Bitcoin Common Law System

[kiba]

Prior to law, moreover here the Civil Code, we must settle the Principle - on Earthling meanings, the "constitution". Under which principle we create a rule, under which principle it may be applicable, to which reasonably and extent.

Principle are not made: they are discovered.

[kiba]

A Common Economic Protocol?

ReleaseCandidate-Alpha-0.0.1

From the Diamond Age, eh?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

A few disputes broke out over the last several weeks in area such as bankruptcy and suspected scamming. We don't have definite laws or procedure on how to deal with trespassers or processing evidence yet.

But I think a couple of details is emerging as far as law goes:

1. Bankrupted person will defer all payments to creditors and wronged parties for the amount that was owned.
2. Those who are suspected of scamming but protest their innocence could pay a 'fine' in case of damning evidence.

Those these laws are not definite as it need some more iteration and more testing to make it work.

I would give it a couple of 'court cases' before something good emerge.

Whoa, wait a moment.

I thought this community is about the currency itself. Since when are we lawyers ? Since when can we be judge and prosecutor of anyone ?
Shouldn't warning about scammers be the maximum we do ?

Also, there is a lot of anarchists/minarchists/libertarians here - do you think they will approve any kind of such procedure ?

[The Madhatter]

This might help.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smart_contracts

[myrkul]

Caveat emptor, as they say...

I think perhaps a trust Database should be established... Sure, you can just start back from scratch if you screw someone over, but you're starting back from scratch, and everyone is going to be a little bit wary of people with 0 trust.

I can't get behind a guilty before proven innocent system, sorry.

[opticbit]

I set up a wiki for people to come up with a legal system to agree on.
I'm not an expert on anything (government, legal, coding...) and the information started is only a seed, that can grow and change as anyone sees fit.

Some people need a legal system to fall back on, others do not.  Those who do not need it, still follow some type of rule wether it is written or not.  

The goal is global, i think I've set it too high, it can be used as something to fall back on after an overthrown government.  Something to assist in the take down of a tyrannical government.  Something everyone on earth can agree on, that can be adjusted quickly, and its activities are open to anyone.

http://opticbit.com/phpwiki

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Caveat emptor, as they say...

I think perhaps a trust Database should be established... Sure, you can just start back from scratch if you screw someone over, but you're starting back from scratch, and everyone is going to be a little bit wary of people with 0 trust.

I can't get behind a guilty before proven innocent system, sorry.

Yeah, shouldn't PGP web of trust or something similiar be everything we need?
I am generally against of the community creating some kind of "bitcoin law" & legal system. Isn't warning against spammers/scammers/thiefs/griefers etc. enough ?

Anyway, how to punish somebody over the internet for doing something bad ? How to force him to pay ? "Bitcoin law" seems weird idea to me.

[rebuilder]

Yeah, shouldn't PGP web of trust or something similiar be everything we need?
I am generally against of the community creating some kind of "bitcoin law" & legal system. Isn't warning against spammers/scammers/thiefs/griefers etc. enough ?

Anyway, how to punish somebody over the internet for doing something bad ? How to force him to pay ? "Bitcoin law" seems weird idea to me.

I don't think anything more is being proposed. But how do you make sure someone is a scammer? In a community where reputation is king, false accusations are a very serious matter. This is why we need arbitration services. Using them must be voluntary, but it would probably help to have a basic contract of sorts written up that people can refer to. Common ground that you can deviate from if all parties agree.

I feel like I'm just repeating what I said on the first page now.

[Anonymous]

Government is ok when you opt in voluntarily. The trouble is they never let you opt out and you are forced to pay whether you use the 'service' or not.

[rebuilder]

Government is ok when you opt in voluntarily. The trouble is they never let you opt out and you are forced to pay whether you use the 'service' or not.

Who's talking about government?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Government is ok when you opt in voluntarily. The trouble is they never let you opt out and you are forced to pay whether you use the 'service' or not.

Who's talking about government?

We are (including yourself), kind of. If you haven't noticed.

[BCEmporium]

Prior to law, moreover here the Civil Code, we must settle the Principle - on Earthling meanings, the "constitution". Under which principle we create a rule, under which principle it may be applicable, to which reasonably and extent.

Principle are not made: they are discovered.

Yes, but there's a need for guidelines, a set of laws or rules can't go erratically or done-as-we-go.

[rebuilder]

We are (including yourself), kind of. If you haven't noticed.

No, I haven't noticed, unless you're using a very broad definition of government. I'm talking about drafting a contract base for people to use in their trades and letting them decide for themselves how/if they want to make sure both parties conform. There is no top-down element. In fact, I'd argue this would be less of a government than what we currently have here as it would hopefully reduce the mob rule aspects of dispute resolution in favour of whatever means the people actually involved can agree on.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

We are (including yourself), kind of. If you haven't noticed.

No, I haven't noticed, unless you're using a very broad definition of government. I'm talking about drafting a contract base for people to use in their trades and letting them decide for themselves how/if they want to make sure both parties conform. There is no top-down element. In fact, I'd argue this would be less of a government than what we currently have here as it would hopefully reduce the mob rule aspects of dispute resolution in favour of whatever means the people actually involved can agree on.

Well, if government = "some number of people elected by someone to impose laws & punishments on the rest of the population", then we are talking about government.

From original kiba's post i concluded that this is what we are discussing here.

[rebuilder]

I can't speak for kiba, but I would never support such a system. I said before all parties must consent to being bound by arbitration.

[BCEmporium]

I can't speak for kiba, but I would never support such a system. I said before all parties must consent to being bound by arbitration.

As I see the major vote tendency is for anarchy, so anarchy it is then. It's neither a good or a bad thing anyway.
Prior to deal with a market we must simply know where we are stepping into.

A regulated, with state or somehow enforced rules is one thing, an anarchist market is another. In one you lose one thing, on the other other but you can't have the best of both worlds. We can trim a bit using the community, but there again is at parts will.

So, basic and only rule become: Look up for your assets or nobody will.

[rebuilder]

Another matter is that there are serious limits on what we can do in terms of enforcement, anyway. If you want to use force to enforce compliance of any rules, you'll probably have to do it via the courts in nation states. Some here have denounced such practices, but that doesn't change the fact that recourse to enforced law is available to all of us. If you want to avoid that, you have to maintain strong anonymity at all times. Nothing else can protect you.

"Won't" is nice, but "can't" is better.
That's why, while I think arbitration and clear communication regarding how we expect others to conduct their business with us are important, it is more important to improve the ways we do trade in order to limit risk caused by dishonesty, incompetence, oversights and miscommunication.

[myrkul]

Anyone could explain me why would we need a new government now that we have a new parasite free currency?

Well, you need a government. You.. you just do.

[BCEmporium]

vladimir;

Fair enough, but if it is to run without rule or regulation, then don't expect also things which just exists under rule and regulation.
They're two worlds, different Worlds, different rules, different tools.
If it's intended to not use "mob" or "street" justice around, then some rules are needed to get to know "who's right" and "who's wrong".

[myrkul]

some rules are needed to get to know "who's right" and "who's wrong".

Agreed, you do need groundrules. Rules, however, do not require Rulers. Voluntary self-regulation is sufficient, and you're free to not deal with anyone who refuses to hold to the rules. No need to pay thugs to beat anyone up.