Is "Libertopia" the actual name of the city, or a description?  If the latter, I think it's a bit premature.  The article says the city will be business friendly, but I'd want to see what level of personal and social freedom they achieve before I'd call it "Libertopia".

That's a bit like saying "Bitcoins don't exist, they're just data on some hard drives."

The idea of the nation-state exists.  The aggregate behavior of the people who believe in the nation-state make it a tangible force.  You have a large group of people who will more-or-less abide by the decisions of a smaller group of decision makers.  Each individual in the state may be believed to be morally responsible for their own actions, but in practice the easiest way to stop the violence would be to change the minds of the decision makers, or remove them from power.

Earlier someone brought up the Iraq war as an example of a decentralized force defeating a larger, better equipped and organized force.  Like many forces in similar positions in history, they did this by fighting in pretty much the opposite manner than you are advocating.  

I really don't see how you can expect people to ignore the fact that the invaders are part of an organized, united force.  I suppose it's not that different from how law enforcement deals with gangs, but it still seems like kind of a disadvantage in a total war scenario.

While we're on the topic, what about land registry?  I asked this in another thread, but I never followed up on the answer I received, which is that it doesn't need to be a monopoly.  I don't see how it could not be.  Each bit of land can only be owned by one person, so all registries have to be in accord.

@myrkul - So, if I understand correctly, the plan is basically to pretend that the nation-state doesn't exist and that everyone is acting as an individual?

Not in a country where tanks are sold for recreational use.  Nation-states tend to announce when they're invading another Nation-State, because it tends to be rather noticeable in the first place since there's no other reason their forces would cross the borders.  Contrast that with the way that many colonial governments exercised their power over indigenous tribes, which as I understand it tended to be a much less formal process.

This strikes me as an example of something that would need to be negotiated.  Someone needs to decide whether or not the foreign police force has probable cause to suspect any given member of the cell, and that anyone rendered to the foreign government will receive a fair hearing and an appropriate penalty.  Does the defense agency do all this?


Thanks, this is something I didn't understand about the AnCap position.

However, it strikes me as extremely problematic from a military point of view.  The AnCap forces would be extremely handicapped if they have to give every single individual the benefit of the doubt.  No attacking supply lines as long as the truckers leave the fighting to others.  A bomber is approaching overhead.   We can't identify the crew, so we don't know if any of them have committed aggression.  Ok, now the bomber has started to bombard the city.  Can we shoot now, or maybe that was the work of a rogue on the crew without the sanction of the others?  If nothing else, you'd never have the initiative.  I can't imagine it would be easy to convince everyone to stick to high-minded non-aggression ideals.


The reason I mentioned privateers is because I pictured the defense being a chaotic, disorganized effort, with groups of volunteers inflicting whatever damage they can.  However, it seems like you're saying it would be the opposite, fought by defense companies practicing a superhuman level of restraint and discipline to ensure only the guilty are harmed.

Thanks, I have learned something.

Explain?

Questions that might come up concerning a private food system are:
-How do they feed poor people?
-How do they make sure their customers are eating a healthy diet?

And the answer is "They don't."  People turn to other organizations for these things.  The question of how an AnCap society stays and AnCap society needs a better answer than that, because there would be no one else.

Here's my question re: external threats

Who would negotiate with the foreign power?

In order to get everyone to rally to the defense of the country, there has to be unity of purpose.  There has to be consensus that there is, in fact, a war going on.

Without a government, there would presumably be no restrictions on immigration.  There would be no restrictions against those immigrants importing weapons.  So, foreign troops entering the country is not inherently a hostile act.  There are always going to be racist nutcases claiming that every visitor is an invader, so people would get used to ignoring them.  With a misinformation and propaganda campaign, a genuine invading force could conceal their purpose for some time.

A government could give an ultimatum to a foreign power, that would lead to either the removal of the troops or a formal declaration of war.  In an anarchist society, how do you distinguish between defending your freedom and committing terroristic acts against foreign tourists?

And what if their purpose is not to enslave the country, but to destroy a specific organization within the country that committed some crime against them?  Are we expected to give our lives fighting for some terrorist cell that happens to be hiding out within our country?  But if we don't, we have no sovereignty.

And then who decides when the war's over?  The foreign power has withdrawn their forces, but there's no one to sign a peace treaty.  So when can we resume trade without being considered guilty of treason?  How long do we let the privateers rob and kill people from the other country?

The idea definitely intrigues me, and if someone can explain how an anarchist society achieves some kind of unity of purpose, I would love to hear it.

I'm assuming this means breaking a serious criminal law that could lead to jail time, not just another paperwork technicality to increase costs for small businesses.  If so, probably not.  Even if I had no moral objection to the activity, operating outside of the law is a huge liability.  I would have no legal recourse if they cheated me, and they would be experienced at concealing their activities.  Criminal businesses also seem to attract violence occasionally, and I wouldn't want that spreading to me or mine.

If you just want to play around with the software, maybe it would be better to go to one of the faucets or other "free" bitcoin sites.

Does that metaphor mean you expect the US government to collapse in the near future?  Then why even have this conversation?

I never claimed that it would solve the fundamental problems with democracy, just that it would weaken the hold of the two party system.

What we need is instant run-off voting.  Then we'd be able to vote our hearts AND hedge against the greater of two evils.

How about carving it into stone, or baking it into clay?  Archaeologists have managed to recover writings on these materials after thousands of years.

Would it be possible to write your key on the inside of a closed clay vessel, have it fired, then break it open to reveal the key?  That way, you wouldn't have to trust the firer.

I have no idea what kind of tool you'd use for stone.  Maybe concrete would work?

I've had this idea for awhile now, and I wanted to see if there's any interest.

As you may know, deviantart.com is an online platform for posting user made art.  It's used by a variety of people, both amateur and professional.  A search of the forums here shows that at least a few bitcoiners are already on deviantart.

On DA, it's not unusual for fans of specific artists to pay for commissions.  Most of the time, these commissions are paid for by paypal or DA's internal 'points' system.  I believe that this is a good role for bitcoin to step into.  These transactions are entirely online.  Artists also trade art between themselves, so they would have the option to spend the bitcoin on more art in addition to cashing out.

My idea is to find a number of artists with a large number of subscribers, or "watchers" as they're called.  We offer to commission a piece from them on the condition that they when they post the finished piece to their gallery, they include in the description a pamphlet that we provide promoting bitcoin.  This pamphlet will then be seen by all their watchers, hopefully convincing a few to add bitcoin to the payment methods they are willing to accept.

This would be good not only because it would mean more business done in bitcoin, but also because it would promote bitcoin to entirely new demographics.

When I have a chance, I can put together a draft of an explanatory pamphlet we can use.  I've also been putting together a list of artists with a large number of watchers.

What do you think?  Think of it this way:  It wouldn't cost you anything.  You'd buy a commission from an artist, and get free advertising for bitcoin free. 

Your best  bet might be to post your resume/CV in the "marketplace" section of this very forum.

I think that bitcoin will become easier to use, but we have to remember there's a difference between knowing how to use bitcoin and knowing how to use it securely.  Many people consider malware to be a simple fact of life and do very little to protect their computers.  They'll be vulnerable to keyloggers, phishing, and whatnot and have to regulatory agency to turn to when their coins are stolen.  More than a few will wipe their hard drives without realizing the need to back up their wallet.dat.

I think that e-wallets/hybrid wallets are the future for "normal" people.  That way, they won't need to worry about backups, and the service can require additional verification for large spends.

Even assuming that represents 5.6% of the forums population, they're still a relatively small minority.

Americans old enough to have lived through the depression are likely to appreciate the advantages of bitcoin, once their properly explained.  I don't know how Americans who lived during the period in which the gold trade was restricted feel about it, but maybe there's something there, too.  In general, I think there is quite a bit of anti-statism among the older generations that can be exploited.

I wouldn't even try to explain the technical aspect, not least because my own understanding is imperfect.  Just assure them that it's protected by unbreakable mathematical principles.

Naturally, everyone is different and the same approach might not work for everyone etc. etc.

As far as the issue of using celebrity names without permission, even assuming for the sake of argument that there would be no legal issues, wouldn't it be better to have the celebrity on board anyways?  That way they could promote the product during interviews on talk shows and such.

The advantage of targeting teenagers would be that they may become lifetime users.  Maybe a better way to reach them would be through the classroom.  Could we convince business/economics teachers that satoshis make good "play money" for classroom exercises?  I think there are some possibilities there.

According to that poll, there are three, all of them male.

I said "do" not "don't".

You mean Cody Simpson wouldn't even be involved with this project?  Well, I'd hope his managers aren't petty enough to sue over the use of his likeness, but that seems kind of sketchy.  You're really not giving a lot of credit to the girls if you think using a famous person's name is enough to make them like something.  

Well, it's great to talk about expanding into new markets, but the market has to be ready for the product and the product has to be ready for the market, and I don't think that's been achieved with bitcoin + the type of teenage girl who would go for this.  There are some fairly easy-to-use e-wallets and hybrid wallets, but protecting bitcoins still requires a little technical knowledge and a lot of common sense.

But, if you already have some ideas for bitcoin businesses for this demographic to spend their coins on, why not focus on developing those first?  It might be worthwhile if the businesses exist.

@BkkCoins - Ooh, that's an interesting idea.

Well, I do think we need to expand our market past this white male geek demographic.  A celebrity endorsement would be nice, but I'm not sure that a teenage pop icon is the right spokesperson.  Sure, it would get a lot of attention, but what are the girls going to do with their coins after the promotion's over?  They would always remember it as a marketing gimmick unless the marketers took care to make sure they had plenty of ways to integrate it into their life.

I wonder if a facebook faucet would be a good idea?  It would work like a typical facebook game, you get rewards for letting the app spam your friends and convincing them to sign up.

In my understanding, there's no such thing as a wallet as far as the blockchain is concerned.  A wallet is just a group of addresses.

What people are saying is that it's possible to make an educated guess about whether or not two addresses are owned by the same person by examining transfer patterns, but the answer to your question is no.  I don't know much about this, but I would assume that making a single spend from multiple addresses simultaneously would be sort of a give away.

If you're concerned about anonymity, look up coin mixing services like tor wallet.

If I was going to do this, I would provide the correct address to the algorithm so it could be checked that way.  But yeah, you'd still need to generate the public address.

You've convinced me that recursive hashing is better, but one advantage of a random salt would be that new addresses could be generated quickly, without so much hashing.

Thanks again for the help.