still not enforcement =) and yea im sure some bad kids somewhere needed legit enforcement but me and my friends never did, that's the point.

this is false, social customs can also provide property systems. a good example is here in the united states kids will "call shotgun" inorder to gain a property right over the front seat of a car, this property rule works very well at mitigating conflict and requires no institutions. It is purely based on custom and social norms, I've never heard of a parent needing to "enforce" the "calling shotgun" property rule.

of course im not claiming that we shouldnt have dispute resolution organizations in the real world we would certainly need them. The point is just that it is technically possible to have property systems with out enforcement which is important because you would have a regression problem otherwise. (need property in order to have something to bargain with in order to hire rights enforcement but cant have property with out rights enforcement)

it seems pretty strait forward to send a rocket up into space to attach its self to an asteroid inorder to nudge it in just the right direction so that it crashes into your property here on earth.

this statment is an admission that the scope of the definition of the word is greater than just situations where you are not imposing undue costs on other individuals =D

though i do understand what you are saying and totally agree with the sentiment. it is the cornerstone of libertarian theory 

Destruction funds utilizing the principals of the nash equilibrium is a MUCH better solution to the trust issue than reputation imo. With a trust based system different liabilities from different people have different values, this makes the asset that corresponds to these liabilities into a heterogeneous good. By utilizing the nash equilibrium we can homogenize these liabilities into a uniform homogeneous good. In order to discover an objectively valid price for a good that good must be made homogenous. Imagine if i asked you what is the price of one acre of land. it would be a ridiculous question because land is a heterogeneous good.

I do know a little bit of programming. I used to play around with python, invent little mathematical challenges for myself and then code a function that could be used to solve it out for fun. But i have no idea how to make something that involved, or even what i need to learn in order to know how to make something that involved. multiple tiers of ignorance going on here.

With this idea the exchanges are still centralized right? still points of failure. There is no reason why we couldn't have this totally decentralized.

why not just design a program that could scan the blockchain of bitmessage for buy and sell offers that match specific syntax and aggregate and display that data in a way that is easy for users to interpret. Then have built into the program tools that could be used to easily arrange for the creation of a risk fund (explained here http://nashx.com/about) by way of a multisignature transaction on the bitcoin blockchain. this way you can safely make transactions person to person with people you dont know ANYTHING about with out the need for any help from any third parties (unlike with the chaum bank provider)

You could even design algorithms to extract up to date prices for each market from the bitmessage blockchain.

what does bitmessage do that i2p and freenet cant do?

yes, yes it would.

so wait. if i build a piece of capital and then hire people to operate it, the moment i do so the capital ceases to be my property and becomes their property instead? If this was ever reflected in law you could be sure that no sane person would ever build a factory and a society with no factories would be very poor indeed.

thats awesome!

deleted. not a good idea for reasons i came to understand upon further reflection.

Being able to trade person to person with out an intermediary is a must and it is the first challenge. Fortunately it has already been solved for us by this website (http://nashx.com/About) From the about section:

What is NashX?
    Anonymous Online Person-to-Person Exchange that uses Mutually assured destruction to create Nash equilibrium for traders.
Why was it made?
    Because nobody wants to send first.
The basic concept
    Traders risk money for destruction in each other's hands whenever they get into a deal.
    So, when one sends first, it doesn't benefit the other to just take it and run.
How it works
    Make an account.
    Add funds to risk.
    Make a post, or take a deal.
    Chat to arrange the details.
    Make the trade.
    Release or destroy risked funds.
    If your fund is destroyed, you will immediately see a transaction id as a proof of destruction.

But we still have the problem of nashx being a centralized point of failure. So lets solve the problem of nash x being a centralized point for communication. This can be solved by modifying the bitcoin code. As everyone here already knows im sure we can store messages in the blockchain if we wish. So what we do is radically increase the max block size, store the blockchain for only a very limited amount of time and destroy all data from before that time, and set the rate that coins are released to never decrease (prob 1 per block for all time would be perfect). This could act as the underpinning for platforms that could be used to trade, since communication is all that is required for trade. There would be a market for purchasing space in this media which would mitigate spammers to tolerable levels. Since the worst they could do was spam transactions that they then failed to fund the corresponding risk fund too (since we know it would not be in a scamers interest to ever fund a risk fund)

(excuse me if i get some of this language wrong im not a computer science guy) The block size could be auto-adjusted by recording network propagation times. the minter of each block would record in the header data what time he received the previous block and max block size could be regularly adjusted similarly to how bitcoin adjusts hash rate difficulty. As a crude example and i dont know if this would be right numbers at all. If average propagation time is <10% of target block rate than adjust max size up. If average propagation time is >10% of target block rate than adjust max size down.

Early on the coins for this chain would require centralized exchangers but once it became a bit more established the exchange could be used to exchange its own native currency.

ok and so the last problem is the centralization of the destruction account service provided by nashx. This can be solved by using the previous block chain based communication mechanism to come to arrangements for how a multisigature transaction will be used on the bitcoin blockchain. Multisignature transactions on the bitcoin blockchain can be used to create a destruction fund.

Anyway thanks to everyone who entertained my incoherent babbling this far!


*Added after* you know what this is much bigger than i was realizing. this allows for decentralized publishing of anything by anyone anywhere. if you developed a web browser like application around it you could create a decentralized market for moving information. This would solve the public goods problem in distributed mesh networking and provide a strong market based incentive for the development of decentralized PHYSICAL communications networks (as opposed to the bitcoin network which rides ontop of the infrastructure provided by isps) as well as a market feedback mechanism for people who wanted to develop their own private nodes for carrying other peoples data across a mesh network.

It seems we are dealing with two different possible definitions. One is the more specific sense of having the freedom to do something and the other is to "be free" in general sense. the former is a very concrete and easily defined idea with clear boarders. the latter is a very nebulous and fuzzy idea subject to a great deal of interpretation depending on peoples constantly shifting preferences for the best tradeoffs for situations where peoples freedoms (in the specific sense) come into conflict.

So on the latter i could only give my opinion as to what that word means in that context and could make no claim to be "correct". But i would say it has something to do with living in a society which practices laws and customs which find the best trade off between maximizing total utility for a society as a whole and making sure that the benefits of this increase are not overly concentrated. private property, markets and non-aggression being good rules of thumb to achieving these ends.

a) that isnt a definition
b) you cant use the word you are defining in its own definition

or here is another way to interpret it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx1M9owfRt8 (skip to 2:50 if you want to get to the point)

It is in collapse right now it's just that things that are very rapid on the timescales of civilizations seem very slow to lilliputians like us and we tend not to notice things that are happening on higher time scales because we focus our attention disproportionately on events that are more recent. It's entirely natural for us to do this, it's a legit survival strategy, we have limited resources to dedicate towards thought. However useful myopathy can be from a survival standpoint it has its obvious drawbacks. The point is you have to know what to look for if you want to see it in real time. Look at the infrastructure crumbling, the renminbi strengthening dramatically against western currencies, americas failure in the "graveyard of empires" and the prices in the grocery store.

there were people who thought they were citizens of rome long after historians consider roam to have collapsed.

Right definitely you make some good points but i think you are making the mistake of assuming that what ever the definition of freedom is that freedom is a good thing. The truth is that freedom is very often a bad thing. So for example you can talk about an axe murderers freedom to axe murder. This freedom would be very bad indeed and should not be allowed.

this isnt a problem with the definition of freedom, we shouldnt be searching for a definition that covers all of the good forms of freedom and leaves out all of the bad forms, we should just accept that freedom is sometimes very bad indeed.

no, that 0.00000001 is there in case bitcoins become so valuable that 0.00000001 is a serious amount of money, not so you can send tiny amounts of money.

ooh im not tvbcof but i wanna give it a try, it sounds like a fun challenge.

freedom: the ability to act without interference which would prevent or make more difficult the realization of ones goals.

tell me what do you think?