A Compromise To Avoid World War 3.
Ben F Rayfield, 2011.
All my writing, here or anywhere else, permission granted to copy, since redundant is harder to censor.
This is about slavery to money and a way to change that by open-sourcing the economy using a common identity-verifying system and leaving other functions to the open-source code, for example, a branch of Bitcoin which has an extra key held by authorities.
[EDIT: Bitcoin proved that the open-source movement is strong and advanced enough to build economies, and now that we can do that for ourselves and let money advance into systems where its more than just a number, forcing us to continue using dollars (or other centralized currency) would be slavery. Extremely more businesses would accept an identity-proving system than an anonymous system, but we should use both for the inevitable time when authorities abuse such identity power and need to be pushed back into obedience to democracy, and on top of that we can create an open-source competition where the best economies get the most invested in them, so economies are created that influence society toward whatever the majority of people want it to become.]
[EDIT: I did not mean to imply this is about what terrorists want, since this is good for everyone, and it ends a lot of conflicts too] The difference between a soldier and a terrorist is the terrorist knows what he fights for while the soldier does what he's told. Its war either way, and its often good to compromise to avoid war. You can have economic war, political war, or violent war, but usually its a combination. I'm going to make a proposal that reduces all 3 and leads to a more cooperative society, one where everyone tries to help everyone else because the structure of society rewards such behavior.
What I write here is going to be more about USA than other countries. I'm trying to write about the whole Earth, but nobody has the whole picture, so we need to start talking at that level. First I'll describe some important and relevant events in history, and then extrapolate where that leads, and what we can do as a compromise between authorities and terrorists to avoid World War 3. I don't serve authorities or terrorists more than anyone else. I serve the Human species and all life forms, so don't accuse me of making the threats I'm describing. Somebody has to say this, and if you want to avoid World War 3, you'll listen. Conflicts are esclating exponentially, and we don't have much time left.
I'm ordering the historical events by how they relate to eachother, not by time...
Then I'll describe where it leads and a Bitcoin-like identity-verified double-key system to open-source the economy, something that will outperform the central bank system in a fair fight, a free market where the best economy wins. Bitcoin is already a many million dollar economy and is up and running now, so don't think this is hard to do. We can start from Bitcoin's open-source code or create new software. We think computers are great at numbers and in our banks and economies we don't see why people should be involved in such calculations, so we have minimal overhead. This will be a system that anyone can build on with open-source code, as long as they use the same identity-verifying system.
We will design economies, in an open-source way, that influence society toward whatever we want it to become, and we will vote on these economies the same way politicians are elected today, vote with your money, so the best economies get the most people using them and the most invested in them. If people accept it as money, it is money, and when more people use it, it becomes more valuable. Bitcoin did it, and we can do it again for each new economy we design. Economic equations will evolve and compete the same way products evolve and compete today, and we will use that to organize society however we prefer, to make money flow to those who really deserve it in the democratic opinion of everyone who uses these new money systems. Many think its not democratic to vote with money, but that's the only way it can happen these days, and it will be more democratic to design such systems so money tends to flow toward everyone more equally than it does today. I'm not proposing any changes to election systems. I'm recognizing that money controls elections more than voting does, and our real master is the central banking system. We are all slaves to money, and its time to free the slaves again.
***History***
Thousands of businesses cooperate to create an internet with far more bandwidth and technology than the existing internet, called Internet 2 (
http://internet2.edu ), and for it to be only for businesses and not for normal people, and their plan is to replace the existing internet with one controlled only by businesses, where they have no obligation to obey "net neutrality laws".
Corporations are masters of governments. For example, in California USA, if I want to buy electric power, I am forced to buy it from Pacific Gas And Electric, and part of their budget goes toward creating laws such as for regulating the "standby mode" on electronics. They think it wastes electricity and electronics should have to turn off completely. What started as a way for government to save money by deferring electricity generation to a business, has become a tax on funding the creation of electricity related laws, by a private business. Where do I go to vote against Pacific Gas And Electric if I don't like the laws they put money into creating, my money which I am forced to pay for electricity? Corporations are a part of government that has no obligations of democracy.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. After reserching many charities,
http://givewell.org (
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveWell ) calculated that, based on supply and demand for Human life, the cheapest Human lives are worth 1000 US Dollars each. That's how much it costs to save a Human life (in the most efficient charities), and people aren't willing to pay it until the price comes down. Based on this calculation, the value of the buildings destroyed in the 9/11/01 bombings was more than the value of the 3000 people who died, since the people were worth 3,000,000 US Dollars at 1000 Dollars each. If you disagree, put your money where your mouth is and save a life. The point is people don't care much if other people die.
George Bush became president of USA. Then his son became president. George Bush THE SECOND. What is the chance that a man and then his son would be president if USA was a real democracy? Almost none. The system is powered by money, and the central bank system owns most of that money. To restore democracy, we must fix the money system so it tends to flow toward people based on what they do for society.
Guantanamo Bay is a prison USA created outside of USA for the purpose of not being subject to the laws of USA in that prison, so they can torture people for information. George W Bush had it created. Obama did not shut it down. [EDIT: On Obama page on Wikipedia it says: "In his first few days in office Obama issued executive orders and presidential memoranda directing the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq.[110] He ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010,[111] but during his first two years in office he has been unable to persuade Congress to appropriate funds required to accomplish the shutdown.", so if that's true then its another example of the central banks being masters of government.]
Ignorance Of The Law Is No Excuse. Police in USA often say that. Ok, lets see how that applies to USA's Congress who admit that they don't read proposed laws before voting on if they become laws or not. That's why the Read The Bills Act was rejected. Laws in USA are created so quickly that is it impossible for any one person to read them, even if they read laws all day everyday. You can't know if a law applies to you if you don't read it because the system is not advanced enough to search for an abstract idea, while some parts can be searched by words. The system is overclocked, running out of control, and they don't know how to fix it. Something big could easily break, and the gears of society would come to a halt, unless we change the basic way things work.
As most people laugh at Ray Kurzweil's history-based calculations that technology will continue to advanced exponentially and the future will be here much sooner than most people expect, those people demonstrate their ignorance by not knowing that today for 300 US Dollars they can buy a hat (Emotiv Epoc) which reads some of their thoughts, including emotions and thinking about moving and turning, which allows them to play video games by thinking. This kind of technology isn't far from what's needed to network our minds together into a bigger mind which would be able to control us the same way we control Monkeys, but this mind would also be us.
The Zeitgeist movement gains popularity quickly. One of their best videos is this version of "Zeitgeist Addendum" which you can watch for free at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4GgFrom their website
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com (but they are not as centralized as it appears),
QUOTE:
The Movement's principle focus includes the recognition that the majority of the social problems which plague the human species at this time are not the sole result of some institutional corruption, scarcity, a political policy, a flaw of "human nature" or other commonly held assumptions of causality in the activist community. Rather, The Movement recognizes that issues such as poverty, corruption, collapse, homelessness, war, starvation and the like appear to be "Symptoms" born out of an outdated social structure.
While intermediate Reform steps and temporal Community Support are of interest to The Movement, the defining goal here is the installation of a new socioeconomic model based upon technically responsible Resource Management, Allocation and Distribution through what would be considered The Scientific Method of reasoning problems and finding optimized solutions.
This "Resource-Based Economic Model” is about taking a direct technical approach to social management as opposed to a Monetary or even Political one. It is about updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods Science has to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange, profits, corporations and other structural and motivational components.
END QUOTE.
The Open Source movement (software which everyone has the right to use, copy, modify, and distribute with much less legal restrictions and usually for free) is as strong as the businesses who create software. Open Source tends to be peer-reviewed more, instead of hiding its flaws inside of .exe files without the text files which they were generated from. Open source programmers have learned to work together to advance their common goals. Businesses, being motivated more by profit than by good products, only let others build on their work as long as the business stays in control, able to pull the plug on the whole project if they don't like where it goes. Open source gives every user the legal right to take the project wherever they want, and the creator has no legal right to stop them or change the contract later. The contract normally says things like give credit where its due, don't connect this to proprietary (not open source) systems, or some give permission to do anything at all as long as the author's name stays on it. The majority of Open Source software is at
http://sourceforge.net and the website for SourceForge is one of the open source softwares. If businesses can't learn to work together more than is profitable, they will not be able to compete. People would not use Bitcoin if it was not open source.
I heard that around the time central banking was created in USA, some president tried to shut it down soon after it started. This is something I'll need to research later and update this writing, or you could research it and respond. This is how a decentralized society works.
Military Industrial Complex:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
--Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961, former president of USA.
His predictions are now reality.
In the year 1999, Napster became popular, allowing anyone with internet access to share music files, if they had legal rights to those files or not. This was followed by many decentralized and sometimes anonymous networks, and eventually led to the combination of Bitcoin and Tor networks to move large amounts of money from anywhere to anywhere anonymously. Since it started, governments have been fighting decentralized networks, but legitimate uses of these networks has slowed their attacks. As part of these attacks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have failed to upgrade their systems to IPv6 even though it has been available for over 10 years, and without it the workaround is Network Address Translation (NAT) which creates severe problems for decentralized networks. Specificly, most people are behind NAT addresses, and communications go out but they don't come in unless they are an immediate response to a communication that just went out. When 2 computers both have NAT addresses, neither can send the first communication to the other, so they can't communicate at all without going through a non-NAT address, also known as a server. Wasn't the internet supposed to be a network of computers where everyone has equal ability to network to everyone else?
The Pirate Party advocates getting rid of intellectual property laws, like patents and copyrights, so everyone benefits from the many things which already exist and has the freedom to build more things without making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
The Patriot Acts are created in USA which give government legal ability to do almost anything they want, including kill suspected terrorists on sight without a trial, and spy on financial records through automated systems on a large scale.
"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government."
--Barack Obama, president of USA, 2009,
http://whitehouse.gov/openLooks like Obama may want to help with this. What's more open than open-sourcing the economy based on a common identity-verifying system?
The "Anonymous" group hacks at computers of Federal Reserve.
Wikileaks distributes secret government documents, which motivated many people to make changes in their governments.
Through the internet, revolutions are organized, like happened in Egypt to replace its government.
Wikileaks hacks at various financial computer systems as a response to such systems freezing the money accounts of Wikileaks.
News, radio, and some of the most popular forms of communication are censored. You don't see dead soldiers brought home from war, for example, on the news. They don't want people to pay attention to the wars in that way.
A "kill switch" is installed into large parts of the internet, so authorities can control the internet. If your website does not obey their rules, contain only approved content, then your website will not be accessible to others.
Some groups threaten others for displaying pictures of Mohammed, which their religion commands against. Talk starts about further censoring communications.
Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, but I've heard he was forced into it. Compare that to everyone being a slave to money and now through cryptocurrencies we can free the slaves again.
Bitcoin is created as a response to the financial system and forcing of identity on transactions of money. Combined with the Tor network, it can be used anonymously to move millions of dollars from anywhere to anywhere. Bitcoin devalued the Dollar by many millions and moved that value into Bitcoins, but competing currencies have been doing that for hundreds of years.
Currently there are no tax laws about Bitcoins or World Of Warcraft Gold, since they're just numbers in a computer that people trade. Through the bridge of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, governments will be tempted to tax game money, and if they do it will lead to destroying themselves with complexity. World Of Warcraft Gold is a real currency, like Bitcoin, just implemented a different way and connected to a game before it became a real currency. Want to buy some?
http://warcraftgoldstore.com This currency is normally used to buy things in the World Of Warcraft online game, but since it can be exchanged both directions with dollars, it should be subject to the same laws as Bitcoin, and the last I heard, if you get paid in Bitcoins you are supposed to report it on your taxes (some people say, but its debated). Can anyone give me a good legal reason why Bitcoin and World Of Warcraft Gold should be taxed differently? If not, the next purchase of armor or a flying dragon to ride on, should be reported on your taxes. When the auditor asks, tell him "Yes, I bought a flying dragon for xx World Of Warcraft Gold, but I didn't get a receipt." There is a contradiction here. Either we are going to have to start paying sales tax for buying an extra life in a game in a simulated economy with game money, and non-player-characters taxed for spending that same game money, or Bitcoin doesn't get taxed. Which is it? In World Of Warcraft, Blizzard Entertainment is God, and nobody would bat an eye if one of their characters walked on simulated water. If employment laws merge between virtual worlds and the real world, bad things will happen, and the paradoxes will expand without limit. Do your lawyers dare tread in the World Of Warcraft? I really hope so, because one of those non-player-characters was racially discriminating in who he hired for his simulated dragon store. That racist a-hole said he wouldn't hire my character because he had green skin, a hump back, and large claws, which is typical of my simulated species. My whole simulated life, I've had to deal with discrimination against Orcs, and this is the last straw. I am suing for the lost potential World Of Warcraft Gold, in US Dollars please. Second Life is a more advanced game where such employment laws would be more likely to apply, especially in future versions.
***End of history events, ordered by how they relate to eachother instead of time.***
***How does all that fit together?***
Its a battle between centralized control and decentralized organization of society, which is fought politically, economically, and sometimes violently. As long as Humans have existed, there have been hierarchies of control: countries, presidents, kings, cities, department of motor vehicles, money systems which you're not allowed to compete with, etc. As technology advanced, organizing society in decentralized ways became possible. The authorities represent centralization of power. They work against decentralization because it reduces their power. As they recently learned from Bitcoin and various attacks through the internet, they are not as powerful as they thought, and as technology continues to advance, they will continue to lose power to decentralized ways to organize society. They could shut down Bitcoin, but they couldn't stop 10 more advanced variations of it from being created.
There are a few random elements also. In reaction to threats if pictures of Mohammed are displayed, there was an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day and an episode of "South Park" in which Mohammed appeared delivering a pizza, as if it wasn't anything out of the ordinary. We can solve the problems between centralization and decentralization, but these more random things (people don't want you to do x for religious reasons, so others do x) may never be solved. The best we can do is try to avoid escalating such conflicts, like by not making demands that others obey our religion and not reacting to such demands. If people didn't think that USA's government may outlaw pictures of Mohammed, then those reactions to it would have been much smaller. These many random elements make a complete consistent solution impossible, but we can build a society much better than what we have now.
Authorities reduce freedom and increase military spending and spying. Terrorists become more angry and recruit more members. Both use more advanced technology and demand the other change. This escalation of conflicts is not going to stop on its own, and nobody will like what it leads to.
***That's history. What's next?***
If they make Bitcoin illegal, terrorists will attack, maybe not right away, and we don't know any details, but making Bitcoin illegal would be viewed as a severe attack on the decentralization of society. Does that make you want to make it illegal right away? I expect it does, because we are a very confrontaional species. But this time, lets wait and let the identity-verified system compete with Bitcoin and outperform it because businesses accept it into their infrastructure more than they accept Bitcoin.
Through the internet, many people have realized how the world really works, and we want our fair part of the power. We want a real democracy, and since money is power, we want the central banking dictatorship demoted to a free market where anyone can coin their own money if others agree to accept it as money, the same as currencies have been competing for hundreds of years. Because of new technology like Bitcoin (and its many million dollar economy), new currencies can be designed to do things that old currencies can not, so money does not have to be just a number anymore. Near the end of this writing, I will describe a system I want to create where money is more than a number, as an example.
None of us alive today chose the central banking system. We were born into it, like slaves were born into the system of slavery. Everyone is a slave to money. People say that like its a joke, but there is some truth to it. Anyone or anything that isn't followed by choice does not deserve to be followed. Its time to free the slaves again, this time from the central banking system, and allow us to design our own systems which people may choose to follow.
There are side-effects of these systems, and we must deal with that. The ends do not justify the means. The ends plus the side-effects justify the means. If Bitcoin does something bad to the world, we must do something about it instead of just continuing to use Bitcoin. That is the only way we have the right to design our own systems. For example, if the central banking system leads to the military-industrial-complex (nuclear weapons are created for profit more than for defense, for example), they should have to do something to fix that problem or another problem of equal destructiveness.
Below I will propose a new open-source money system that I think the terrorists and authorities can agree on, a compromise to avoid World War 3. I'll quote myself from the first paragraph: "The difference between a soldier and a terrorist is the terrorist knows what he fights for while the soldier does what he's told. Its war either way, and its often good to compromise to avoid war. You can have economic war, political war, or violent war, but usually its a combination. I'm going to make a proposal that reduces all 3 and leads to a more cooperative society, one where everyone tries to help everyone else because the structure of society rewards such behavior."
We don't need to change any laws or make laws against the central banking system. We just need protection from the central banking system who has extreme motivation to pay to create laws against our new money systems. We intend to create fair and balanced money systems, where there are no fees paid to us, and to defeat the central banking system in a fair fight, in a free market where the best currency system wins. It would be a "conflict of interest" for the central banking system, who is our competition, to make or pay to make laws that apply to our cryptocurrency money systems. Our money systems appear to fit the definition of a charity, providing the service of adding and subtracting numbers and whatever else our money will be designed to do. We can compete with huge central banking organizations because we understand that computers are good at numbers and we don't see why people should be involved in such calculating of numbers, open-source programmers work for free, computing power is entirely the responsibility of our users, so we have no overhead, and we're passing the entire savings to our users. Its a bank and a charity, so there is no way a central banking system could defeat it in a free market.
If you agree with what I'm writing and want such changes to happen, send a link to your friends.
***Details of the system***
To satisfy the authority's requirements, modify Bitcoin to be a double key system, one key held by authorities and one key held by each person, both keys needed to access any money. The authority's keys can freeze accounts and identify who did a transaction, or even freeze an account before a transaction since all transactions are sent to authorities for approval. The other key prevents authorities from using the money without the permission of its owner, like is done in a Fractional Reserve system. This open-source system will be flexible enough to build a Fractional Reserve system on top of, but it will not do that by default. Except for the identity-verifying system, anyone can extend it with open-source code.
There will be an authority-controlled identity system that holds the private-key of each person to identify that person. The modified Bitcoin will send a block of data to the authority's system, which will digitally-sign the block and send the signature back to the modified Bitcoin, which will assemble things in the normal way into a new block for the network. It will have to run on its own network independent of the existing Bitcoin network.
Any Bitcoin-like system which uses the common identity system would be accepted as a valid economic system which has whatever value people put on it by choosing to use it as money. It will be a free market competition between different equations and behaviors of economies. The best economy equations get more people to use them, more invested in them. If Fractional Reserve systems do not compete well with an identity-verified Bitcoin system, then Fractional Reserve would lose value of their money to that economy. The best systems win. Its a fair fight in a free market. In any free market, there will be a variety of products, not a monopoly, because a monopoly acts unfairly and the free market responds by creating similar products with fair rules. In this case, the equations and behaviors of an economy will evolve and compete the same way products evolve and compete today. Farther below I will explain an economy I want to build where money is not just a number.
It can not be used anonymously.
Accounts can be frozen by authorities at any time and is guaranteed to offer a freeze before each transaction is approved.
The integrity of the whole network is protected by digital-signatures of all people and authorities involved.
All data is public, but only authorities need to know which public-key is owned by which person, so its anonymous for everyone except authorities who observe them.
"Authorities" can mean anything, depending on which system holds those private-keys and does digital-signatures. It could be an OpenID system, or a USB device sold by governments, for example.
Because no new block can be accepted to the network on a large scale without being approved and digitally-signed by authorities (or a USB device they sell for such a purpose), authorities will have complete ability to stop any transaction in the network before it happens and to identify the people involved in any transaction by looking at the publicly available history of the network (which is the network itself because it grows new blocks from old blocks).
See the design document of Bitcoin for details, but Bitcoin is not the only system this would work for. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfWhy would the underground accept such a system that sounds almost as bad as centrally controlled banks? Because businesses will accept it as part of their infrastructure competing with dollars, and because if authorities abuse their power we can build more anonymous money system like Bitcoin (or continue using Bitcoin) instead of using the identity-based systems. Every government or global organization needs a system of "checks and balances", and the constant threat that we'll build and use anonymous systems if power is abused serves that purpose. Regulate fairly and reasonably or don't regulate at all, and you know that's true because Bitcoin was created as a response to such unreasonable regulation. We don't have to overthrow any government to obsolete governments. We can build replacements that organize society in decentralized ways. Authorities can choose to work with us or become obsolete. People would simply stop going to work in government buildings because our systems work better. What if they had a war and nobody came?
***Technical details***
2 private keys. Authorities have 1. Each person has the other. 2 public keys, go in the blocks, same as Bitcoin already does for 1 key pair.
Its really simple. When digitally-signing a new block, it needs to be signed by both private keys, and both those signatures go in the blocks. The block has to be sent to authorities to be signed, since they're not giving out their key, and the result sent to the Bitcoin-like program, which combines the keys, signatures, and everything else the normal way Bitcoin does it.
There is also a third key pair held by the authorities which is used to sign each of many public keys of the authorities. Based on that, each node in the network will verify that identity signatures really are from authorities instead of made up the same way personal key pairs are.
***End Technical details***
***Start example economy***
Below I'll describe an example of a system where money is more than a number, which could be built on top of the identity-verifying system described above.
This system is called Free Speech Just Pay Shipping (FSJPS), and when I decide on the details I will put up a centralized prototype at
http://FreeSpeechJustPayShipping.com before creating the decentralized version.
Its a little like a stock market. Each money has an amount and some text, like you have 500 amount of "GOOG" which is Google stock in the "Nasdaq Stock Exchange" economy. There will be different amounts and texts in the "New York Stock Exchange" economy, for example. There are many economies that compete with eachother.
In FSJPS, the text can be anything you want and can be as long as you're willing to pay for. Longer text uses more space and bandwidth in the network, so whatever the free market decides will be charged for such bandwidth, paid directly to the computers who provide the bandwidth and storage. It will be a very small cost. For example, Bitcoin recommends a 0.01 Bitcoin "transaction fee", but I'm thinking more of a fee that continues to be charged as the network continues to store and broadcast your data, still a very small fee paid to the network. Because of that, the economy equations can be defined independent of the infrastructure costs. The infrastructure costs are amortized as a separate fee paid to the network based on free market choice of who your software pays to store and broadcast your data, subject to the network verifying such storing and broadcasting is being done correctly, which can be done because it will be stored extremely redundantly as it is in Bitcoin.
FSJPS is a simplified model of intellectual property laws applied at very small scales. Each text is simultaneously like a patent and a product. If you are the majority owner of "vote democrat" (which means you own more stock in "vote democrat" than anyone else), then your vote on the product price of "vote democrat" will be the only one that matters. Its done by median-vote. When you buy some stock, you set the vote for its product price. The actual product price of a text (like "vote democrat") is the median-vote of all stock owners weighted by how much of the stock they own. To change your product price vote of stock you own, sell it to yourself with a different product price specified, a transaction which doesn't change your amount of stock but will cost you for amortized_infrastructure_cost.
What does "product price" do? If the product price of "vote democrat" is 0.72, then when someone buys stock in "dont vote democrat" or "vote democrat because god said so", the price they pay includes 0.72 in the calculation.
Its not a linear calculation. Its a sum-of-squares(of prefix string length) average calculation.
In "vote democrat", start at each letter/symbol/space (which we will call "char" below), and do a weighted-average of the prices of each of those texts, which we will call "substrings" below.
The substrings are:
"vote democrat"
"ote democrat"
"te democrat"
"e democrat"
" democrat"
"democrat"
"emocrat"
"mocrat"
"ocrat"
"crat"
"rat"
"at"
"t"
For each substring, you have to buy permission to use it. You can buy such permission from any prefix of the substring. For example, if you need permission for "rat", you could buy it from "" or from "r" or from "ra" or from "rat". The software will be designed to look at the free market for the lowest price, but it can never be sure something is the lowest price because the network is decentralized and prices fluctuate nonlocally based on continuous median-votes for each text.
To use the system, you could look through the texts and amounts others have put into the network, and use it like a text forum or stock market, or you could simply type any text you want and an amount and it will tell you how much it would cost to add that to the network, and you would click a button to pay to do it.
The system would be a stock market of ideas. Since its priced in a free market of substrings and branched in a tree of text with similar texts as near branches, it will be organized naturally as an associative search engine. By buying stock in a certain text, you're paying the world to make that text happen statistically more on average, or at least to get people to pay attention to the text (advertising) and related texts. FSJPS will be a system where you can pay money into "legalize drugs" (for example) and if you pay enough money, it will really happen. Its a democracy algorithm. I can't be sure it would work that way, but intuitively it makes sense since its connected as an associative search engine and the world does what money is put into, and people will see theres money put into that text and related texts and will be affected when they buy texts which contain that text or parts of that text. You could buy stock in "legalize drugs" or "it would be stupid for any drug to be legal", and those would be related by the substrings of "legal" and "drug" and a few smaller texts. Buy stock in whatever text you want to say or based on your predictions of the free market.
You can also sell your stock in any string for any price you offer and someone is willing to pay. I haven't decided if it would include the ability to remove text from the network and convert it directly back to units of "" (the root currency, similar to Bitcoin).
"vote democrat" (length 13) has a unit product price (permission) of 0.91, but "vote dem" (length
has a price of 0.88 so that was used for permission instead.
"ote democrat" found only expensive permissions so bought from "" (the common currency at the root of the text tree) at a unit price of 1.0.
...
"t" has a unit product price (permission) of 0.98, which is less than the 1.0 for "" so take the 0.98.
You can always find a price for any text for at most 1.0 plus the infrastructure cost.
To calculate the price paid for buying stock in "vote democrat"...
unit cost of "vote democrat" =
(8*8*0.88 + 1*1*1.0 + ... + 1*1*0.98)/(8*8 + 1*1 + ... + 1*1)
Longer texts will tend to cost less than shorter texts, because if text x is used to satisfy a permission requirement, then any prefix of x could be used to satisfy that same requirement, even if that prefix is a text of length 0 ("", the common currency of the whole tree of text). The price for "" is fixed at 1.0.
Since "" is length 0, it has to be calculated as length 1.
The cost of adding 500.37 units of "vote democrat" to the network is unit_cost_of_vote_democrat*500.37 + amortized_infrastructure_cost*13, but I haven't defined amortized_infrastructure_cost yet, and I'm still thinking about how to do that part. Read above where I wrote "amortized" for details.
FSJPS would be a mix of free market and ownership of text, where you pay for permission to add new text to the network, and each text has a value that fluctuates like a stock price. Short texts are conservative investments. Longer texts are high risk and high profit/loss.
As a telekinetic (at rare times) person and mad-scientist, I expect FSJPS to have strong metaphysical effects on reality similar to how the the quantum double-slit experiment works (see the "nonlocal" pricing described above), by using wave-interference between the various strings and substrings in the associative network, interacting with peoples' brainwaves as they predict and react to the FSJPS system, to put the force of the economy (which is really powerful) toward expanding consciousness, but such speculation is not important to the system working. As a demonstration of telekinetic skill, the "psi wheel in a clear closed box 2" video on youtube. Its my example economy. I can make it do whatever I want. You can build your own economy or use an existing one if you don't like it, since its open-source (and using the same identity-verification system). I think, in some ways, we're all gods, and I want to amplify that using math. Dollars used to be backed by gold. My example economy would be backed by consciousness. Please do not regulate this part of my religion, which most parts I have thought of on my own. If you don't think it would work, that's your right to think whatever you want, but you don't have the right to stop me from trying.
Its a tree of text where the tree can branch at any char. It can be used as a text forum that way, where you can reply to any text by adding a new branch. A post in a thread would be a text starting with the title and ending with the post text. A reply to that post would be that same text followed by the text of the reply. Text can be added as a branch anywhere in the tree of text, and it doesn't have to be interpreted as a text forum.
The root of the tree of text is a text of length 0, and it works the same as Bitcoin works today, as a simple number of money, but all other parts of the tree of text are parts of an economy where money is more than a number.
FSJPS (Free Speech Just Pay Shipping) is an example of an economy where money is more than a number, a system which could be built on top of the identity-verifying system I proposed above, and compete with other open-source economies designed by many other people.
FSJPS would be an implementation of "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be", since the force of money is put on text which resists censoring (you would have to destroy the money to censor the text), and what people tend to agree on is stronger in the network, and any corruption in government (for example) that text exposes will be fixed in proportion to how much money is put on the text, since people see it in that proportion.
***End example economy***
***Conclusion***
We should not be slaves to money. We should be allowed to design our own money-like systems and get people to agree to use them as money, so society can choose how to reorganize itself. Until recent years, this was not possible so we were not really "slaves to money" (or not as much), but now that it can be done and is reliable and secure and satisfies the same legal requirements as centralized banking systems (but only the parts relevant to cryptocurrencies), it would be slavery to force us to continue using that ancient system.
Its not illegal to build what I described (except in China and probably a few others), but I expect the centralized banking system will try to change that, and we ask for protection from them using governments against us. It is our plan to defeat them in a free market where the best economy wins, so they have extreme motivation to fight dirty as they normally do, paying off politicians to make laws. Money is power, and they have most of it, a problem we can easily solve in a fair competition.
--Ben F Rayfield, 2011.
