Solution to Decentralized Law [The iLand Nation]

[bytemaster]

I would like to announce what I believe is a viable solution to decentralized law enforcement and a project/website I have started toward this goal.  A decentralized currency needs an answer for decentralized law before the central planners attempt to provide authoritarian solutions that undermine the very nature and usefulness of bitcoin.    

In my opinion, governments are the biggest criminals of all and therefore a decentralized law enforcement solution must ultimately be effective at curtailing and eliminating this kind of 'official' and 'legal plunder'.   For a free market law enforcement to be 'stable' in the long run it must be robust enough to overcome the current system.   I believe I have such a solution if I can get it bootstrapped.

I have created a new website to document my idea / strategy and would like to get some feedback:
The iLand Nation

First I want to throughly debunk our existing Socialist Justice System.

Then I want to present a non-violent law enforcement system Non Violent Law Enforcement

What does this have to do with bitcoin?    This system requires some technical / crypto-graphic features / ideas that are found in bitcoin and ultimately bitcoin would be the currency of those who join 'The iLand'.  The iLand Nation can be thought of as a distributed, decentralized Galt’s Gulch protected by the shield of an anonymous currency, encryption, and arbitration, and the sharing of the burden of injustice.

Other aspects of my idea includes An Injustice Insurance Fund (bitcoin powered) as well a a Surety Bond System.    Individuals would have Unique public-key IDs (backed by proof of work to ensure uniqueness and limit Sybil attacks).  

Here is what I am asking of those on the forum:
1) Read up on the idea in details posted on the-iland.net
2) Post feedback / ideas here and let me know if you would want to participate or how you think it could be improved.

If I can generate enough interest I will gladly quit my day job to help make this a reality.

[1714817028]

1714817028

[1714817028]

1714817028

[1714817028]

1714817028

[1714817028]

1714817028

[1714817028]

1714817028

[Come-from-Beyond]

I didn't find an answer to the main question:

Who will watch the watchmen?

[bytemaster]

Who are the watchmen? 

The goal is that before you do business with someone you 'bump phones' and ensure you both have agreed to a compatible set of laws / courts.  If not, you go your own way.

In the end violators of their own agreements are 'published' and may clear their name via arbitration. 

The insurance pool and surety bond can be decentralized as well, there is no central watchman.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Who are the watchmen? 

Hm, what about

The highest courts of the land rely only on the prime directive of the iLand and any arbitration agencies which are not willing to settle disputes by this standard are to be shunned.

[uyjulian]

I didn't find an answer to the main question:

Who will watch the watchmen?

themselves?

[bytemaster]

Who are the watchmen? 

Hm, what about

The highest courts of the land rely only on the prime directive of the iLand and any arbitration agencies which are not willing to settle disputes by this standard are to be shunned.

The premise here is that the 'highest courts' are not 'appointed' but chosen organically to be the 'least common denominator'  These will be what courts operate on a standard acceptable to the most people.

For example, Christians could have a christian court and Muslims a Muslim court but these courts could agree to settle their disputes at a higher court based upon more generic principles (thou shalt not steal).  Sure, they could refuse to resolve disputes outside their religion, but then muslims who chose that court would have to avoid doing business with christians because there is no fallback.

[BitCoinUser123]

My browser doesn't like your security certificate.  I'm interested in reading what you have to say, but not until I can do so without SSL error warnings.

[bytemaster]

Starting out there will clearly be two different and incompatible court systems:  the government court and one or more free market courts that would compete for business of the lower courts based upon their fairness and objectiveness.  

The lower courts get to pick one or more courts they will settle disputes with and individuals get to pick one or more 'lower courts' whom they will deal with.

When a dispute arises between people with an public agreement to participate in a court both parties have agreed to have it settled by that lower court.

If the two parties do not have a 'common court' they can agree on, then they each get a judgment from their own courts.  If the courts disagree then the courts have prior agreements about whom they will use to resolve their dispute.   Ultimately, individuals are judged by the most effective courts of their choosing and the most effective courts are the ones who have the most agreements with other courts.   All courts are subject to market pressure for fairness.

[bytemaster]

My browser doesn't like your security certificate.  I'm interested in reading what you have to say, but not until I can do so without SSL error warnings.

Yeah, I haven't paid for a cert... and I cannot get web2py to only force SSL for accounts... let me see what I can do.

[bytemaster]

My browser doesn't like your security certificate.  I'm interested in reading what you have to say, but not until I can do so without SSL error warnings.

Yeah, I haven't paid for a cert... and I cannot get web2py to only force SSL for accounts... let me see what I can do.

I disabled SSL for now.

[Come-from-Beyond]

When r u planning to add "Decentralized Law" text?

[BitCoinUser123]

I disabled SSL for now.

Roger that.  I'll check it out.

[bytemaster]

I didn't find an answer to the main question:

Who will watch the watchmen?

themselves?

One KEY aspect is the non-violent enforcement of the laws.  Even the 'watchmen' or market-leading 'high courts' would lack any power other than to publish a judgment and recommend others shun you.  Other individuals who disapprove of the ultimate judgment may switch their courts and continue to associate with you.

The biggest risk here is everyone agreeing with the 'market-leading' court, choosing to exclude you from the community, and yet you were 'framed'.    No system is perfect, but at least you are not physically harmed nor have your property involuntarily stolen from you as a result of this judgment.   In theory you also did your due diligence and picked the system you were ultimately judged under.

The non-violent nature is also key because this system could be implemented and 100% legal even today.

[bytemaster]

When r u planning to add "Decentralized Law" text?

Yes, I have a lot to write, I will let you know when I have that posted.

The summary is this:

Anyone can write a 'law' and market it.  The law would have an identifiable logo.  Anyone who finds the law agreeable can then 'sign' the law with their identity (keep it private).   When you do business with someone you exchange 'signed laws' via a 'phone bump' and your phone will identify whether or not the other person has agreed to the 'subset' of standardized laws that you require for your business.  If not, then you can politely decline or ask them to accept some other law.

The key here is that the laws are mostly 'simple' or 'bundled' and the best laws are accepted by all so the market pressure will tend to move people toward a common set required for doing business.

Those who require outrageous laws will find fewer people with whom to do business.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Anyone can write a 'law' and market it.  The law would have an identifiable logo.  Anyone who finds the law agreeable can then 'sign' the law with their identity (keep it private).   When you do business with someone you exchange 'signed laws' via a 'phone bump' and your phone will identify whether or not the other person has agreed to the 'subset' of standardized laws that you require for your business.  If not, then you can politely decline or ask them to accept some other law.

The key here is that the laws are mostly 'simple' or 'bundled' and the best laws are accepted by all so the market pressure will tend to move people toward a common set required for doing business.

Those who require outrageous laws will find fewer people with whom to do business.

Hell, I luv this approach! I've added this thread to my favorites.

[Stampbit]

Decentralized law sounds like mob justice.

[bytemaster]

'mob justice' and 'non-violent justice' are very different in my mind.   Democracy is 'mob justice'.   In fact, what we have today isn't even 'justice' it is 'revenge' without accountability for mistakes.   Democracy is 'arbitrary power'.

If your idea of justice is violence then clearly you missed the entire point.

[Gabi]

Who are the watchmen? 

Hm, what about

The highest courts of the land rely only on the prime directive of the iLand and any arbitration agencies which are not willing to settle disputes by this standard are to be shunned.

The premise here is that the 'highest courts' are not 'appointed' but chosen organically to be the 'least common denominator'  These will be what courts operate on a standard acceptable to the most people.

For example, Christians could have a christian court and Muslims a Muslim court but these courts could agree to settle their disputes at a higher court based upon more generic principles (thou shalt not steal).  Sure, they could refuse to resolve disputes outside their religion, but then muslims who chose that court would have to avoid doing business with christians because there is no fallback.

And then we will have crusades! Deus lo vult! For Jerusalem! 

[bytemaster]

The key here is not that everyone has to participate, but that good, honest people choose to participate.   Who cares what Muslims or Christians ultimately decided to do.  Because this is a non-violent group of voluntary association / disassociation there are no crusades or 'violent mobs' etc.    They may exist outside such a community, but anyone inside it would immediately forfeit their surety and insurance coverage if they decided to get violent contrary to one of their signed agreements.

[myrkul]

I like this. Definitely going to look into it more.

[bytemaster]

I am very torn over how to proceed in making this idea a reality, clearly there are many things to implement:

1) Secure Identity
       - anonymous interactions and 'secure' interactions mostly incompatible.
       - they should not be 'throw away' and to prevent this identities need to be mined.  The more difficulty a hash that is found the more 'unique' the identity and the more 'costly' to discard.
       - they need to be easy to 'use' and by that I mean 'sign and validate contracts'.

2) Insurance Fund
       - The terms / conditions need to be defined.
       - Trusted parties would need to hold the funds / Evaluate claims.

3) Surety Bond
        - Once again, a trusted party is required to hold the surety and disperse it to victims when presented an arbitration decision.


I am a software engineer and could handle creating phone apps, desktop apps, and web interfaces but this idea requires a level of critical mass and 'commitment'.  So initially we need a setup that can be done 'manually' and we can add automation as the idea catches on.   The 'manual' approach would be the following:

Individuals write up proposed 'laws' that they would be willing to follow.  Then people can sign those laws with one of their bitcoin addresses.    Initially agreed laws can all be kept 'public' so someone can write a law by starting a 'forum post' and people can sign the law by posting the signature + bitcoin address.

Among these 'laws' is an agreement to arbitrate, perhaps http://judge.me.

Then we need some trusted individuals to hold funds in escrow/surety and then publish a list of bitcoin 'IDs' + escrow amount.

But the most critical feature here is the Injustice Insurance Fund.  This is something that could provide value to people now if we can identify the terms under which contributions are made and funds paid out.   It would also require an advanced commitment of enough people before it could start accepting funds.  Providing a means to audit this fund would also be important.   

So for those of you who like this idea and want to see it happen, lets talk about how to make it happen.   In my view, this is more than just an idea it is a course of action that is achievable if enough people sign on.

[Come-from-Beyond]

How will it be possible to check if two laws written in different languages are equal?

[myrkul]

How will it be possible to check if two laws written in different languages are equal?

A lingua franca would have to be decided upon. English is the most likely, or we could use a constructed one such as Lojban.

[bytemaster]

I would imagine the 'producer of said law' would translate their law into as many languages as possible and declare the 'intent' that they all have the same 'meaning'.   It would then be the courts job to interpret said laws.   Then the market would debate and critique laws that have potential for ambiguity in the different languages.   

The real question is:  what motive is there to create new laws?   The answer is that any business that believes there is a significant flaw / liability with accepting a law with potential translation ambiguity would be motivated to correct that ambiguity and then require others to accept the deviation/clarification before doing business with them.

Thus everyone is motivated to find the most clear wording for the same law among all languages.

[RichG]

How will it be possible to check if two laws written in different languages are equal?

A lingua franca would have to be decided upon. English is the most likely, or we could use a constructed one such as Lojban.

Big Brother decided that the lingua franca will be Newspeak.

Happy fun, and good luck iOceania.

[myrkul]

How will it be possible to check if two laws written in different languages are equal?

A lingua franca would have to be decided upon. English is the most likely, or we could use a constructed one such as Lojban.

Big Brother decided that the lingua franca will be Newspeak.

Happy fun, and good luck iOceania.

My apologies if I implied a top-down decision. Markets make decisions too, you know.