Live debate tonight 7PM GMT - Gavin Andresen will be there

[grondilu]

Democracy can (and should) also happen at the workplace, or wherever you're invested in with your resources. You surely do want to have a say about the new road or bridge to be built if you help finance it, no matter if by taxes or voluntarily. Public vs Private is (should be) a false dichotomy.

Above all, democracy should happen where it is needed, and there is no need for democracy in free software.  The code is free: if you're not happy with it, fork it or don't use it.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Democracy can (and should) also happen at the workplace, or wherever you're invested in with your resources. You surely do want to have a say about the new road or bridge to be built if you help finance it, no matter if by taxes or voluntarily. Public vs Private is (should be) a false dichotomy.

Above all, democracy should happen where it is needed, and there is no need for democracy in free software.  The code is free: if you're not happy with it, fork it or don't use it.

No wait, this is also a democracy.
Anybody can make a fork and convince people to download & use his fork (vote) instead of the other candidate's fork.

[grondilu]

No wait, this is also a democracy.
Anybody can make a fork and convince people to download & use his fork (vote) instead of the other candidate's fork.

Maybe I have too a restricted idea of what democracy is (no sarcasm here), but to me democracy is a system where divergences of opinions are resolved via vote, not secession.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

No wait, this is also a democracy.
Anybody can make a fork and convince people to download & use his fork (vote) instead of the other candidate's fork.

Maybe I have too a restricted idea of what democracy is (no sarcasm here), but to me democracy is a system where divergences of opinions are resolved via vote, not secession.

Depends on the point of view. From my point of view, in the world of open source, the mainline client/fork is the elected official, and users are the voters.
Every user or group of users can become/create an elected official by creating a fork of his/their own, and other people can vote for the official by using forked version of software.

Additionally, in open source every fork/elected official can have all/none/some of the features of all other forks/ellected officials, so IMHO open source democracy is even better than normal democracy.

[datafish]

Gavin was the only rock star in attendance, and I say this not as a bitcoin partisan but because he brought the only truly revolutionary ideas to the program.  I was particularly unimpressed by Birgitta Jónsdóttir and her grassroots attempt to write a new constitution.  Given the chance, people are going to insert all manner of desires into a constitution and try to give them the legal standing of "rights."  Just because I want a unicorn that farts rainbows doesn't mean that I have a right to it and the rest of society should be enslaved in order to provide it to me.  It is my opinion that democracy has failed miserably all around the world, and we need to move away from the concept entirely rather than try to improve upon it with technology.  I think the sagacious comments quoted below reflect the correct way to think about the "rebooting" of society.

who said democracy has to "scale" anyway? Local issues, local solutions. Indeed, the Greek word demos also means village, already hinting that it would not scale and things should stay decentralized. Today's nation states are too large and arbitrary lines through the landscape, they should be overcome.

More generally, digital technologies offer more choice to people, and this increased number of choices decreases the need for a normalization of the way of doing stuff.   Democracy was a way to fairly organize this normalization.  With more choices, the need for democracy decreases because less normalization is needed.    So in a way digital technologies make democratic concepts more obsolete.  That's a point that was missed in the debate imho.

democracy can be terrible if you're in the minority and the majority decides to trample on your rights.

[grondilu]

Just because I want a unicorn that farts rainbows doesn't mean that I have a right to it and the rest of society should be enslaved in order to provide it to me.  It is my opinion that democracy has failed miserably all around the world, and we need to move away from the concept entirely rather than try to improve upon it with technology.

   Great quote.

[grondilu]

Depends on the point of view. From my point of view, in the world of open source, the mainline client/fork is the elected official, and users are the voters.
Every user or group of users can become/create an elected official by creating a fork of his/their own, and other people can vote for the official by using forked version of software.

Saying that using or not using is equivalent to a vote is far fetched.   It is not a vote.

[ydenys]

Yep, watched it. Gavin is a body washer in an NHS hospital (relatives, do hope he did not fingered your loved ones) .  Pathetic, all of them.  Gavin, please drink more/less/take a plug out of your bum/relax. Well, i guess you’ll need quite a few years on Bitcoin Foundation’s payroll before you can take it easy, man.  No pun intended.  I had sponsored you, hope it’ll do some good to represent Bitcoin. But thanks for trying, i guess.

[notme]

direct democracy won't scale, but like everything else, there will be a technological solution. We just haven't developed him yet.

the technological solution is called liquid democracy and liquid feedback.

But democracy can be terrible if you're in the minority and the majority decides to trample on your rights.

Back then in anarchistic Spain (good doku), there were general assemblies, and the results of discussions were seen as merely recommendations. I.e., democracy without an executive branch.

Interesting, but we need a decentralized liquidfeedback because right now the server admin can cheat if they can figure out who doesn't double check their votes later.

[meanig]

Great job, Gavin.

Quick aside. When Truthloader first came upon the scene a couple short months ago, I sincerely felt, and still do, that somehow Google is behind it. They only had a small handful of videos up at the time, each having very few view counts, but Google gave it tremendous juice on its news site. After kept seeing it over and over again at the time, and doing some research (basically finding nothing to support my theory), it still seemed like Google was/is behind it. I'm not saying that that's a good or bad thing. Just saying.

Boy, wouldn't that be something if we later learn that Google was behind Bitcoin from the get-go?

My apologies for the long aside.

~Bruno K~

When I first saw their channel I thought it was a grassroots kind of thing produced in a bedroom. Turns out it's being backed by the corporate news company ITN. I don't think google is involved per say but they might have some influence since they're driving so much traffic to their channel.

http://corporate.itn.co.uk/press.php?parent_id=13&content_id=1365

ITN PRODUCTIONS TO PRODUCE “TRUTHLOADER” CHANNEL FOR YOUTUBE

ITN Productions is launching a new citizen journalism channel on YouTube as part of YouTube’s original channels initiative, announced today at MIPCOM.

The “Truthloader” channel will showcase the work of citizen journalists from all around the world with original daily programming from amateur eyewitnesses and passionate online campaigners. The citizen journalism will be curated by social media experts and professional journalists at ITN Productions.

ITN is one of the world's leading news and multimedia content companies creating, packaging and distributing news, entertainment, factual and corporate content on multiple platforms to customers around the globe.

The news programming produced for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 reaches around 10 million people every day, providing comprehensive, impartial news provision for the British public. ITN's news is watched by millions of viewers worldwide, through partnerships with global news outlets such as Reuters, CNN and NBC and online partners such as Livestation, YouTube and MSN.

[Rob E]

Just because I want a unicorn that farts rainbows doesn't mean that I have a right to it and the rest of society should be enslaved in order to provide it to me.  It is my opinion that democracy has failed miserably all around the world, and we need to move away from the concept entirely rather than try to improve upon it with technology.

   Great quote.

you don't even know what democracy is. We are led to believe we are in a democracy by having a choice to vote for two main parties. Who then through the media outlets tell us what to think or believe. How can it be a democracy if peoples minds aren't independent and free.

[Rob E]

Gavin kind of struggled when he had to respond to the "bitcoin is not democratic" argument.

Yeah-- "democratic" is such a loaded word. Everybody loves democracy, so I didn't want to bash it.

But democracy can be terrible if you're in the minority and the majority decides to trample on your rights.

I probably should have just said "Bitcoin is a lot more democratic than the system we currently have, where a handful of unelected central bankers control our money."

Can you give an example out of history.

[grondilu]

How can it be a democracy if peoples minds aren't independent and free.

You're not supposed to judge whether or not someone has an independent mind.   You're not in people's mind so don't you deny their capability of making choices and having opinions.

[Rob E]

How can it be a democracy if peoples minds aren't independent and free.

You're not supposed to judge whether or not someone has an independent mind.   You're not in people's mind so don't you deny their capability of making choices and having opinions.

What a silly person you are, so when a majority are led to believe or believe their government without questioning it, read daily newspapers and recite articles and look to them what to think and believe what their government tells them to think and believe I'm not supposed to think or say peoples minds are not independent? Who said any thing about judging?
It's a fact..

[grondilu]

What a silly person you are, so when a majority are led to believe or believe their government without questioning it, read daily newspapers and recite articles and look to them what to think and believe what their government tells them to think and believe I'm not supposed to think or say peoples minds are not independent? Who said any thing about judging?

It's just that your argument "real democracy can't exist if people are not independent and free" pretty much sound like what a communist would say to justify totalitarism.   Like you know better what's good for people.

[Rob E]

What a silly person you are, so when a majority are led to believe or believe their government without questioning it, read daily newspapers and recite articles and look to them what to think and believe what their government tells them to think and believe I'm not supposed to think or say peoples minds are not independent? Who said any thing about judging?

It's just that your argument "real democracy can't exist if people are not independent and free" pretty much sound like what a communist would say to justify totalitarism.   Like you know better what's good for people.

  Yeh well  you see the funny thing is you're not countering that argument, you're just saying this sounds like this sounds like this = that without even really looking what i'm really saying. Like i said.
You're just, well. Really silly.

[grondilu]

What a silly person you are, so when a majority are led to believe or believe their government without questioning it, read daily newspapers and recite articles and look to them what to think and believe what their government tells them to think and believe I'm not supposed to think or say peoples minds are not independent? Who said any thing about judging?

It's just that your argument "real democracy can't exist if people are not independent and free" pretty much sound like what a communist would say to justify totalitarism.   Like you know better what's good for people.

 Yeh well  you see the funny thing is you're not countering that argument, you're just saying this sounds like this sounds like this = that.  Like i said.
You're just, well. Really silly.

I was trying to make you realize how unacceptable your argument sounds like.

I was saying initially that you are not in people's mind, so you should not question people's choice and vote.  If A vote for X, you can't say his vote is worthless because A had not a "independent mind" and is not truly "free".

It's like saying someone is too stupid to have the right to vote.

The reasons why A voted for X are none of your concern.  He did vote for A and that's what matters.

[Rob E]

What a silly person you are, so when a majority are led to believe or believe their government without questioning it, read daily newspapers and recite articles and look to them what to think and believe what their government tells them to think and believe I'm not supposed to think or say peoples minds are not independent? Who said any thing about judging?

It's just that your argument "real democracy can't exist if people are not independent and free" pretty much sound like what a communist would say to justify totalitarism.   Like you know better what's good for people.

 Yeh well  you see the funny thing is you're not countering that argument, you're just saying this sounds like this sounds like this = that.  Like i said.
You're just, well. Really silly.

I was trying to make you realize how unacceptable your argument sounds like.

Well you haven't. And you haven't proven that at all.

I was saying initially that you are not in people's mind, I never said i did. tYou are.

so you should not question people's choice and vote.
Invalid because i never claimed to be part of your earlier "accusation".


  If A vote for X, you can't say his vote is worthless because A had not a "independent mind" and is not truly "free".
It is absolutely worthless if A is brainwashed into voting for death and destruction where peace or prosperity can be obtained.

It's like saying someone is too stupid to have the right to vote. Under the influence of the government and the media maybe a is. .

The reasons why A voted for X are none of your concern.  He did vote for A and that's what matters.

[/b] Oh it is very much of my concern. THAT is like saying i shouldn't  be concerned with why A voted for drone strikes, or voted for invasion of the middle east,  or voted for killing millions of citizens, by consent or support of his government.  You're saying i shouldn't be concerned with that except that he did vote.
That is complete insanity.
And you on staff here.

[grondilu]

Oh it is very much of my concern. THAT is like saying i shouldn't  be concerned with why A voted for drone strikes, or voted for invasion of the middle east,  or voted for killing millions of citizens, by consent or support of his government.  You're saying i shouldn't be concerned with that except that he did vote.

God damn it.  "It's none of your concern" is an idiom.  Don't take it like that.

You were saying something like "how can there be democracy if people are not independent and free?".

I say democracy consists in letting people contribute to decisions via vote.  Why they vote for A and not for B is not the problem.   You can't know that anyway as you're not in their mind.  So it doesn't concern you if you worry about this process being democratic.  That's what I meant.

Of course if the candidate you didn't vote for is elected, you can feel sorry and thus concerned, but that's an other matter.  You can feel concerned about the poor decisions made by your government, but those decisions do not change the democratic status of this government.

The very point of letting people vote is to accept their opinion without discussing it.  Otherwise we wouldn't vote, we would have eternal debates on internet forums.

[Rob E]

Oh it is very much of my concern. THAT is like saying i shouldn't  be concerned with why A voted for drone strikes, or voted for invasion of the middle east,  or voted for killing millions of citizens, by consent or support of his government.  You're saying i shouldn't be concerned with that except that he did vote.

God damn it.  "It's none of your concern" is an idiom.  Don't take it like that. But the point is that's Exactly how you ment it.

You were saying something like "how can there be democracy if people are not independent and free?".

I say democracy consists in letting people contribute to decisions via vote. That's why there is  "Direct democracy" everbody should really demand and work for.  Why they vote for A and not for B is not the problem.
It is still the factor why the corrupt governments in the United states is still in place. The "WHY", is really the key factor what it is all about.

 You can't know that anyway as you're not in their mind. Who said anything about being in peoples minds to now what they think, if i see someone going to the supermarket i don't need to be in his mind to know he's probably hungry.

 So it doesn't concern if you worry about this process being democratic.  That's what I meant. Ok so your argument is because the way they vote is not the problem ( which i have shown is not right ) and i can't know what is in peoples minds ( why they vote a particular way. Which i have shown is, not; correct, again.) Results in it not being important wether it's democratic.

I don 't know if anybody can follow this inane logic.  Let me know.

Of course if the candidate you didn't vote for is elected, you can feel sorry and thus concerned, but that's an other matter.  You can feel concerned about the poor decisions made by your government, but those decisions do not change the democratic status of this government.

The very point of letting people vote is to accept their opinion without discussing it.  Otherwise we wouldn't vote, we would have eternal debates on internet forums.

Ok more inane ramblings and silly ideas, we wouldn't vote, if people were not allowed to have an opinion, without discussing it. You're just completely silly. And you're on staff.