Creation, edition and maintainance a constitution, based on blockchain

[Pofick]

Indeed, can we use blockchain (or a smart contract in it, and what the difference?) as a repo (like github) for a current version of constitution (or bylaw) of an organisation?

The change of block size limit in bitcoin is really the change of bylaw for stakeholders/mangers (miners). Each miner has his weight in this poll (decision making and governance of the company) which is proportional to his hashrate and bandwidth rate. Developers are experts which suggest decisions. Everyone else having bitcoins, except miners are stakeholders of DAO 'Bitcoin' without having rights of managing the company.

That is corporate managing problem indeed!

DAO 'Bitcoin' supplies two main services to its customers. The first service is worldwide money remittances proceeding. The company's own stocks are the mean of payment there. The second service is an investment itself in case of bitcoin's price is rising.

The difference between a corporation and a state is that second one declares that its constitution is allegedly common product and common legacy. If it is true, then every citizen should have an ability to commit a change in the constitution, in case that 50% of the other citizens support this change. Each citizen should have equal rights to make commits regardless of his capital, rating, reputation, etc (if the constitution itself doesn't have other provisions, haha).

The more popular, educated and activated is society, the more attackproof and foolproof constitution it has, and thus the more efforts are needed to infect it with exploits and deliberate mistakes in the constitution in order to enhace corruption.

Comments are also pleased here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3o3018/is_it_possible_to_create_edit_and_maintain_a/

[stoopkid]

As Obama once put it: "Yes we can."

[r0ach]

"Can" isn't the question, the question is "what type":  aristocracy, republic, direct democracy, etc.  There was a movement in the creation of America to ban lawyers from holding public office since they were considered to have too much of an advantage running against the common man.  Since this did not occur, the barrier of entry in affecting change is now either becoming a lawyer, or bribing a lawyer to do your bidding and participate in archaic ritualism which results in the law.

The lawyers form consensus over "what the definition of "is" is".  If you remove the lawyers, there's no consensus on controversial linguistics meanings, which puts a hard ceiling on the amount of laws you can pass.  This creates a system similar to what the Georgia Guidestones indicates, "Avoid petty laws and useless officials" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones ).  

A republic will probably always end with the elected official specializing in his field and turning it into a career (i.e. a lawyer).  Meaning he will then snowball that profession into creating endless amounts of laws, which results in selective enforcement, or in reality, an aristocracy.  It doesn't really matter if they have term limits if they'll just be replaced by a new lawyer.  The solution is most likely to create a two tier system and cap the total number of laws at a certain amount.  First tier is laws that can't be replaced (constitution).  Second tier is law that can be replaced, but it's capped at a certain number and you have to replace old laws to introduce new ones.  This creates gridlock, which prevents the law being used as a selective enforcement tool for aristocracy.

This is the terminal flaw America didn't improve on from Rome.

[Pofick]

I think most of the people (>50%) just won't support a law if it is too very long to read and understand by ordinary humanbeing or too vague in meaning. Majority tends to vote for simplest, shortest but fairest and effective laws.