The Bitcoin development process is becoming in my view unsustainable. We
have to understand that any such network will carry in itself a political
view of the world. There is no neutral view. This relates strongly to the
BIP process, which we should draw lessons from (as everything else).

This kind of process has a lot of parallels to ICANN/DNS viz-a-viz
Namecoin. I believe the question is how one can embed rules, i.e. laws,
which can be layered to various degrees. Git shares some features with
Bitcoin, as in that all the history is preserved. Julian Assange I believe
had this idea of creating historically preserved URL's via Namecoin. The
thing to note here is that ICANN is in process of selling the global
namespace of ideas to corporations. For instance Frank Schilling on the
Cayman islands is one such person. So we have corporations owning public
names and an intransparent process. Now also consider this connection. Say
every company or legal entity automatically gets an assigned URL. For
example .LTD for limited companies. Then the registrar for the Top Level
domain is essentially a governing body for these legal entities. We could
create our own such scheme, but the legal entities are built from scratch
and not on the absurdity that is the international law today.




On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Benjamin Cordes <
benjamin.l.cordes@???> wrote:

> Imagine we have a Bitcoin like network (say it's identical to the current
> network as of today). The network has a static address attached to it. This
> address is the called the mutual account and is known to everybody (the
> balance and the address). Every transaction has a fee which goes to the
> miner, but also a percentage which goes to this mutual account. The mutual
> account is locked securely by mechanism in the network. It can be only
> released given an agreement mechanism. This could be a simple vote or any
> other similar scheme. Every user of the network aggregates payments over
> the network (total BTC volume transfer). Instead of having only a fee for
> proof of work, we have a fee for support of the network. The user of the
> network gets notified via an anonymous separate Unique Ressource Location.
> There he will be able to login to a central server. On the central server
> he can decide how the collected fee will be spent. The network developers
> put up projects on the server and work on keeping them safe. This way
> bootstrapped resources can be used to built out the network. Also there
> would be better mechanisms for users to decide on how the network should
> evolve. We can easily cap the fees or invent any scheme we want.
>
> I'm currently reading Law and Revolution by Harold J. Berman. Here is one
> quote of many which is relevant: "the law contains within itself a legal
> science, a meta-law, by which it can be both analyzed and evaluated. Money
> is never just a neutral token. It is issued by governments through the
> banking system. Because the banking laws are written by the banks, this
> system has created the monstrosity of modern banking. This is clear as day
> after 2008, but absolutely nothing has been done. Quite the contrary. The
> central banks have printed unbelievable quantities of money (the Fed
> balance sheet trippled under Helicopter Ben). However, it is hard to find
> any economist in the world who really understands this, because of
> political blindness. This is true for breakdown of the financial system and
> government.
>