Mike,

"all of those paper documents, the ones that are good for human beings and
the bad, are backed up by unlimited, unaccountable, monopolistic deadly
force."

I agree. As a German the insanity of history is always around the corner.
It is a rather strange influence in the collective psyche. German
politicians often speak about preventing such a dictatorship, but they
never speak about what this actually means. Instead they went forward and
trashed the constitution, establishing a different autocratic regime, which
even carries the same name as the Soviet union.



On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Benjamin Cordes <
benjamin.l.cordes@???> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
>