Bitcoin Forum
April 24, 2014, 01:56:41 PM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Consensus-based society with provable trust-free voting  (Read 6322 times)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 07:24:10 PM
 #101

I agree with myrkul. Calling a taxed population  "a free market" is a mistake. Saying that the outrageous accumulation of power and influence caused by favoritism in the laws is "the fault of the free market" is a mistake. These conclusions are not supported by observable reality and, as such, I do not accept them, nor should you.

As I've already mentioned, I'm not very interested in how things are called, but rather how things work.
If you can provide a good explanation of how the system that you are defending would work, I would be willing to engage in a meaningful discussion.

Frankly... in my observation, you don't seem very interested in understanding how things actually work. If you can't distinguish a free market and an unfree market - which appears to be the case here - then there is no way we can have a meaningful conversation about the topic.

I am giving you my honest feedback here. I hope you accept it as such.

Keep in mind that this is the same person who started the remote-viewing thread... I don't have much hope for his bullshit filters.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
1398347801
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398347801

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398347801
Reply with quote  #2

1398347801
Report to moderator
1398347801
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398347801

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398347801
Reply with quote  #2

1398347801
Report to moderator
1398347801
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398347801

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398347801
Reply with quote  #2

1398347801
Report to moderator

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1398347801
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1398347801

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1398347801
Reply with quote  #2

1398347801
Report to moderator
Rudd-O
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 07:26:33 PM
 #102

oh this is the I can see the future guy?

Mmhm.

1FPwsMACGqCFtAxpMVHznHe7TkrHMRxB6M GPG key.  Only civil and rational replies accepted.  If you can't follow this flowchart or engage in verbal abuse, I'll point it out and add you to my ignore list.
interlagos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 469


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 08:32:27 PM
 #103

So by definition of free market it should provide an alternative solution to the state that would outcompete it. The system described in this thread might be one of the alternatives that would emerge on the free market as long as there is a need for it (as long as there is a state).

Indeed, creating an alternate system to the State and subsequently out-competing it is the goal of Agorism. That system is Anarcho-capitalism. You're simply re-inventing the wheel, with the same flimsy spokes.... It won't take long for the wheels to come right off.

Thanks for the links, but I prefer to be practical and focus on how things work rather than how things are called and what labels are being put on them.
Well, that's nice and all, but if you don't read the information provided, you won't know how things work, regardless of the names put on the systems.
The concepts you linked to were invented before the advent of Bitcoin and related technologies, so going back into the past in an attempt to understand how things could have worked back then and why they failed might not be quite relevant today.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - Santayana
 Adding computers to a system based on a logical fallacy won't make the fallacy right. It will only make the wheels fall off faster. Here, a Sci-fi example of what might happen in your system: http://www.johnjosephadams.com/seeds-of-change/?page_id=66
By proposing the system that relies on new technology that never existed before (cryptographically provable voting) we will have much less chance of repeating the history compared to attempting to defend the system which could work before but failed. Please understand that consensus-based system is not anti-free-market in any meaningful way. You are free to join/leave any consensus-group or stay alone. Your disliking of it won't prevent others from forming voluntary consensus groups, so by not creating this system we would have achieved nothing.

And no, sound money isn't enough. We've already had gold as a sound money and that didn't prevent the society from derailing itself into a fiscal abyss.

In my view, we have always had a free market and it is our ability to compete on it is what changed over time. From the looks of it free market didn't prevent concentration of power and formation of states. Therefore you cannot blame states for the lack of free market because free market is what created states in the first place.
False. States are successful protection rackets, nothing more. Paying a fixed fee to one group of bandits who have decided to settle down is preferable to losing large chunks of your economy to whichever roving band comes along. Think of it as the "criminal agricultural revolution."

It doesn't matter what you call them. It's the most competitive way to survive that people have figured out given the technologies they had. I'm not saying it will stay that way, though. You see, in the beginning there were just people and they were free to discover whatever ways are best for their survival. So you can say we already had a free market in the beginning and it led to the creation of states.
No, we had a market preyed upon by criminal gangs, some of whom decided it would be safer to farm their plunder than to hunt it down.
So the model of free market you are so vigorously defending is vulnerable to the attack by criminal gangs?
No surprise it never actually manifested. There is no point in attempting to do the same thing the same way again and again expecting different results. That would be repeating the history. Why not leverage the new technology instead and see what happens? Maybe this time it will actually work.

1) What would prevent building literally dozen of bridges in the same area provided that all the competitors start at roughly the same time and firmly believe that they will accomplish the job first.
The problem is that only one or two bridges are really necessary and the rest will be unused and go bankrupt wasting resources and hurting the environment.
Well, putting aside the fact that it's highly unlikely that a dozen road companies would try to build bridges at the same time, for any given stretch of river, there are only a few spots where building a bridge would be economical. The narrower, and thus easier to traverse, sections of river would be claimed first, finished first, and more profitable one completed, because of lower maintenance costs. Furthermore, road companies know this, it's their business to. Additional bridges would only be built if demand required them enough to make them profitable.

Consensus-based solution: large enough consensus group would be able to determine the actual number of bridges that is necessary before doing the actual job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Your argument isn't much stronger. It might or it might not work. Road companies might discover that demand for bridges isn't that high, but we still might end up with dozen of bridges if it would mean going out of business for those who don't succeed.
Mine is at least an argument, rather than a fallacy. Do you not think that road companies know that building extra, unprofitable bridges would spell their doom?
Yes, so you still have a problem of solving "doom" scenario in your model of free-market.
What if you find yourself in that situation, what would you do?
What if the company you worked for that went bankrupt was the last of the two competitors in this area of expertise and the one that remains in this business already managed to buy enough land and a few media companies slowly turning into a state? Would you join them?

Would you please elaborate on how my argument is fallacy?

2) In your arbitration example you say that production company would give arbitration company an authority over itself. What would prevent the formation of literally dozens of small arbitration companies all coming to the same or different factories and charging them damages for some alleged complaints from some people somewhere. It would seem like a very profitable business to me.
What prevents lawyers from knocking on your door and presenting you with alleged complaints from some people somewhere now? Oh yeah, no clients. Seriously, look into how arbitration works. You're clearly arguing from ignorance, and it's hurting your case.
Because in our attempt to compete with the state on the free market we failed and we had a choice to either die from starvation, go rogue or trade whatever we have left (our freedom) on whatever terms the successful competitor would be willing to accept us. This is how free market works. Is this really what you like to promote? i guess what you have in mind is a free ethical market, but you would need some sort of consensus system to determine what the word "ethical" means in the environment you find yourself in.

In the arbitration example above, the consensus group would at least be able to present cryptographically provable evidence of the achieved consensus of a large group of people to the factory prior to taking any actions violent or otherwise. This proof might have more weight for the factory than claims of some self-proclaimed arbitration company.
Again with the ad populum, now mixed in with your ignorance of how arbitration works. Please, before you reply, at least read the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration
If reading through that article didn't empower you to answer my question in a meaningful way, why would you suggest me reading it?

Consensus-based solution: large enough consensus-group would be able to present the factory with the following alternatives: a) join the group and comply with consensus, b) pay the damages and think again if it's still profitable to continue pollution, c) face violent response from consensus group provided that the group is large enough to prevent factory from hurting the environment, d) small consensus group incapable of influencing the factory might seek to merge with other small groups or leave the area peacefully.
I see, so we're back to "might makes right," eh? There are more of us, so we can force you to do what we want? Your system shows it's true colors at last.

So you prefer to not have might and bow down to those who have?
Isn't that what you're doing right now in relation to state? I thought you didn't like it.
No, I prefer to reject might-makes-right, rather than simply being on the larger side of that equation.
Your reply doesn't provide any constructive solution to the problem in question.
The consensus-based system doesn't force you to be with the larger group and it doesn't imply that the larger group would always achieve consensus for a violent resolution with regards to smaller groups.
In contrary it is a way for peaceful people in that group to have more influence in the decision making and serve as a counter-balance to those people who strive for power and tend to be more aggressive to attempt to maintain power and extend it by any means (violence not excluded).

So you're likely to have less violence with consensus-based system rather than with centrally-managed pyramid-structured profit-driven corporations very afraid to not be successful and therefore being aggressive or they would otherwise face the "doom" scenario, that you still haven't come up with a solution for.

Consensus-based system is the way to distribute might but still have it, rather than give it away and bow down.
You mean the way to force the smaller group bow down to the larger, whether or not the larger is "right."
If majority of members in the larger group which might consist of family members with children and their elders would vote for a violent resolution with regards to a smaller group, yes that would be a result.
You cannot change people's morals with the technology, but the technology will allow those with higher morals to be heard and listened to, so that violent resolution of any conflict would have less chance manifesting.

Think of the following case: private defense company is having hard time to find customers because the area has become peaceful and nobody needs protection anymore. If they are profit-driven they might consider creating diversions or false flag attacks so that their services are still needed.
Indeed, this might be a problem. Of course, it would be in the best interest of those harmed by the attack to discover who did it, so they can collect damages. When the trail leads back to the protection company, suddenly all those profits they were making evaporate.

It all boils down to what happens when a company doesn't succeed on the free market. What is the choice?
Just die? Gather into street gangs to get their way through violence (very viable alternative for a private defense company)? Go to your competitor and ask for help? And what if your competitor is the state and it asks for your freedom?
You do know that companies go out of business now, right? And don't riot in the streets? The employees go their separate ways, usually finding employment with their former competitors.
So we will find ourselves in a situation with fewer and fewer competitors which become more and more self-sufficient and gradually turning themselves into a state?
You see, you continue to defend the system which leads to the situation that you don't prefer.

Contrary to the profit-driven corporations on the market, consensus-based groups would tend to become self-sufficient thus they won't suffer too much from the market conditions. They might still engage in a free trade with other groups or individuals if it's more efficient for them to buy stuff on the market than to do it in-house, but generally they don't have to. By being self-sufficient and no longer profit-driven consensus-based groups would concentrate on improving their quality of life, developing new technologies advancing science and entertainment.
Those two bolded statements contradict. Please correct. Either they would no longer be profit-driven, or no longer care about their quality of life.
Those statements only contradict if you outsource things that you depend on to other participants on the market. If you have a family garden and a farm which is capable of producing enough food throughout the year, you will have a lot of free time during winter to engage in many other activities that would benefit your performance next year. For example think how to improve the machinery that you use to work more efficiently, so that you could spend less time working on the farm and more time entertaining yourself.

Don't get me wrong, profit and competition isn't a bad thing, but it's the experience that you get throughout your life that matters most and too much concentration on profit would lead to greed and that in turn would lead to fear of loosing what you have so that you become obsessed with power and control.

I agree with myrkul. Calling a taxed population  "a free market" is a mistake. Saying that the outrageous accumulation of power and influence caused by favoritism in the laws is "the fault of the free market" is a mistake. These conclusions are not supported by observable reality and, as such, I do not accept them, nor should you.

As I've already mentioned, I'm not very interested in how things are called, but rather how things work.
If you can provide a good explanation of how the system that you are defending would work, I would be willing to engage in a meaningful discussion.
Did you read any of the articles I linked? They explain how those systems work. Here, the link again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

If reading those articles didn't empower you to produce any variant of a meaningful answer to the questions being discussed or at least a simple approximation of an answer, then what makes you think that me reading those articles would produce a different result?

I'm not against backing up your claims with other sources, but I'm not very comfortable with just sources and no claims.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 09:35:18 PM
 #104

So by definition of free market it should provide an alternative solution to the state that would outcompete it. The system described in this thread might be one of the alternatives that would emerge on the free market as long as there is a need for it (as long as there is a state).

Indeed, creating an alternate system to the State and subsequently out-competing it is the goal of Agorism. That system is Anarcho-capitalism. You're simply re-inventing the wheel, with the same flimsy spokes.... It won't take long for the wheels to come right off.

Thanks for the links, but I prefer to be practical and focus on how things work rather than how things are called and what labels are being put on them.
Well, that's nice and all, but if you don't read the information provided, you won't know how things work, regardless of the names put on the systems.
The concepts you linked to were invented before the advent of Bitcoin and related technologies, so going back into the past in an attempt to understand how things could have worked back then and why they failed might not be quite relevant today.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - Santayana
 Adding computers to a system based on a logical fallacy won't make the fallacy right. It will only make the wheels fall off faster. Here, a Sci-fi example of what might happen in your system: http://www.johnjosephadams.com/seeds-of-change/?page_id=66
By proposing the system that relies on new technology that never existed before (cryptographically provable voting) we will have much less chance of repeating the history compared to attempting to defend the system which could work before but failed. Please understand that consensus-based system is not anti-free-market in any meaningful way. You are free to join/leave any consensus-group or stay alone. Your disliking of it won't prevent others from forming voluntary consensus groups, so by not creating this system we would have achieved nothing.

And no, sound money isn't enough. We've already had gold as a sound money and that didn't prevent the society from derailing itself into a fiscal abyss.
If a group voluntarily decides to make it's decisions based on the popularity fallacy, yes, I can't stop them. Unless, of course, that decision is to use force to appropriate others' resources. Tell me, what's to stop the group from splintering, after the vote, with each group going their own way? And if nothing, how is that different from each person going their own way in the first place?

In my view, we have always had a free market and it is our ability to compete on it is what changed over time. From the looks of it free market didn't prevent concentration of power and formation of states. Therefore you cannot blame states for the lack of free market because free market is what created states in the first place.
False. States are successful protection rackets, nothing more. Paying a fixed fee to one group of bandits who have decided to settle down is preferable to losing large chunks of your economy to whichever roving band comes along. Think of it as the "criminal agricultural revolution."

It doesn't matter what you call them. It's the most competitive way to survive that people have figured out given the technologies they had. I'm not saying it will stay that way, though. You see, in the beginning there were just people and they were free to discover whatever ways are best for their survival. So you can say we already had a free market in the beginning and it led to the creation of states.
No, we had a market preyed upon by criminal gangs, some of whom decided it would be safer to farm their plunder than to hunt it down.
So the model of free market you are so vigorously defending is vulnerable to the attack by criminal gangs?
No surprise it never actually manifested. There is no point in attempting to do the same thing the same way again and again expecting different results. That would be repeating the history. Why not leverage the new technology instead and see what happens? Maybe this time it will actually work.
No, the model of a free market I am defending includes protection against criminal gangs, which you would know, if you had bothered to read the goddam article. Small agrarian societies are vulnerable to attack and takeover by criminal gangs. Which is what humanity was when the State got it's start.

I say again, adding computers to a fallacy only makes things go to hell faster. We programmers have a saying: GIGO - Garbage in, garbage out.

1) What would prevent building literally dozen of bridges in the same area provided that all the competitors start at roughly the same time and firmly believe that they will accomplish the job first.
The problem is that only one or two bridges are really necessary and the rest will be unused and go bankrupt wasting resources and hurting the environment.
Well, putting aside the fact that it's highly unlikely that a dozen road companies would try to build bridges at the same time, for any given stretch of river, there are only a few spots where building a bridge would be economical. The narrower, and thus easier to traverse, sections of river would be claimed first, finished first, and more profitable one completed, because of lower maintenance costs. Furthermore, road companies know this, it's their business to. Additional bridges would only be built if demand required them enough to make them profitable.

Consensus-based solution: large enough consensus group would be able to determine the actual number of bridges that is necessary before doing the actual job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Your argument isn't much stronger. It might or it might not work. Road companies might discover that demand for bridges isn't that high, but we still might end up with dozen of bridges if it would mean going out of business for those who don't succeed.
Mine is at least an argument, rather than a fallacy. Do you not think that road companies know that building extra, unprofitable bridges would spell their doom?
Yes, so you still have a problem of solving "doom" scenario in your model of free-market.
What if you find yourself in that situation, what would you do?
What if the company you worked for that went bankrupt was the last of the two competitors in this area of expertise and the one that remains in this business already managed to buy enough land and a few media companies slowly turning into a state? Would you join them?
Ever hear of entrepreneurship? Going into business for yourself? And how, exactly, is a company going to "slowly turn into a state?"

Would you please elaborate on how my argument is fallacy?
Your logical fallacy is...

2) In your arbitration example you say that production company would give arbitration company an authority over itself. What would prevent the formation of literally dozens of small arbitration companies all coming to the same or different factories and charging them damages for some alleged complaints from some people somewhere. It would seem like a very profitable business to me.
What prevents lawyers from knocking on your door and presenting you with alleged complaints from some people somewhere now? Oh yeah, no clients. Seriously, look into how arbitration works. You're clearly arguing from ignorance, and it's hurting your case.
Because in our attempt to compete with the state on the free market we failed and we had a choice to either die from starvation, go rogue or trade whatever we have left (our freedom) on whatever terms the successful competitor would be willing to accept us. This is how free market works. Is this really what you like to promote? i guess what you have in mind is a free ethical market, but you would need some sort of consensus system to determine what the word "ethical" means in the environment you find yourself in.

In the arbitration example above, the consensus group would at least be able to present cryptographically provable evidence of the achieved consensus of a large group of people to the factory prior to taking any actions violent or otherwise. This proof might have more weight for the factory than claims of some self-proclaimed arbitration company.
Again with the ad populum, now mixed in with your ignorance of how arbitration works. Please, before you reply, at least read the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration
If reading through that article didn't empower you to answer my question in a meaningful way, why would you suggest me reading it?
It has empowered me to answer your question in a meaningful way. However, Why should I repeat information that is there for you to read already? Would you like me to copy/paste to save you the trouble of clicking a link?

Consensus-based solution: large enough consensus-group would be able to present the factory with the following alternatives: a) join the group and comply with consensus, b) pay the damages and think again if it's still profitable to continue pollution, c) face violent response from consensus group provided that the group is large enough to prevent factory from hurting the environment, d) small consensus group incapable of influencing the factory might seek to merge with other small groups or leave the area peacefully.
I see, so we're back to "might makes right," eh? There are more of us, so we can force you to do what we want? Your system shows it's true colors at last.

So you prefer to not have might and bow down to those who have?
Isn't that what you're doing right now in relation to state? I thought you didn't like it.
No, I prefer to reject might-makes-right, rather than simply being on the larger side of that equation.
Your reply doesn't provide any constructive solution to the problem in question.
The consensus-based system doesn't force you to be with the larger group and it doesn't imply that the larger group would always achieve consensus for a violent resolution with regards to smaller groups.
In contrary it is a way for peaceful people in that group to have more influence in the decision making and serve as a counter-balance to those people who strive for power and tend to be more aggressive to attempt to maintain power and extend it by any means (violence not excluded).

So you're likely to have less violence with consensus-based system rather than with centrally-managed pyramid-structured profit-driven corporations very afraid to not be successful and therefore being aggressive or they would otherwise face the "doom" scenario, that you still haven't come up with a solution for.
Dafuq are you talking about? If by the "doom scenario" you mean the fact that companies know that building extra bridges would drive them out of business, the answer is for them to not build the extra bridges. The companies that get the land that is most profitable (narrowest span of river to cross) build the bridges first, and only if there is sufficient demand do more bridges get built.

As for "centrally-managed pyramid-structured profit-driven corporations," what makes you think that all businesses in a free market would be structured in such a way? Corporations, after all, are a creation of the state.

Consensus-based system is the way to distribute might but still have it, rather than give it away and bow down.
You mean the way to force the smaller group bow down to the larger, whether or not the larger is "right."
If majority of members in the larger group which might consist of family members with children and their elders would vote for a violent resolution with regards to a smaller group, yes that would be a result.
You cannot change people's morals with the technology, but the technology will allow those with higher morals to be heard and listened to, so that violent resolution of any conflict would have less chance manifesting.
You mean it will allow those with higher morals to be shouted down by the majority.

Think of the following case: private defense company is having hard time to find customers because the area has become peaceful and nobody needs protection anymore. If they are profit-driven they might consider creating diversions or false flag attacks so that their services are still needed.
Indeed, this might be a problem. Of course, it would be in the best interest of those harmed by the attack to discover who did it, so they can collect damages. When the trail leads back to the protection company, suddenly all those profits they were making evaporate.

It all boils down to what happens when a company doesn't succeed on the free market. What is the choice?
Just die? Gather into street gangs to get their way through violence (very viable alternative for a private defense company)? Go to your competitor and ask for help? And what if your competitor is the state and it asks for your freedom?
You do know that companies go out of business now, right? And don't riot in the streets? The employees go their separate ways, usually finding employment with their former competitors.
So we will find ourselves in a situation with fewer and fewer competitors which become more and more self-sufficient and gradually turning themselves into a state?
You see, you continue to defend the system which leads to the situation that you don't prefer.
Right, because rejecting state violence inevitably leads to state violence, while accepting "might-makes-right" leads to peace and freedom from oppression. Roll Eyes

Contrary to the profit-driven corporations on the market, consensus-based groups would tend to become self-sufficient thus they won't suffer too much from the market conditions. They might still engage in a free trade with other groups or individuals if it's more efficient for them to buy stuff on the market than to do it in-house, but generally they don't have to. By being self-sufficient and no longer profit-driven consensus-based groups would concentrate on improving their quality of life, developing new technologies advancing science and entertainment.
Those two bolded statements contradict. Please correct. Either they would no longer be profit-driven, or no longer care about their quality of life.
Those statements only contradict if you outsource things that you depend on to other participants on the market. If you have a family garden and a farm which is capable of producing enough food throughout the year, you will have a lot of free time during winter to engage in many other activities that would benefit your performance next year. For example think how to improve the machinery that you use to work more efficiently, so that you could spend less time working on the farm and more time entertaining yourself.

Don't get me wrong, profit and competition isn't a bad thing, but it's the experience that you get throughout your life that matters most and too much concentration on profit would lead to greed and that in turn would lead to fear of loosing what you have so that you become obsessed with power and control.
You're starting to sound like Dank, my friend. Self-interest is what keeps you alive. Not all profit is monetary.

I agree with myrkul. Calling a taxed population  "a free market" is a mistake. Saying that the outrageous accumulation of power and influence caused by favoritism in the laws is "the fault of the free market" is a mistake. These conclusions are not supported by observable reality and, as such, I do not accept them, nor should you.

As I've already mentioned, I'm not very interested in how things are called, but rather how things work.
If you can provide a good explanation of how the system that you are defending would work, I would be willing to engage in a meaningful discussion.
Did you read any of the articles I linked? They explain how those systems work. Here, the link again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

If reading those articles didn't empower you to produce any variant of a meaningful answer to the questions being discussed or at least a simple approximation of an answer, then what makes you think that me reading those articles would produce a different result?

I'm not against backing up your claims with other sources, but I'm not very comfortable with just sources and no claims.
Again, would you like me to copy and paste so that you don't have to click the link? I'd just be repeating the information found in that article.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rudd-O
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 09:40:59 PM
 #105

Myrkul, the guy refuses to read the information provided to him.  It's clear he doesn't want to have a conversation about the subject (except perhaps if the conversation makes him feel good by confirming what he already believes).

My humble opinion: Don't bother.

1FPwsMACGqCFtAxpMVHznHe7TkrHMRxB6M GPG key.  Only civil and rational replies accepted.  If you can't follow this flowchart or engage in verbal abuse, I'll point it out and add you to my ignore list.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 09:51:50 PM
 #106

Myrkul, the guy refuses to read the information provided to him.  It's clear he doesn't want to have a conversation about the subject (except perhaps if the conversation makes him feel good by confirming what he already believes).

My humble opinion: Don't bother.
I'm leaning that way myself. I'll give him one more chance.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
interlagos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 469


View Profile

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 10:35:13 PM
 #107

I think I understand now what we actually disagree upon - it's what people are going to do in any particular system or structure. That solely depends on the people and is generally unknown, so there is not much to gain to continue to discuss what our imaginary people are going to do.

if we introduce any kind of system to a group of rogues it will probably fall apart no matter how good it sounds in theory. At the same time any system would tend to work, even centrally managed one, when introduced and operated by people who value life and prefer to co-exist peacefully.

So think of the provable-voting system in question as a way to raise awareness of what other people think is acceptable behavior or what other people think they prefer to see manifest in their society.
It's not about forcing anyone to obey anything, it's about collecting provable information that might help in resolving certain situations in a better way than without this information.

More information is always better than less information, wouldn't you agree?
Here is a few examples of how this system could be used to benefit even those who tend to live and work alone.

1) With distributed peer-to-peer network it would be easier to communicate information about any incoming attack from violent groups approaching from other locations and quickly achieve consensus on how to coordinate actions to defend themselves. Without provable way to do it the centralized communication system might be covertly hijacked by attackers before engaging in the attack. After the attack is successfully diverted, community might proceed as they did before following whatever model of free-market they prefer.

2) If a large factory started to pollute the river nearby the community, then the provable-voting system can be used to collect provable information about how many people disagree with the situation. That might serve as a valuable asset when arguing with the factory about resolving this conflict, either personally or via arbitration company from free-market. There is no point for us to argue and determine how exactly the conflict would be resolved, but with more information about the situation I believe it will be easier not harder to resolve it in a peaceful way. After the conflict is resolved, community might proceed as they did before. Even if you live and work alone resolving the conflict about polluting the river you drink from would benefit you regardless of whether you want to work with other people in the community or not.

3) The same applies to building bridges or schools. Information collected through provable voting might become a valuable asset to the road construction companies operating on the free market to determine the demand for bridges in the area. It also might serve as a feedback system after the bridge was constructed to determine whether the road company did a good job or not.

So thank you guys for engaging in this valuable conversation (it was valuable for me). Without it I wouldn't be able to highlight and explain the properties of the system I'm proposing.
Rudd-O
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 10:42:23 PM
 #108


It's not about forcing anyone to obey anything

Ha.  Of course it is about that.  Why, then, are we non-voters forced to obey the orders that the voters (allegedly) gave everyone?  You think I can just stop paying the tax used to murder human beings abroad, and not be put in a cage?  How is that not force against me?

1FPwsMACGqCFtAxpMVHznHe7TkrHMRxB6M GPG key.  Only civil and rational replies accepted.  If you can't follow this flowchart or engage in verbal abuse, I'll point it out and add you to my ignore list.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 10:43:21 PM
 #109

So, what you propose is a provable opinion poll? A way to gather information?

I guess that's fine. Democracy with no teeth can't bite you in the ass.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rudd-O
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 08, 2012, 10:50:39 PM
 #110

So, what you propose is a provable opinion poll? A way to gather information?

I guess that's fine. Democracy with no teeth can't bite you in the ass.

Yes, if that's the case, that would be fine.

Of course, a futarchy would be even better.  People can pony up money on their polls.  That usually makes them more accurate and cautious about not saying idiotic shit.

1FPwsMACGqCFtAxpMVHznHe7TkrHMRxB6M GPG key.  Only civil and rational replies accepted.  If you can't follow this flowchart or engage in verbal abuse, I'll point it out and add you to my ignore list.
interlagos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 469


View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 01:10:59 AM
 #111

The technology itself cannot be responsible for people's future decisions to force it upon someone.
Who knows maybe one day we will be forced to use Bitcoin.

This thread was more about the technology rather that the model of society based on it.
I decided to include a reference model of society to just provide some examples of how technology could be applied. In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out. I think it's fair, but I can't possibly account for all variations of how said technology can be used. I've already proposed it for adoption in Bitcoin Foundation thread and Gavin said that it was a great idea. However he said that they would have to think more about voting and would probably use something simpler in the beginning.

While discussing certain examples above I expected more arguments than contradictions from you guys (if you go up through the page you will know what I mean) but nonetheless I enjoyed every bit of this conversation. Here is the gift for you two:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkzjBfTDH20
Wink
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 01:44:13 AM
 #112

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
interlagos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 469


View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 01:51:57 PM
 #113

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.

So by leaving a certain consensus group you would loose or significantly weaken your ability to defend the land you think is yours. That consideration along with other benefits that consensus group might provide would create a necessary degree of stickiness, so that it doesn't fall apart too early.

You can also use the information derived from provable voting procedures to gauge the level of acceptable behavior of society you find yourself in (regardless of whether it's forced or not) and to make a determination for yourself whether it is representative of your values and you would like to continue to support the group or it's something that you don't prefer and you'd better leave the group and not contribute to its cause.

It's also possible to imagine a loosely tied consensus groups in which individuals proceed fairly independently on a regular basis but are capable of forming a larger group very quickly to consolidate enough power to deflect any outside attacks or make an important decision about environmental issues which would affect anyone anyway. Whether achieved consensus is going to be forced, ignored or taken into consideration by anyone individually would solely depend on the people of that society.

EDIT: Regarding questions about being profit-driven and how it works with consensus-based groups, my vision would be that individuals within or outside of the consensus groups might very well be profit-driven. However consensus would determine what would mean to be "ethical" while still remaining profit-driven.
Whether "ethical" behavior needs to be enforced and how would be for consensus group to decide.

So instead of looking for protection on the free market and paying private defense company which might be quite expensive actually, one can seek like-minded people and stick around them so that together they will be able to defense themselves by their own means when the need arises. And that behavior is very well in line with being profit-driven as it might be cheaper that way than outsourcing everything to free market and pay for it.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 05:14:23 PM
 #114

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.
Regional monopoly? Guided by democracy? Held together by threat of conquest?

Yeah, that's a State. Sorry.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
interlagos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 469


View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 05:23:19 PM
 #115

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.
Regional monopoly? Guided by democracy? Held together by threat of conquest?

Yeah, that's a State. Sorry.

You might call it that if you wish, but it would be a different kind of state Smiley
You see, you keep calling things names, while I explain how things work.

In any case, with this system you will have "rules but no rulers". Sounds familiar?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 05:29:05 PM
 #116

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.
Regional monopoly? Guided by democracy? Held together by threat of conquest?

Yeah, that's a State. Sorry.

You might call it that if you wish, but it would be a different kind of state Smiley
You see, you keep calling things names, while I explain how things work.

In any case, with this system you will have "rules but no rulers". Sounds familiar?

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" - Mather Byles

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
interlagos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 469


View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 06:04:32 PM
 #117

In this reference model people who voluntarily join the consensus group would be either forced to comply with the consensus or forced out.

As I said at the beginning, if joining is voluntary, and voters explicitly agree to go along with the decision of the majority, then I have, and can have, no problem with it.

But I feel that it's rather pointless to have a majority rule system that can splinter after the vote. You may as well just let each decide for themselves.

The important property of a consensus group is that by crossing a threshold of a certain size it becomes capable of defending the land it occupies. This gives rise to the land ownership without the state.
Regional monopoly? Guided by democracy? Held together by threat of conquest?

Yeah, that's a State. Sorry.

You might call it that if you wish, but it would be a different kind of state Smiley
You see, you keep calling things names, while I explain how things work.

In any case, with this system you will have "rules but no rulers". Sounds familiar?

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" - Mather Byles

I like your knowledge of history and popular quotes, but you keep making assumptions about intentions of people around you and their level of morality and ethical behavior. As we've agreed this is generally unknown and there is no point arguing about it.
If you find yourself in a street gang or on a remote island populated with cannibals that quote might be applicable.

Instead of making assumptions about people the provable voting system will allow you to know with a good level of certainty of their understanding of ethical behavior. And as I mentioned before having more information is better than having less. You might even pretend for awhile that you agree with them while finding your way closer to the border and once you get close you make a run from that nightmare.

But why think so bad about people? Would you think a population of a large country would directly vote to initiate a war against another country while not being under direct attack? I doubt it.

Also as I edited one of my posts above, it boils down to what is more profitable. Think of it as what would you like to outsource to free market compared to what you would like to keep in-house. Would you outsource defense or judgment about ethical behavior to a random company on the market and pay for it or would it be cheaper for people to consolidate resources and do it by their means in-house?
Initial clustering of people by their understanding of ethical behavior would produce more peaceful society that clustering people by their motivation for profit which is what your model of free market would imply (as I understand it).

Also things like states and democracies exist not because some crazy people invented them, but because that's how things work. That's how stars form as well, matter in a dust clouds start to coalesce and form clusters of gravity which accumulate more and more mass until pressure and temperature becomes high enough so that thermonuclear reaction becomes self-sufficient. You might not like it but power on free market tends to consolidate and form self-sufficient clusters the same way. It's simple physics.

So instead of arguing with gravity how about we improve technologies so that those clusters of power which would form anyway won't get easily corrupted to grow out of proportion and turn into a tyrannical black holes? See where I'm going?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 06:24:58 PM
 #118

But why think so bad about people? Would you think a population of a large country would directly vote to initiate a war against another country while not being under direct attack? I doubt it.

"...envy is the root, the seed that gives life to the tyranny of the majority. Democracy satisfies this covetous nature while sanitizing the evil – creating a false legitimacy to the end result of envy, that being theft and destruction." - "Bionic Mosquito"

"A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’" - Robert A. Heinlein

And a personal favorite, H.L. Mencken:
“No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
― H.L. Mencken, Gist of Mencken

Every person will always vote themselves a bailout. All it takes is a convincing speaker, and for someone to put it to a vote. Then greed and envy take over, and by virtue of Democracy, each person's hands are clean when the army enters and slaughters the other territory.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
interlagos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 469


View Profile

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 06:58:27 PM
 #119

But why think so bad about people? Would you think a population of a large country would directly vote to initiate a war against another country while not being under direct attack? I doubt it.

"...envy is the root, the seed that gives life to the tyranny of the majority. Democracy satisfies this covetous nature while sanitizing the evil – creating a false legitimacy to the end result of envy, that being theft and destruction." - "Bionic Mosquito"

"A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’" - Robert A. Heinlein

And a personal favorite, H.L. Mencken:
“No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.”
― H.L. Mencken, Gist of Mencken

Every person will always vote themselves a bailout. All it takes is a convincing speaker, and for someone to put it to a vote. Then greed and envy take over, and by virtue of Democracy, each person's hands are clean when the army enters and slaughters the other territory.

I forgot to mention that topics to vote on in the consensus-based system are submitted by individual peers and are assessed and approved for voting by the rest of the peer-to-peer network. So their is no central body who would decide what people are going to vote on or which topics are welcome and which would be suppressed.

It doesn't mean that people would have to vote blindly, they can discuss the matter with themselves or listen to experts in their society before making their choice. And even if achieved consensus doesn't seem to satisfy what people have originally thought it would do there is no limitation that would prevent some peer to raise this question again and see if the previous decision can be overturned. There is no 4 years period of taboo on voting in this system. If something doesn't work change it.

Also remember as I've explained in my other thread, all versions of reality already exist, even those where quotes that you provided are true. It's all about sticking to a time track that you prefer, but you need to be representative of that vibration or you won't be able to perceive it.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW

Ignore
December 09, 2012, 07:01:07 PM
 #120

Also remember as I've explained in my other thread, all versions of reality already exist, even those where quotes that you provided are true. It's all about sticking to a time track that you prefer, but you need to be representative of that vibration or you won't be able to perceive it.

...and with that, reality is left behind. Tell you what, why don't you shift to the time track in which I agree completely with you? That way, we're both happy.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!