Bitcoin Forum

Let us assume that our "Utopia " from Bitcoin as the dominant currency becomes reality .

Most here say Bitcoin is liberal. Is it really liberal ? The majority decides (51%), so it is democratic. Would it be liberal, the richest would decide .

Now, if Bitcoin is predominant currency that will unfortunately have changed little in the world. The Rothschilds and the likes are out of the game , yet we would probably have a situation again where at the end 5% of the people own 95% of the Bitcoins .

Now only theoreticly , without considering the technical feasibility:
What if now the majority decides that every individual can have only one Bitcoinwallet ? Now what if the majority further decides that each wallet can only contain a certain number of Bitcoins , and all the wallets exceeding this maximum, automaticly distribute the surplus evenly to all wallets?

The majority would benefit , so why should the majority not decide for it?

This is just a hypothesis which ignores any technical consideration.

(i know this is probably a very unpopular post for liberals; try to be kind please)



Thoughts?

How do you enforce the will of the majority without breaking your justice system?

I don't know if I understand your question. It's not about my justice system. If majority could decide they would decide against a distrubution of money where 5% have 95%. Why wouldn't they? The only one who would be against it are the 5%, which in a democratic financial system would be minority.

I agree; if they felt that was better, they'd do that.  However:


You've also pointed out that they will decide what's best for everyone else; how do enforce this scenario on the, for example, 35% minority who decides they do not what this scenario to come to fruition?

nothing they can do since they are minority.

actualy if BTC is realy democratic (i actualy don't understand all tecnical aspects) than a "revolution" like the one I pointed out above will be unevitable once it will be spread though all classes.
perhaps in 10 years you remember this thread

Why do you believe they can do nothing?  Understand that you must change the core function of bitcoin to make this system work; the minority can still use this version of bitcoin, and the majority can still use theirs.  You simply don't write in a holy book, "Using the old bitcoin is illegal so don't do it"; this is just fiction, it doesn't mean anything.  To actually make a difference, democracy or no, you would still need a way to control the minority, if that's the intention; otherwise there's no point in worrying about a democracy since the majority will do their thing and the minority will do theirs.

I'm not saying a revolution cannot happen; I'm asking you to specifically state what it will take to make the minority do as the majority says.

Besides the fact that any changes in bitcoin must be approved by near 100% of its users (this includes both miners AND users), otherwise you just end up with a new altcoin and the old bitcoin running side by side, note the text in my signature, which was my thought, put much more eloquantly into words by our forum user NewLiberty


The meaning is that in bitcoin, a 51% mining majority is seen as an attack, unimagitively called "The 51% attack." This is quite literally "democracy, where majority votes, is an attack." This idea may actually influence people's psychology to consider many other majority-rule democracy things as an "attack." Possibly in the same way that peer-to-peer music/movie file downloading has influenced people to believe that breaking copyright isn't actually stealing.

Then you are talking about a different crypto not bitcoin. You may try and create that coin and see how it will end out.

ok, if majority can't force minority to change the version than BTC is not democratic and my post becomes nonsense.






where in the world the majority realy decides? western world is a Plutocracy.


"Tyranny of the Majority against the rights of all to the freedom of transaction."
this doen't make any sense. whenever majority doesn't decide it's a "dictatorship" of a small group.

This is only true if you're disallowing individuals to make individual decisions; by allowing others the right to freedom, you don't have to worry about majority rule or minority rule.

The options you list are

• Majority decides for minority: Democracy
• Minority decides for majority: Dictatorship

There is a third option, which is each minority decides only for itself (or even each person decides only for themselves), which is anarchy. Bitcoin is basically anarchy, since neither a majority nor a minority can force a small minority to continue to use Bitcoin as is. And that is what my sig essentially points out, that bitcoin (and the entire internet, really) is a state of anarchy, and may influence people to transition into that state of mind simply by the way it works and what it considers as incentives and threats.

so back to a chimpz-like society? power to the most armed? anarchy isn't realy a state, someone takes the power by force

It will be chimp-like, yes, if your society is full of chimps; but if that's true, why would the state, which would also be run by chimps, either by a chimp-king, or a democratically elected minority of chimps, or a majority collection of chimps, be any better?  If there's any quality I like the most about anarchism: it fails to lie about the true state of the world.  If you believe anarchism, considering the same people you're currently living with, would devolve into might-is-right shit-sling-fest of chimps, then why would this change by putting a crown on one, some, or many of these chimps and calling them divine?

because democracy is what worked the best. If you want to live like an animal you are crazy. And i am saying that Anarcy can't exist, a day perhaps, or 2.....until one group killed or defeted all the otheres and makes the rest slaves.
I don't think that anarcist have any notion of socioligy. the chimpz are actualy a very good object to study.
on a side note: anarcy could work if we were like the bonobos, hahahaahah; but we are much more like the chimpz

Precisely; that's how we got the society we have now, by killing and enslaving, which we're still going through if you haven't noticed.  That's what the anarchist aims to reverse, permanently: when you have a rational society which can solve its problems without resorting to violence, then we can co-exist in peace.

not at this state of human evolution, that's why anarcy is a stupid utopia

human mind didn't evolute since we lived in cages.

man, how I loved to live in a "hippie world", but it's just impossible. I actualy would love to be anarcist, but i can't, just as much as I can't belive in heaven (wich would I love to be able to believe in, too)

Force costs a lot, and we just invented a way to make taking money by force a hell of a lot more difficult. So, hopefully, that power will simply be for sale, if only because they would have an incentive to provide customers with products they wish for, as opposed to products like the Iraq war.

Also, anarchy isn't and won't be a utopia. There will be plenty of people slipping through the cracks and whatnot. The biggest different between that and what we have now is that people would have to make choices for what they want and don't want (a benefit, actually), and be fully responsible for the consequences of their choices, instead of offloading them onto the rest of society (which scares a lot of people right now). And, actually, the internet itself is anarchy. So it will be sort of like that, with a few obnoxious trolls running around, but mostly people being cordial and civil, and making lots of awesome stuff for us to play with.

still waiting BTC army to free China from dictatorship. hahahahahhaa

 ???

First, there is the technological aspect.

You could create a currency and put it into circulation by giving some amount to every human being, that would arguably be the most fair coin. Only, without an authority you can never prove who is one human being and that identities aren't being spoofed or faked. So, to find consensus in a distributed system, no better solutions have been found than A) Proof-of-Work ("mining"), B) Proof-of-Stake (some altcoins use that, but has other problems, long story), C) Web of Trust (also lots of other problems, but ripple.com essentially uses that method).

Bitcoin was just the first such crypto-currency, it has always been an experiment, no one knew if it would work out, the masses would not have understood the concept and the value behind it even if they had the knowledge and choice in time to invest early. So if you want more fair distribution, then you indeed have to set up competition, a new crypto-currency, now that the public is more familiar with the concept, so that a fairer distribution might be achieved. Or (and I'm sure that will happen), there will be "official" (less-) "crypto" currencies issued by governments that can verify identities, being advertised as "social" and "fair". Obviously, such a currency will come with much less privacy, and will probably make it impossible to donate to dissidents like Wikileaks or Snowden.

Second, there is the societal aspect.

If there are a few rich early adopters of Bitcoin, so what? You also don't know the people who got rich by buying Apple stocks in the 90ies. Insofar, Bitcoin was just another asset and good investment opportunity, which over time became something used by the masses, regardless of the early investment aspect.

The rich will sooner or later give their wealth into circulation. So will early Bitcoin adopters become new powerful dynasties over the next generations, only marrying among themselves in order to not dilute their wealth? I don't know, time will tell. But to have an oppressive relationship you need two parties you know. We live in the information age right now, and people won't be so superstitious anymore (I hope) to accept the rule of the mighty Andresen and Garzik dynasties as given "by the grace of God".

I think you are trapped in idealism - no offense. Using money and power, a small group is able to direct events,
even in a democratic environment; it happens with conventional money, it can happen with bitcoins/cryptocurrencies.

In case of Bitcoin, it is conceivable that earlier groups are connected, thereby enhancing their influencing capabilities.
This development is natural, but only as benign as the group members.

So your question becomes more frightening:

What if the minority decides that the majority is only allowed to possess a fixed and known amount of addresses?
(There exists a thread about a dystopian future here on BT, which I still have to read)

Now back to your original question. The idea, that in the future accumulation of wealth is no longer a supreme goal, but self-improvement is, spreads through science-fiction media.
Your thoughts probably match this scenario, as people would no longer care about maximizing/increasing balance on their wallets as generations before did.
Probably it is worth to study the feasibility of a resource based economy (RBE) as it could align with this idea. I have not done this yet.

However, it could be sufficient (or more just) to spread the idea and let everything else follow in line by advancing human behavior, instead of
enforcing it technologically.

Thank you very much for a thought-provoking post.
Benjamin

http://www.ahametals.com/927-people-own-bitcoins/




I will respond your whole post another day;

just responding the quote:
what do you mean? I should give up on the world and surrender to the assholes? never, I'd rather die. I can't ignore millions of people suffering starvation, dieing for a few bucks

Did you know that when it started, only 1 person owned all the bitcoins? And a whole month later, maybe 3 or 4 people owned all bitcoins? When the US Dollar was started, a group of proably less than a dozen people owned 100% of all US dollars. That's how new currencies start out.

so you quote the dollar to convince me that the problem will self solve itself? lol

---

So, what currency, or stock, or pretty much anything invented, do you like that you would like me to quote instead? I'll still say "Did you know that ______ was 100% owned by one person, or a small group of people, when it first started out?"

related: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=370034.msg3953039#msg3953039

new food for thoughts:

once BTC is dominant currency, and 95% of BTCs are in the hand of 5% of world population. why would those 95% who got the rest stay with Bitcoin? they will abandon it and simply adopt another coin, wouldn't they? BTC will have only value between the richs, which would make them useless.
(just beginning to think about this, a guy on facebook gave me that "food" 10min ago; sharing this "food" with you guys)

If everyone ditched Bitcoin and switched to another cryptocurrency the same unequal situation would emerge as early adopters of the new currency would be disproportionately wealthy. This means that there isn't much incentive to switch.

I've been writing about a similar hypothetical cryptocurrency, which would overcome some the the technological barriers to redistributing the money.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367080.0

Instead of the majority trying to force a redistribution of Bitcoin, a new cryptocurrency would be created which gives a universal allotment of coins to each new user. DNA would be used to identify a new user, once they have been identified their DNA signature is recorded on the Blockchain and they can't claim again. Trying to redistribute all the Bitcoins is impossible because many people have multiple wallets, would they receive multiple shares? This DNA system ensures that there is one unique payment for each person. My ultimate vision for this currency is for it to be used as a kind of corporation tax, people in rich countries go out and spend all their cash buying products from large corporations. The next day they switch to the DNA based cryptocurrency. The people have a pile of new stuff and an allotment of cash worth about $600 (all the cash in the world divided by 7 billion) and the corporations have a big pile of obsolete currency.

Cancer people can use their cancer DNA, which is different from their own DNA, to claim more money. Viruses can also be used to change DNA, since that is how viruses reproduce - they change the DNA of cells to make those cells make more viruses. If you test for DNA by taking blood samples, people who had bone marrow transplant will have same DNA as people who donated the bone. Also, I can print custom DNA that is not like any other person's DNA. It takes long time, and can not be put into people yet, but soon technology will change that. DNA is not a scarce or unique resource, like time, energy, and work.

If people end up with lots of money, and corporations get obsolete currency, as you say, that will be very bad. People with little money will not know what to do with lots of money besides spend and waste it, and corporations will not have money to buy supples to make products, and money to pay their employees. Poor people with lots of money will not have jobs, and will not have products to spend money on, so their lots of money will become worthless too. Money is not measure of one's wealth. It is measure of one's production capability and ability to think. So corporations will still be rich, because they still have their buildings, factories, people, and knowledge of how to run their business.
There is reason that wealthy people and corporations have much money - they know how to use it and how to take care of it.

Thanks.  Its nice to get some respect on these forums. 

So if I had cancer and I did a heredity test with my kid that would screw up the results? Just because DNA is altered by something doesn't mean a computer definitely couldn't identify what person it was, a sophisticated enough machine could check for cancer, etc. You are saying you could make a vial of my blood in a lab? I don't think so.

What are you talking about when you say 'spend and waste it'? Spending isn't wasting money it's enjoying it at least. Spending is investing in the products you buy, it doesn't cause the money to disappear from the economy. This is just a transfer of wealth from the global rich to the global poor via corporations. How much cash does a corporation have at any one time? What proportion of their wealth is in physical money? Taking it would be unlikely to bankrupt a profitable company. Employees would have their allotment of coins, (less than their usual salary admittedly). If they want to make money they just have to sell more of their stock or services, in the developing world demand would be big. It's just a hit to large corporations, a tax that they'll pay to the poor. The richest country in the world by GDP per person is Qatar; they don't work or do anything productive with their labor, they get Pakistani servants to do everything for them. So why are they the richest? Because they a have valuable natural resource. People are poor because they are cut off from the wealth of natural resources, usually either land or energy. Being efficient and productive is valuable for ensuring that your military seizes the best resources but you're kidding yourself if you think wealth distribution is a result of these attributes alone. People behave in the way that's most appropriate for the environment they inhabit, that's a natural human law and if we can change that environment people can have any positive qualities you want. This is a tax that corporations will pay to the poor for monopolizing natural resources for decades; that is all.

If you test your normal cell, it will be ok, but if you take your cancer cell and test it, it will have DNA that will not be like yours. It may pass heredity test, but it will not pass test as your DNA. You did not mean that anyone who is related will not get DNA money, and only one person in family will get money, did you?
I can not make vial of your blood in lab, but I can make your DNA in lab. I can then inject that DNA in blood cell. It takes very long time to make DNA, and I would need to inject it into blood cell one by one, because blood does not divide. To make vial of your blood in lab, I would need to make your DNA in lab and use it to clone and grow bone marrow, which can then grow your blood. It is still very new and very difficult to pull off technology, which will take years with technology we have now, but it will become much easier and faster to do, even to create blood cells themselves in vials, very soon.


This is what I mean by people who are not rich do not know how to use and take care of money. When you buy something, you are not investing. You are using up money on something that itself will get used up. There is difference between earning or spending money, and between making money. Wealthy people and corporations actually make money, by putting cheap things together to make more expensive things. As saying goes, sum is greater than its parts. When people earn money, they just trade one thing they do not need, like their time and labor, for another thing they do need, like money. When people spend money on products, they also trade something they do not need, like money, on things they do need, like products. And those products wear out, which means that they need to trade more labor for more money, and more money for more products. Wealthy people invest by spending money on things that will make them more money, like property, stocks, building businesses and companies, or even buying labor that they can combine with other things to make products that are worth more than labor and those other things.

So if poor people get money, who only know how to convert it to products that will wear out, then all they will have is less and less money as their products wear out. If they did know how to take care of and use money, they would use it to invest in things that would make them money, and if they knew how to do that, they would not have been poor to begin with. Does this make sense?


Millions of dollars, and billions for some corporations. It is cash that is transitioning through their corporation, which they just received for selling their products, and they will be using in a few days to pay their employees and suppliers. If you take most of their cash, they will not be able to pay their employees, who will go hungry and quit, and they will not be able to pay their suppliers, who will not sell them more supplies to make products out of. So company will go out of business. Many businesses had to close when Cyprus took money from banks, because many businesses kept their money there for reasons I mentioned.


Corporations made lots of money because they made things that people wanted to buy. They are rich because people traded money that they did not want for corporation products. So corporations already served poor people by giving them what they want. Why must corporations give even more?


People in Saudi Arabia are like this too. They have much natural resource, so people get paid $1,000 for doing nothing. Everyone is rich, and does not need to work. Because of that, everyone does what they want, not what is needed. Because religion is very respected, most people there go to school to learn and get degrees in religion.  So natural resource of Saudi Arabia is poisoning everyone's minds. What is worse is that natural resources are not unlimited. When it runs out in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, you will have entire country full of people who do not know how to do anything, and do not know anything other than religion. They will be very poor, very desperate, and very religious and very angry. It is going to be big problem. Much worse than terrorism is today.


If that is true, explain Israel, Dubai, and Japan? They have no resources at all, but are riches countries in middle east and Asia. Not wanting to use your mind and not wanting to be productive is what makes people poor. In fact, if you look around at different countries, you will see that those with many natural resources are most poor and corrupt, and those without are much more wealthy. Reason is because those without resources must rely on their own intelligence to make money.


It is very not efficient to seize resources with military. It is much cheaper to ask for and trade for those resources with people who have them. This is because people who have those resources know best how to get them, and if you take resources, you will have to deal with angry people trying to kill you. Only reason corporations monopolize natural resources is because no one else knows better than they do how to extract them. If you and your family and friends were given oil rigs over Norway, what would you do with them?
Also, if you take resources from corporations, or tax corporations, then you will just become the new monopoly that is controlling those resources. You will either be extracting resources yourself, or having corporation work for you. So who will later tax you for being new monopoly in charge of resources?

There are two types of people..The Oppressors and the Oppressed..When the Oppressed wake up and say they have had enough then many different types of economic systems will come to the Fore so then nothing will really matter. Foe now let's enJoy the ride and the revolution BTC is bringing and the Hope to the Average Joe and then later down the line we can address if the BITCOIN PROTCOL Experiment needs a good tweak. ;D

The question is who is who? Are the workers the oppressed, and the businesses and corporations the oppressors, in which case the workers will rise up, take control, and relieve the wealthy business owners of their wealth, as happened in communist revolutions during the last century?
Or are the business people and entrepreneurs the oppressed, and the workers the oppressors, feeling that it is unfair that some people have much and they have little, and using the power of government to regulate and take from those business people and entrepreneurs, in which case it's the wealthy business types that will rise up, take their wealth, and move elsewhere? This wasn't really possible with wealth being stored in banks, since that wealth could just be frozen and confiscated by governments, but it's possible now...

yea, and the enslavors where the victoms in slavory. SInce i know Bitcoin and got to know the libertarian sect (for me it is a sect because of confirmation bias, profetizing satoshi, citing half a frase of him as a commandment, etc.) my forehead allready got flat like a board. never facepalmed so much.





would be nice, let them take all their wealth and go to Mars. would give the humanity another chance. and this time we install an antivirus

Slaves had no choice in what they worked on, whom they worked for, and what they got in return. Workers can change careers, change employers, and negotiate pay. The two are incomparable. The only thing workers can complain about is not being paid fairly, but fairness is subjective, while pay is a function of supply and demand. If they want to get paid more, they need to supply something that's in higher demand.


So, what will you do if your employer left, the store you by things from closed and left, and all the things your government provides you with had to be paid with your own taxes? Would you be able to run your company, manage the supply chain that your store uses to stock it's shelves, and make millions to pay for those tax provided services? I would guess no, because otherwise you would have already been running your company or your own store, and would have already been making millions.

What is it that you actually contribute to the world, that you believe will be enough to keep your world going without those running the businesses you deal with?

My point about the heredity test is that we already use DNA testing to identify a person to a great degree of certainty. We also have tests to detect when blood has been tampered with. Custom making unique DNA and physically inserting it into blood cells or cloning and growing unique bone marrow sound like expensive ways to gain a fairly small amount of money (maximum $600). As long as a computer can say that a vial of blood came from a certain person and that it hasn't been tampered with, blood could be used as a form of identification for this system.

Up to now I have been writing about this idea as something that could be pushed on people, a run on cash, a form of striking, a revolution; but now I think it would have to be something that people in the developed world choose to do voluntarily. As they are the ones who will be giving up most of the wealth it could not be forced upon them and they need some incentive to participate. One incentive would be to give relief to the world's poor; but there is another more practical reason to adopt a global egalitarian cryptocurrency.

I suppose that natural resources are best handled by those that know best how to manage them, that way the most valuable possible objects will be produced per unit of natural resource. As such natural resources and wealth are only wasted on people who have not reached a certain level of organization, cooperation, efficiency and rational thinking. It is better for energy to be concentrated on a wealthy minority that know how to reproduce it efficiently. There is a major flaw in this line of thinking. Yes developed countries have figured out how to yield the greatest value from natural resources such as land and energy but they have neglected to invest in the greatest natural resource of all: the human race.

By neglecting to invest in the world's poor the developed world has allowed a huge gulf to grow in terms of relative standards of living and most importantly education. There are about 1.2 trillion american dollars in cash, America's wealth is thought to be around 120 trillion dollars. Adopting this cryptocurrency would make only a small dent on American wealth but for 40% of the world's population earning less than $2.50 a day it would be unimaginable wealth ($600). Nothing could do more to boost the world's productivity than investing in education and tools for the world's poor. Adopting a global egalitarian currency would be different to any other form of wealth redistribution in that it would be totally decentralized. Instead of giving aid to corrupt governments that don't understand the needs of their people, for the first time they would receive the money directly. I'm a big believer in the work of philosopher Nassim Taleb; he frequently writes about the disastrous consequences of centralized planning and organization that simply fails to respond to dynamic and organic processes. If people can decide for themselves or in small groups what they need they are more likely to become productive. Yes some will simply consume their share of coins. There are geniuses in every part of the world but most live and die without ever achieving a fraction of what they could have because the group they belong to has been designated 'unproductive'. This cryptocurrency would give the poor an opportunity to get the things they need to be productive, it will allow the entrepreneurs among them a chance to emerge.

To accompany this redistribution of the world's cash I would also suggest an exodus of people to the developing world in order to assist in the transition. All across Europe and America young, college educated people are sitting at home consuming welfare because there is no demand for their skills. In the developing world they could share their knowledge and make a real economic and social impact. This cryptocurrency would give people a real motivation to go to the poorest parts of the world and offer their valuable services because there would be 'gold' to earn. As long as the rich world agreed to use this currency the lives of the rich and the poor would be deeply intertwined in a way they are not now because the 'gold' would be distributed equally to begin with. I believe that this would be a form of long-term investment that would eventually pay off enormously.     

That is good point. There is now much oppression of not only wealthy people, but small business owners and entrepreneurs, who must now pay for expensive licenses and fees to do their jobs. There are news that almost 10 wealthy people leave America every month to avoid paying these high fees and taxes. We even have examples of this here in bitcoin community, such as Erik Voorhees leaving and moving to Panama because it is much easier to establish business there, and China becoming more dominant in Bitcoin because it is difficult to do anything with bitcoin in America. Business and entrepreneur people will keep leaving, poor people will have fewer job opportunities and become poorer, and they will get more angry and demand more money and more things from business people and entrepreneurs, and cycle will continue until everyone is poor and with no work. It is already much easier to get job in China and India than in Japan and America.

There is already working solution to this, and people are doing it voluntarily. Until just decade or so ago, it was much better to hire well educated people in developed world to do skilled labor, because the people in developed world already had needed skills. But then people in developed world voluntarily chose to raise minimum wage, and increase regulation, so now it is cheaper to hire and train people in places with a lot of poor people. This past decade has seen unbelievably large amount of poorest people in all of world get pulled out of poverty through economic expansion in India and China. Indians are much grateful to developed world for voluntarily doing those choices. Namaste! :D

I was thinking a lot about how to respond the "Holocaust denial" - like arguments of some here, but i just suggest you guys continue in this "this world is perfect, why change?"-thread and leave this here ontopic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=370034.0




just leaving you a text from Bessie A. Stanley:



"What is Success?

To laugh often and love much; to win the respect of intelligent persons and the affection of children; to earn the approbation of honest citizens and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give of one’s self; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to have ?played and laughed with enthusiasm and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived—this is to have succeeded"

Wonderful thread, very interesting read. I would quote some people as I have some questions about your points but I thought I would generally state my views that are relevant here.

Society is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to have a passport, birth certificate or social security number. These are documents of registration which mean that the confer ownership from the individual to the agency managing the document (government, the financial corporations and central agencies. In the UK, every birth certificate is owned by crown copyright. This is what enables prosecution under Acts and Statutes and the payment of Taxation. Stephan Molyneux has some interesting material on this but stated in brief: The system of wage slavery and prosecution outside Common Law is perpetuated by registering your children at birth, identifying to tax accounts, saying 'Yes that's me, I UNDERSTAND (stand under the authority of Act and Statue) you officer' to the police. To live once again as humans, we have to refuse to accept the Legal authority of such documents (leaving the farm so to speak). Whilst this is the dream for many of us here in cryptoland, practically in can be difficult to acquire the minimum assets to move somewhere in the world where freedom is more fruitfully implemented. Furthermore many of us might wish to adapt/reconstruct the current systems of control to enable the kind of civilization that we want for children and loved ones (that too is a long term goal that requires huge shifts in the social understanding of current human society, and CryptoHumanity 2.0)

1- When you identify to a document (passport, ID card) by saying 'I (this human being) BOB of the family SMITH am (accept legal responsibility for) MR BOB SMITH (the legal document/ personal corporation owned by Crown Copyright, the Social Security Service etc)', you make yourself liable for any title, fine or prosecution upheld by a court or legal corporation.

2- Associating your crypto assets to these legal entities (MR BOB SMITH's tax account) is a legal grey area. However even doing so states a fundamental complicity with the systems by which these legal entities are enabled. For me, that stands in direct opposition with the reason I got into cryptoculture (independence from the 'farm' of legal entities) and thus cannot be treated as an end in itself. I intend to become incorporated as cryptoasset manager under UK law but it is going to take come creativity and Legal knowhow, but this is an interim solution until I can afford self sufficiency and and internet connection somewhere outside the remit of the financio-corporate-governance cartel : )

3- Cryptocurrency represents a new socio-economic sphere of action in which citizens can facilitate their needs. Those who are disengaged from mainstream politics, and see the malevolent and controlled nature of the current fiat economy for what it is (wage slavery& soul destroying consumerism) have the opportunity to free their assets and livelihood from the current socio-economic arrangement. This is a threat to the illusory system of control enforced upon nearly the entirety of humankind by government and corporations, so they will be resistant enabling it in policy.

What are the options? Move to an island and start again, or pull together and push for CryptoLife in the current matrix of control?

I guess we should consider many large corporations to have succeeded then, since they have made much of the third world wealthier, healthier, and better off socially.

haters gonna hate:

http://www.videosdodia.com/vida-da-muitas-voltas/

Are you implying that free market capitalists are against this?

I think a version of this video that would fit the current socialist government model would involve someone in a police uniform approaching every one of those people, forcing them to give up some of their money under the treat of authority, and using it to pay some designated "helper" to provide help to the next person in line. Because that's how government works, not with people being nice enough to help each other, but with government taking everyone's money so that the government can hire public employees to help people.

Or this, or they are just to innocent to realize that people are not like this in the video.

cause reality is this:

http://placemanagementandbranding.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/favela1.jpg

The immage is of a favela, a shanty town in Brazil. It is also an example of what you get if your country ranks 126th out of 181 in "ease of doing business" rankings (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/brazil/ease-of-doing-business-index-1-most-business-friendly-regulations-wb-data.html) from excessive regulations which prevent private investment,  and a corruption score that places Brazil 72nd (http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/) in the world, worse than Italy, which is known for its mafias and corrupt government officials, and even worse than African nations like Ghana and Rwanda.

Yes, this is a perfect example of what happens when there is the exact opposite of a "free market" in a country.

I've never understood the appeal of living in a multi-story death trap without any land to call your own and being far too close to your neighbours so they can hear your conversations through the wall.

you mean the favelas would stop existing in a 100% free market? that's stupid. they were formed in a 100% free market: slavery and after

Yes! Because outside investment (foreign corps and businesses) would come in and employ the hell out of all those poor workers, since they are already used to being paid almost nothing, then over time (noot a very long time) these workers would learn skills on the job, demand higher pay for hiquer quaality work, and because there will be fewer of them available to employ (unemployment will go down), and many of them would end up in lower-middle class status. Exactly as it happened in many of the Southeast Asian countries, where people were poorer than they are even in Brazilian favelas, but are now way richer than them.

wow...so easy? genious. Brazlian Government must be stupid ;-)

They wouldn't be having favelas, or riots, if it wasn't.

when slavery ended, government did nothing for the now free slaves. if the government had had social programs like the actual government has, they would never have formed. 

I think your idea is great and straight to the point. Just posted this here before reading your post. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=382645.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=382645.0)

Distribution of wealth through technology and democracy, good stuff!

people are allready dicussing "horizontal mining". a coin in the hand of few people wont survive in the end. write it down

plus: coins like ComunityCoin are apearing.

because it's stealing, the rich bitcoiners invested lots of money fair and square for those coins..