I have not had time to form an opinion on what you've said but I think
arbitration and law systems based on reputation are the future.

FYI I wrote them an email. If I hear back, I will forward the reply.

------------------

Hi,

I just discovered the project and I'm very excited about it.
Perhaps I can be of some help in the project but first I want to hear
all of the details. I have 5 years of experience with open source programming,
both as my profession and my hobby. I am the founder of the cjdns project so
I have some experience with leadership and community consensus building.

Can you tell me:

1. Where is the watering hole?
AKA the mailing list or IRC channel where the bitnation software and policy
development is coordinated.

2. Where is the code, when can I see (even incomplete non-working) code?

3. How much code will be open source, what will the license be?

4. Can I have the most recent draft of the protocol design specs?
How about the old drafts?

5. Where is the wiki and where is the bugtracker for managing todo tasks? :D

Hope to hear back soon.

Thanks,
Caleb

---------------------


On 10/03/2014 08:27 AM, Odinn Cyberguerrilla wrote:
> Fundamentally, I do not think there is such a thing as a "voluntary government," although such a concept has been defended here and there by some BitNation advocates.
>
> Corporation-states do not operate on the basis of consensus, and if they did, they could not long exist. Mathematically it would not be possible for it to occur beyond a set so limited as to be highly problematic. As I've pointed out elsewhere, I feel that the temptation of @MyBitNation / BitNation (or a DAC) to enforce "nations" in any form across blockchains will be too strong. They will be unable to do so although a DAC may be developed that notionally represents the idea of what BitNation
> may consider a "voluntary government" (which is more accurately described as a coercive structure that may be a DAC or a partially decentralized corporation-state which seeks private actors to adhere by contract to its mandates, perhaps within the context of a smart property).
>
> Finally, there will eventually arise actors who will seek to have many around the world honor and pay tribute to the DAC of said actors' choice. For them it will not suffice to merely seek so-called "voluntary" participants who become bound by contracts and limitations as a consequence of their joining such a DAC as a BitNation. Eventually such (human) actors, whether or not their chosen DAC is successful, will become unsatisfied with their march of progress, and will turn to seizing resources
> of those around them so that they can allocate it as they see fit. They will in time wage war on those who do not agree with their principles.
>
> Examining the system which is being developed through Ethereum which will lead to ease of development of distributed autonomous organizations, it is obvious that these will exist and they will proliferate.
>
> In fact, I personally feel that self-healing, recursively speciating entities will emerge that will develop communication and knowledge between species, serving as autonomous knowledge nodes. Such autonomous knowledge nodes may ultimately be developed that will guide communities of humans through difficult and trying phases. These autonomous knowledge nodes may also occur as Emergent Autonomous Organisms, or EAOs, in a variety of nascent systems that blend the biological and the technological.
> This is alluded to as part 2(c) of a post I've authored here:
> https://github.com/ABISprotocol/ABIS/blob/master/specification_labordayweekend.md
>
> However, within the context of BitNation (as described at https://github.com/Bit-Nation), I strongly question the adherence (implicit or direct) to the old linguistic notions that bind, some of which are tied up within commonly used words such as "government," "nations," and the like. These terms include "governance," which I think we must question strongly and ultimately discard as a solution for societal ills. It is likely that Alexis de Tocqueville (the author of Democracy in America) would
> not agree with me were he alive today, but these are different times, not the early 1800s during which he wandered, and certainly we are well and above 200 years past the time of the initial excitement over Hegelian romantic nationalism. Certainly nationalism was well within Hegel's "spirit of the age," but like the slavery that de Toqueville apparently detested when he traveled the United States, "nationalism" and "governance" are today similarly indefensible.
>
> People do not consent to "governance" and nationalism. Such "consent" to being governed, if one could document that it has been granted, is at best partial or illusory, not a permanent record (such as that intended by the blockchain), as the individual is never truly bound to any community that such an individual may one day realize is not worth belonging to. People are born into and struggle with the status quo system. The systems we build should at once give them a choice to leave the
> status quo systems which they find themselves in, and encouragement to build their own future with others.
>
> On 2014-10-01 05:24, epsylon wrote:
>> http://www.bitnation.co/
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>