Thus, the problem of drunk driving is not solved by the state, and has not been solved since motor vehicles have been around (nor has the general issue of drunks been solved for millenniums.)  The law is but an expensive band-aid and has no intent to solve a problem.  Discouraging drunk driving with law--even through threats of the death penalty--will not stop drunk driving (see: losing a hand for theft, and yet theft still happens.)

However, the state makes money charging the drunk driver hefty fines, or if it can't monetize, it charges the public for the accident through jails and using tax money to fix whatever damage was caused (e.g. socialism.)  In other words, public loss, private gain, for a system which has no intention of helping the general public.

Lemme know when this sounds appealing to anyone

I know localbitcoins.com doesn't require an ID, but it does require you to meet up with someone in some fashion.

Let's go to his house and throw calendars at it.

Arresting the drunk driver after he's caused a major traffic accident

You have to be physically on the site for four hours; creating an account, making 6 posts, and then coming back a few days later isn't going to count toward your active time here.

I'm excited to see how they're going to pull it off.  I mean, if it's a measly "You should do it", I see many issues springing up in the future; they may not know who's avoiding taxes, but they'll see clear as day taxes are being avoided.  Then they have fire power to campaign against the use of Bitcoin.

Hello fellow free thinker

Willfully ignorant, yet incredibly boisterous.

Yep, he's an American.

It's already been established both kokjo and blablahblah are sociopaths  The argument ended for me once I realized the opposition have no souls to begin with.  Better odds winning an argument with a dog; in the end, you just grab the dog by the neck, show them what they did wrong and yell "No!  Bad!" and they'll inevitably listen.  The only way you'll get a dog to listen is coercion, and it's the one language they'll understand.

Thankfully, there's still plenty of us with a sense of empathy, and with that, we can draw the line between the men and the dogs.

Quick question:

Wouldn't the existence of a president imply there's a strong national government, which would go against libertarian ideals?

I dunno what else to tell you; you seem to be completely, 100% in belief that your system will work, despite my arguments.  I will not be taking part, but, I wish you the best in finding people who feel the same way as you.

Also, I highly recommend the Zeitgeist movies; they should be on Netflix, the first one anyway.  The other two are on YouTube.  They'll help you better understand what it is you're striving for.

What you're describing is similar to the Venus Project showcased in Zeitgeist (robosocialism); it would be in your best interest to watch all 3 movies, so you have a better idea of what an RBE would work like.

You're missing the point tho; lets say we had A-Coin.  And B-Coin.  And C-Coin.  And D-Coin.  So now you have 4 different wallets for 4 different coins.

Multiply that by a million and we have a problem.  Not only is it hard to keep track of, but each individual coin would be nearly worthless.  It's like government printing out more money.  Bitcoin is scarce because it has a limit; however, 1 million incarnations of Bitcoin, and counting, are not scarce.  Because of this, people will stick to a very small number of coins, and will likely mine those coins, except they can't, because everyone is, so we're back at the problem described earlier.  I've got a million Mikecoins and I'd be lucky to get my mum to take them to buy a sandwich off her.  Now she's got a million Mikecoins that nobody wants; imagine this, except with all the people in the world, and we're having a problem keeping everyone on the same page.  People will naturally flock to the same few coins, and if not for better coins, coins that have been around longer, and are more widely adopted, just because they can use them for stuff.

I can't buy a thing with my PPcoins btw.  I got quite a few of them.  I can, however, trade them for one or two bitcoins.  That's PPCoin, and it's been around for a couple years.  Imagine creating a new one every other week.  They'd never take off.  We simply have no need for that many altcoins.  Altcoins are great, but a million of them is just way too much.  You won't find anyone to take fj8e92qjr839qCoin, the 432,398th coin to be created.  As I said, again, it's an attempt to create wealth out of nothing.

Also, WoW gold is worth next to nothing.  It has value because it's a pain in the ass to collect and people are lazy (they're also suckers, but, that's nothing new.)  It is, however, unlimited in supply, so it's a lot like fiat, except much worse.  Nobody is buying candy bars with WoW gold because of this, nor are they paying their subscriptions with WoW gold because the devs are smarter than to accept their own virtual currency that's unlimited in supply.  Finally, because WoW gold is earned in-game, it's nearly impossible to get enough people using it, and it's insecure, for your account can be stolen, shut-down, and any mod can create themselves WoW gold on the spot.  Try paying for your grocery bill with it; never happen.  That's essentially what will happen with enough offshoots of Bitcoin; the altcoins become worthless.

But as I said before, when there's no work, there's no economy.  So the point is moot.

Indeed.

I'm saying, people would never start using them; nobody would bother.  Nobody wants to use a million different coins to buy a million different things.  For example, if Google invented Googlecoins, and Amazon invented Amazoncoins (not the stuff they already got, mind you,) people would cry, "But we already have Bitcoin!  I don't want to use Googlecoins!"  It would be like McDonalds only accepting Happycoins, or WalMart only accepted Walcoins; it's bad for business, and makes it annoying for the consumer to keep track of it.  Also, by assigning your Googlecoins a value of 10 Bitcoins a pop, you're artificially setting the price; this doesn't happen in the real world.  People have to figure out what a currency is worth by themselves by agreeing on it.  It would be like saying my Laptop isn't really worth $200, it's actually worth $2000, except no one would purchase at $200 laptop at $2000, unless they were getting shafted.

In relation to your last statement: If wealth is not created from thin air, you cannot share what wealth you didn't create from thin air.  That's essentially what this is boiling down to; it's an attempt to generate wealth by doing nothing.  In the end, it's going to do little more than secure the various crypto-coin networks, without making the person money.  If I sold you a mining rig for 10k Shagcoins, and you used it to produce 100k Mikecoins, all of which are worth 10k Shagcoins (if you're lucky), then we're going nowhere.  As I said before, in a system like this, it's better to either lose the concept of crypto-currency all together, or stick with a system in which people work; there is no real in-between here.  If people are already living off machine labor, and all their necessities are being met, then they have no real reason to trade to live.  They might trade for entertainment and such, but, I predict that even this will disappear.  Really, there's nothing left to fight for, once everyone's perfectly healthy and happy; you just do what you wanna do, like go biking, or write a book.  The question is then irrelevant to this thread; how to make it all happen to ensure people are actually free.

As myrkul said, I'm not trying to rain on your idea, but, let's get to the root of the matter.  Have you seen Zeitgeist?

Well, he did create Bitcoin.  I'd care a lot of what he thought, considering he's the one who made it, and not Bill Murray.

The case I'm making is this; if each Bitcoin were worth 1 million dollars, and every person had one Bitcoin, 1 million dollars looks like nothing.  300 million millionaires just means people will be trading hundreds of thousands for a loaf of bread.  People do not magically get rich together; something happens in between that allows people to thrive alongside each other.  They thrive because they work and trade their work for the things they need; the issue comes when a person's work is watered down to make the employer richer.

They can create a new currency, but it's still the same issue; at some point in time, people stop accepting it.  I can create Mikecoins, and spend all day mining them with a few buddies, but getting from that stage to where Bitcoin is now would be next to impossible; I'm not adding anything new to Mikecoins.  It's just a BTC clone with a name change and a reset.  There's no appeal for having 10,000 Mikecoins, outside of hoping and praying that it will someday be worth a dollar a pop.  Considering, at this point, there will be millions of other coins on the market, doing nothing but being Bitcoin, it is next to impossible; there will be competition among crypto-currencies, to improve these coins, so people will flock to them, and make the inventors money by transferring the wealth of others, and early adopters, and thus, capitalism.

So what about Mikecoins?  The 1,000,000th bitcoin clone to be created, because the popular Shagcoin became too difficult to mine at a profit?  Well, it goes nowhere, in an over-saturated altcoin market, and is worth next to nothing.  It does not pay for the computers it burned to mine them, and does not pay for me to live.  It's still not worth the effort.  Wealth is not created from thin air, is the point I'm making.

Sounds like a lot of hope but not a lot of underlying planning.  When LTC gets filled up and is no longer profitable, you go to PPCoin; when PPCoin is no longer profitable, you go to TRC; when TRC is no longer profitable, you go to, I dunno, Bytecoin; eventually people start making their own coins and mine those, but are worth maybe .000001 BTC a piece.  Anyway, wealth isn't created out of thin air, unless we're talking about the banks, but as we can see, this isn't good for society at all.  If machines are doing all the work, we may as well not worry about money anymore; when people have food, shelter, water, security, all in one package, given to them, for free, they just go out and do their own thing anyway.

Sure, the computers may pay for themselves, but are they profitable, is the question.  If everyone is creating these currencies, no, they are not, because everyone is earning equal amounts of this currency; nobody wants something they already have.  It then becomes a matter of trading something which is no longer scarce, and would still be pointless, for people have no work to store in it; the work is already being done by something which needs no payment.

I know there's a road between now and a PSE or an RBE, but I don't think this is it.

Thing is, you're missing the glaring hole I presented before:


In other words, if you equip everyone with a mining rig, they're all going to make fractions of what they would've made if only a few people had mining rigs.  It all evens out; whoever has the most hashing power makes the most Bitcoin.  If everyone has roughly the same hashing power, they're all going to make just a tiny bit of Bitcoin.  It's doubtful that this will pay for the burned out computers, even if they're solar powered, not to mention the cost of living.

Plus, solar power is costly, too, due to physical equipment.  Geothermal would be better but even still, that would require a lot of cash to pull off.  So people, in the end, would still have to work.  It's better to create a society in which people can freely work as they see fit, than force a society which people must upkeep mining rigs that aren't making them money, and they'd have to look for work anyway.

I'm not implying there would not be security against violence in an anarchistic society.  I'm saying they're freaking out because they're upset with their own government, not because the "guns went away."  The guns are a band-aid, and only work when your society is disarmed.  Coincidentally, there happens to be a popular argument recently which the citizen should be disarmed, so they can be safe from themselves.  Except the government doesn't feel they belong in this pool.  If people had a proper defense against bullies, through their own means or through a business which specialized in security, we wouldn't be having this issue, and the riots against one's own government would not occur.  Instead, the business of security is monopolized by a single entity; whether the guns are there or not, this is the state in which we live in, and though we can keep everyone in a prison or free, it doesn't change how they feel.

You didn't answer my question, by the way.  So I'll present another, and I expect an answer to both: what shaped these people who want to rape and loot and pillage?