The steps to run the network are as follows:

1) New transactions(information) are broadcast to all nodes(people).
2) Each node(person) collects new transactions(information) into a block(historical event).
3) Each node(person) works on finding a difficult proof-of-work(fact) for its block(historical event).
4) When a node(person) finds a proof-of-work(fact), it broadcasts the block(historical events) to all nodes(people).
5) Nodes(people) accept the block(historical event) only if all transactions(information) in it are valid and not already spent(known).
6) Nodes(people) express their acceptance of the block(historical event) by working on creating the next block(historical event) in the
chain(group), using the hash(logic) of the accepted block(historical event) as the previous hash(logic).

6. Incentive
By convention, the first transaction(information) in a block(historical event) is a special transaction(information) that starts a new coin(trust) owned
by the creator of the block(historical event). This adds an incentive for nodes(people) to support the network, and provides
a way to initially distribute coins(trust) into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them.
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins(trust) is analogous to gold(value) miners expending
resources to add gold(value) to circulation. In our case, it is CPU(information) time and electricity(effort) that is expended.
The incentive can also be funded with transaction(information) fees(value). If the output(meaning) value of a transaction(information) is
less than its input(utility) value, the difference is a transaction(information) fee(value) that is added to the incentive value of
the block(historical event) containing the transaction(information). Once a predetermined number of coins(trust) have entered
circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction(information) fees(value) and be completely inflation(manipulation)
free.The incentive may help encourage nodes(people) to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU(information) power than all the honest nodes(people), he would have to choose between using it
to defraud people by stealing back his payments(values), or using it to generate new coins(trust). He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins(trust) than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.


I could be wrong though, this is just what I read into it... I've read the damn thing 10-20 times and the wording Satoshi uses was bugging me throughout the paper. I don't think this thing is describing just a digital financial system, it seems to describe how to maintain information integrity over a digital communication channel for the purpose of collective concensus.


A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.

These costs and payment uncertainties
can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments
over a communications channel without a trusted party.

The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any
cooperating group of attacker nodes.

The problem of course is the payee can't verify that one of the owners did not double-spend
the coin. A common solution is to introduce a trusted central authority, or mint, that checks every
transaction for double spending. After each transaction, the coin must be returned to the mint to
issue a new coin, and only coins issued directly from the mint are trusted not to be double-spent.
The problem with this solution is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the
company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank.

The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions.
In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and
decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be
publicly announced

A timestamp server works by taking a
hash of a block of items to be time-stamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a
newspaper or Usenet post The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the
time,

The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the
parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly
precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in
another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending
an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone.

This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of
individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were.

We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest
chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such
as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are
not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block
containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back
money he recently spent.

12. Conclusion

We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with
the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of
ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Bitcoin is anarchy. Beautiful sweet anarchy.

The decision between vanilla or chocolate icecream is anarchy.  :P

Indeed. I remember a similar reasoning in the recent transcript between Julian Assange and Eric Schmidt. To use a block chain and PoW to timestamp information and be sure it is not tampered with.
It appears that a digital financial system was the most urgent application of this system, but certainly not the only one.

I strongly believe that p2p can be applied in many areas of society, and yes the financial system is the biggest concern right now.

This areas influence and control the society today, but with p2p we can have more balance between rulers and people:
-Finance - solution: bitcoin
-Media - solution: bittorrent
-Politics - voting systems instead of parliament / congress / senate - we can fire lot of politicians and replace them with computers.

Other less hot areas that could be benefited:
-Research - already used
-Education - distributed testings (for fairness) ?

I somehow agree with this thread. New technologies allow for new form of governments. Current governments are based on 60 year old technology, back then we didn't have internet, computer, smartphones, connections everywhere etcetc. But today we have them all. Using all these technologies would greatly help the population. Why elect a representant when today everyone can attend at anything via video? Why trust someone when today every citizen can express their opinion via internet?

We have always been aware of this. The devs on this forum are preoccupied with the monetary angle. The fine details for what you are proposing should be taken off-forum and discussed on IRC. If you do plan on going further with this, please PM me with the details.
FF

I have no intention of going further with this on this form, If it threatens the existence of Bitcoin.

Just seeing if someone saw this angle or not, It's nutty!! Satoshi coded Democracy right into the program!

Nothing can threaten the existence of evolution.

Several people have started what we term BitX applications. Based on Bitcoin but not angled towards money. Certain hurdles remain, but we are confident. BitDNS/Namecoin/Bitmessage all work or are being worked on. I'm glad you have brought this back and your enthusiasm is needed.
I don't think this could harm Bitcoin... the devs/miners/theorists are laser-eyed to the prize. It's just nice to see all the other opportunities that Bitcoin-style engines offer. Kinda makes your head explode with the niche opportunities available requiring WoT systems.
Canadian, not you are?
https://www.coinforum.ca

Why Thank You very much sir.

I saw the potential application of the "POW BlockChain solution" a while back as my bachelors project was a computer controlled organizational system which could use the method to make the system robust.

My system will also use Bitcoin for its currency as its the ONLY currency in the world that can be used by an autonomous AI or Robot (this realization was why I got into Bitcoin again after first dismissing it as flawed - which it still is by the way, I'm counting on selling early and buying into BTC 2.0 or Bitcoin evolving).

I will add all my own previous work to this and my solution to actually giving the P2P political system real power and thus organizational power.


I will return to this "Magnum Opus" of mine within 6 months I think. Presently I am missing just one component.

Dude... You just blew me away.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf)

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

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.

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.

"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.

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?

Name ONE system or organization in the world where the leader cannot threaten the subordinates one way or the other.

You could respond with GreenPeace here, but do you really think an entire country could be organized like that? No money just volunteer work?

Bosses threaten to fire you and politicians and generals can throw their subordinates in jail.

So does crack, yet some few manage to get off crack.

History is rife with examples of rare, but amazing leaders: Gandhi, Mandela, Lincoln...

You just have to find a method to select for that kind of leader.

Even if there never was one, there's no proof that one can't exist in the future.

Luckily for me though, there were some:

Historical examples of anarchy without Chaos (http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm)


Your education about anarchy must be EXTREMELY stunted in order to think the words "volunteer work" belongs in your reply.

Anarchy is not about volunteering your time and efforts for some collective... It's about there being no collective, and you just doing stuff for you. (And your family of course.)

The golden rule applies, however.

I highly advise you to read up about anarchy since you're helping to bring it into the world with bitcoin.

Start here:

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf (http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf)
and here:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf (http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf)



If being ruled by something like Crack is acceptable to you then I don't know what else there is to talk about here...

Gandhi wasn't a politician, but a leader, and probably an anarchist.

Mandela was a politician, and was no angel.

And do I really need to say anything about the politician that committed more Democide than any other in the history of the USA?

Lincoln is EXACTLY why we should all embrace anarchy... Even when he's "freeing" some of his followers, they still aren't free to vote, they still have to be taxed, they still have to be suffering a thousand other hardships... And even that sad little effort took the lives of over a HALF A MILLION of his followers!

Someone here has some pretty low standards when it comes to picking lists of leaders...

Wrong.

BITCOIN IS CAPITALISM.

Just like in the real world, those with power can change past events ( blocks) ;)

He was.
"The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence."
"While apparently doing good by minimizing exploitation, [the State] does the greatest harm to mankind."

Wouldn't you have to change the blockchain info simultaneously for every user ever? Go ahead and alter the record. my copy will serve as a backup for the entire blockchain.

edit:
And how is bitcoin capitalism? can you explain that?

The recent news about big brother spying on our communication shows how important peer-2-peer technology and encryption is for democracy, so we can communicate in different ways without being spied on.

The worst problem of a big brother society is not the spying itself, but the self-censoring of each individual.  
"I am watched, therefore:
I must censor my words when I talk in phone, chat at facebook, mail at gmail or talk on the street with my friends.
I must support the main stream political party so they dont consider me as the enemy of the big brother state.
I must think about who I communicate with, otherwise I will also be considered as part of a terrorist network."
Does this sound like an individual living in a liberal country, or someone living in the Soviet during the cold war?

We cannot have a democracy if we feel that we must censor our thougths, our communication and our actions!

It is not to late, we can restore internet freedom if many developers and entrepreneurs put ego away and decide to create services that focus on the user privacy rather than profitability.

I have to agree that self-censorship is the biggest problem with the surveillance state. And hopefully bitcoin and bit message, via the mechanisms discussed in this thread, will help in overcoming it.

Some big confusions in this thread:

• Governance needn't imply a government. Society can operate peacefully being governed by a structure of laws and norms without any central power structure creating or enforcing those laws.
• Democracy in the mainstream sense is not only literally "rule by the people" but a centralized form of that rule. Bitcoin and its potential uses allow for a true democracy ("rule" by the people, but not by any specific people; law that is the product of human action but not of human design) that is decentralized - basically anarcho-capitalism, though without any Rothbardian or Friedmanite ethical flavorings.

I agree, governance is the voluntary acceptance by the people laws that they believe in and can agree to follow because they understand it. it is funny to me thinking that most contracts and laws are made in such a sloppy fashion or maybe on purpose? difficult to read and understand... this is not the way to go. how do you get people to follow something that is sneakily introducing a downright draconian law? no wonder people are disillusioned with democrazy when they are actively being tricked into passing laws that need to be enforced by force.

real laws are understood by the people and voluntarily accepted by them.