ben wrote:
> Do you guys have any ideas how to kickstart unconditional basic
> income outside the "democratic" governmental system we have today?

Sure ben, that's easy.

Well, rephrasing that:
It will take a lot of work.
But the basic mechanics of it are not too difficult and at least some,
but not all, aspects of it can already be supported in cryptosystems
that are fairly widespread.

Participants could establish a bitid (https://github.com/bitid) but
probably wouldn't need to do that for it to work. In other words so
long as you have an address that can receive funds it would likely
function. Things like stealth addresses would likely only make this
easier as support grows for stealth and unlinkable transactions.

(Note: The technology may not "be there" yet to readily support
'unconditional basic income,' but it will likely look something like
the below diagram. Assumptions are that participation is voluntary,
which it would need to be for this to function since consensus-based
systems don't facilitate coercion system-wide, donations would come
from wallets which have an ABIS-styled feature (http://abis.io) or
within the context of ongoing crowdfunding and deliberative /
participatory and dynamic priority development (think: something like
Lighthouse by M. Hearn), and if you participate you will also be able
to partake in the fruits, not unlike storj or maidsafe's 'farmer'
concept (at the 30,000 foot level). It also assumes that surplus
generated through such technology would support (to some degree) a
certain (and changing) number of those who have never donated to the
system, referred to as an SVDI below. Finally, this would be based on
decentralized applications and cryptographic functions that are
adopted through consensus, not on the basis of law, legal concepts, or
so forth. Even if a legally binding document were to support such a
system, it would not be possible for it to exist and function on an
ongoing basis without consensus of the users outside of the context of
any law. Participants will distance themselves from violent, coercive
(read: "legal") actors in such a system, and consensus emerges based
on what people collectively find sensible, not based on what you want
to force others to do ~ not unlike how bitcoin and other decentralized
systems change over time, though instead of a handful of miners, each
participant in the system I tentatively envision would have a voice
and a say based on what Description of Purpose they do or do not adopt
and to the extent they will support said Purpose with time, energy,
resources, and whatnot.)

for simplicity, let's call this "A Decentralized And Distributed
System for Voluntary Distribution of Income," a.k.a. DDSVDI, which in
short form we may call simply "SVDI" for future reference. (kind of
sounds like SSDI almost, doesn't it? Funny how that works)

The SVDI contains certain functions. They can be part of wallets and
/ or part of an API. They can be described or visualized generally,
as per the below (very simplistic) text-based diagram.

[[[[ Y(GI) --> PA --> R(P) ]]]]

[[[ ParticipantDonation ]]] x [[[ P ]]] where P = number of
participants (dynamic, grows) = [[[ Y ]]] where Y = total yield in
terms of amounts available through all PrimaryAddresses (PAs)

[[ GrowthIndicator (GI) ]] = performance indicator which measures
growth of yield within addresses associated with the SVDI

[ PrimaryAddress (PA) ] = one of any number of addresses which are
designated as trusted recipient addresses for funds donated to the
SVDI to arrive at (basically repositories of funds slated for a social
good) conceptually similar to a program's determination of peers that
can be connected to by a d-cent, distributed p2p application, but this
is in the address context. The addresses have characteristics, such as:
- - Supermulti. Supermulti is a concept (that I have made up, which
doesn't exist yet) that describes characteristics of multisignature
addresses that can handle more than a few signatures and that allow
people to become co-signators on an ongoing and nearly unlimited
basis. Thus more co-signators may be added to the supermulti
PrimaryAddresses after the creation of a PrimaryAddress in the SVDI
context, but by becoming co-signators on the PrimaryAddress, this does
not create another step needed to release funds, but rather is a
specialized type of cryptographic signature indicating that the
co-signator is in support of the Description of Purpose (which is
described below). Finally, a PrimaryAddress with supermulti
characteristics would be able to constantly release amounts of
cryptocurrency rapidly to participants (note that participants and
microdonors in the SVDI are also recipients at some point) within the
context of an MCP-driven system (e.g.,
https://github.com/ABISprotocol/mcp) in which a payment channel server
or light node would facilitate large numbers of transactions on a
fairly constant basis, _without_ cosignators who joined after
PrimaryAddress creation having to sign for release of funds. Creators
of the PrimaryAddress would in the supermulti context be able to
designate conditions for when surplus could be released to persons who
have not made any donations, and they could also issue special
signatures that would function to release transactions on an ongoing
basis, e.g. to an extent that allows them to continue for months or
years contingent upon availability (diminishing returns imply a
reduction in amounts released or emitted, increasing returns and
donations imply an increase once a certain amount is reached).
Multisig exists, of course, but for emphasis, supermulti is just my
mind at work throwing out desirable supergoo [characteristics that I
find interesting and which would be useful if they existed].
A supermulti address may be able to handle many thousands of
co-signers and an unlimited number of microdonors. A PrimaryAddress
in the SVDI would be supermulti.
- - Description of Purpose. Each primary address would have a
description irrevocably attached to it which co-signators accept as
the reason for the PrimaryAddress to exist. In other words, they
wouldn't become co-signers for a PrimaryAddress unless they were in
agreement with the notion that the disposition of the funds would
occur on an ongoing basis without their ongoing permission.
Signatures in this context essentially mean that more co-signators
make a PrimaryAddress more trustable because a larger number of people
would have signed as agreeing to its Description of Purpose.
- - EAO-compatible. The PrimaryAddress must be compatible with, and be
able to receive direction and commands from, Emergent Autonomous
Organisms, as they are described at
https://github.com/ABISprotocol/ImmortalCode and at
https://github.com/ABISprotocol/ABIS/blob/master/specification_labordayweekend.md
(in part, these are envisioned as "Third-degree" developed EAOs where,
"present-day humans are capable of interaction with the Digital DNA of
EAOs, and should be able to communicate in other ways with the EAOs."
This means that the EAOs will handle certain distribution systems
where some hundreds of thousands or millions (depending upon the
extent of participation) of microdonors are involved. The physical
manifestations of EAOs would be primarily land-based, but may
eventually (periodically or permanently) migrate to the regions
largely outside of human control, such as certain areas in Earth
orbit, or extremely deep areas of the ocean where humans are unable to
reach.

R = Recipient Addresses and is described above as a function of P
(number of participants), thus, R(P).

There's more I could add to this but that suffices.

p.s. The corporation-state representatives of the NYDFS, Russian
Federation, North Korea, and other such pointless dinosaur turd
organizations can eat my shorts.

Peace

ben wrote:
> Do you guys have any ideas how to kickstart unconditional basic
> income outside the "democratic" governmental system we have today?
> As I see it, the rich could have paid it easely, but they are
> hoarders and they fight to get it all monopoly style.
>
> Ive seen studies and pilot programs in africa where they have had
> great results. And to me this seems to have the greatest effect in
> individuals not seeing everyone around as their competitor(survival
> of the fittest), but just as a part of the hole human organisme?
>
> Dont know if this might be a long shot..
>
> 2014-10-20 10:37 GMT+02.00, odinn
> <odinn.cyberguerrilla@???>: (Ruminations)
>
> I don't consider myself a libertarian, and dislike boxes, but I'm
> voluntaryistic / cryptoanarchistic with a dash of
> constitutionalism (e.g. if people bothered to fight long enough for
> "rights," and defend them in a variety of fora, then we should
> consider what those rights are and respect them when they are
> expressed ~ though I don't mean that as an endorsement of the
> state, it's simply "what people do" and "how we respect each
> other"). Throw in a dash of zen, and you've got enough terms to
> put me in a box. I don't care much for politicians, but I
> appreciate that more people seem to be aware that they can choose
> more than red or blue (e.g., go with third parties) if they wish to
> vote. But that's just me stating the obvious.
>
> ( Caleb ~ )You asked where that libertarian stateless utopia is.
> You probably did not read the full article that I sent. A quote
> from the article comes to mind: "Presented with statism's
> ridiculous and backward narrative, we must wonder who the
> starry-eyed utopians really are." Indeed! But moving right along:
> Remove "libertarian" and "utopia" and you are left with
> "stateless." So, to get to the root of it, where is this so-called
> stateless society? It should be plainly obvious that wherever it
> manifests it will be difficult to identify. It does not have a flag
> or a banner. It certainly does not have a Ron Paul or a party. It
> does not have national boundaries. It would be too easy if I were
> to to respond by saying it is everywhere and nowhere. But that's
> part of it, so I will say that it is everywhere -- everywhere that
> the minds and hearts of people who wish to co-create a new society
> make a decision in any moment of any day that they wish to liberate
> themselves from fear. It is not purely notional, either, as the
> distributed functions of consensus and the gears of
> decentralization have been turning in terms of societal
> development well before the internet came into existence and long
> before anyone could push a key on their computer and participate in
> decentralized and distributed-digital systems that do not require
> national boundaries or nationalistic identities and forms.
>
> There is a great deal of what I describe that occurs throughout
> society without being seen, which makes it harder to explain if
> you are asking for clear and perhaps visible evidence of it.
>
> I strongly suspect that the visible manifestations of developing
> decentralized, distributed systems and / or stateless societies
> will become far more evident only after anonymity technology
> advances enough to be both lightweight and widespread. Without
> saying much more about that, I believe that 2015 will be a
> significant historical marker in the area of such technologies,
> which include, but are not limited to implementations of such a
> variety as SNARK-based unlinkable transactions via Zerocash, Output
> Distribution Obfuscation involving a hybridization of BTC system(s)
> and BCN ring signatures, distribution of stealth TX technology
> throughout large numbers of currency systems (currently it is
> present in several systems), and Scalable Zero Knowledge via Cycles
> of Elliptic Curves designed to make zero knowledge proofs
> lightweight and accessible to all programmers, contingent on
> provable CPU. These are but a few of the many developments that
> will alter many aspects of your life in ways mostly unseen.
>
> I have stated in various fora that it has taken almost 226 years
> to arrive at the next major point of revolution action, and by
> necessity that is 'anonymity.' However, without relational
> strength and an understanding of how relationships themselves are
> the ultimate technology, the exponentially expanding possibilities
> for collective and distributed participation to compassionately
> serve many elements and aid in the determination of priorities to
> fund, and more, will not be realized. (My project, http://abis.io,
> still in a very early stage, is a reflection of my optimism that we
> are capable of doing more together (without direction being given
> by "authoritative" organizations) given time and a greater level of
> understanding.) Thus there will be a constant tension between
> bellicose corporation-states, their struggling advocates, and the
> increasing numbers of persons who either by choice or undesired
> circumstance, become (for all intents and purposes) stateless,
> whether or not they declare or are even aware of it being so. Some
> have made statelessness an advocacy issue or a point which they
> have individually declared. I submit that it is not about such a
> declaration (though declarations are interesting to explore as
> expressions within the context of discussion of what statelessness
> might mean), but rather about a realization that one may be free
> from fear and in opening oneself to finding the _many_ _vehicles_
> to a more compassionate future, the detachment from statism (and
> indeed, departures from ideologies of all kinds) will come
> naturally. Such terms, such as "stateless," "government," and
> "statism," indeed will cease to have relevance in the way we
> understand them today as society realizes more and more its
> collective potential. Perhaps then we will begin to consider
> "stateful" (such as, in a state of being) more descriptive of these
> 'decentralization developments' than "stateless" within the context
> of the corporation-state, or even notice that such references to
> the "state" as a nation, government, or corporation-state will
> diminish, for if the "state" as it has been known is no longer that
> important to us, then we need not regularly refer to it, nor need
> we be bound to other arguably related terminologies, such as
> "anarchism," "socialism," "capitalism," and all the -isms we have
> allowed to condition our minds. Freeing oneself from fear, thus
> the old language will not excite or raise one's interest, but
> natural thoughts which create concepts, new terms, and numerous
> permutations and styles of meditation, can arise at any time, for
> any person, anywhere. The vehicles to our destinations, of course,
> are those which you might intend or those that you realize or are
> surprised by ~ they are countless in number. Thus does language set
> the tone for what we may choose to build for our shared future, the
> relationship provide the basis for connecting our minds and hearts
> to each other, and the reflection upon our present moment create
> the state in which we exist, now.
>
> Stopping here. The stars are out.
>
> -Odinn
>
> Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>>> Hi Odinn, Thanks for your reply, I know taking a socialist
>>>> position on an unabashedly libertarian list is not going to
>>>> be popular but I sent it here because I really want to be
>>>> fact-checked. ~nothing more infuriating than bobbing heads of
>>>> unconstructive agreement..
>>>>
>>>> Your link speaks of "Rights of The State", this immediately
>>>> struck me because I don't any longer care about rights, I
>>>> care about people.
>>>>
>>>> I was born in the USA which pays awful heed to Rights and
>>>> Justice, and trucks millions off to prison cells for
>>>> violation of The Law. I was a fervent follower of the
>>>> libertarian dogma myself it because it looks so damned good
>>>> on paper (I even have a pair of Ron Paul tshirts to prove
>>>> it).
>>>>
>>>> The question I have is "where's the beef?" where is the
>>>> libertarian stateless utopia? I understand we can't have
>>>> perfect now so maybe there is something moving in the right
>>>> direction, a small-government state where individual
>>>> liberties are protected? Give me any example you like as long
>>>> as it's not some kind of libertarian community which exists
>>>> under the protective umbrella of a social state.
>>>>
>>>> I've not been able to find any such example and so have taken
>>>> to trying to understand why what looks so good in theory
>>>> doesn't apply in practice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2014 02:51 AM, odinn wrote:
>>>>> Caleb,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to waste energy typing in my own words here
>>>>> what someone else has written in a way that I think would
>>>>> enhance understanding of this subject in a better way than
>>>>> if I were to comment further on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> With that said, I think you really need to read (and
>>>>> carefully re-read) the following article, which I submit
>>>>> may well enhance your understanding of this matter
>>>>> substantially: http://c4ss.org/content/32570
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> -Odinn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>>>>>> I have a hypotheses which has been percolating in the
>>>>>> back of my mind for some time now and I thought now is a
>>>>>> good time to share it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For all that libertarian systems offer in theory, they
>>>>>> have a distinct problem that when it comes to practice.
>>>>>> Unless you consider Texas a utopia, libertarian utopias
>>>>>> don't really exist and I wanted to study how something
>>>>>> which looks so good on paper manages to fail so
>>>>>> completely in practice.
>>>>>
>>>>>> To be ruled by law, as opposed to being ruled by men,
>>>>>> means to me that nobody can just order your execution or
>>>>>> imprisonment without dire consequences. Given wealth and
>>>>>> power are interchangeable, if you live in a country where
>>>>>> one person controls 99% of the wealth of the nation,
>>>>>> there is no rule of law. He can just simply up the
>>>>>> government and whatever checks and balances you put in
>>>>>> place he can undo or subvert. Judges, as impartial as
>>>>>> they might like to be, do not live in a vacuum and
>>>>>> challenging a de-facto dictator is not good for one's
>>>>>> health.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore, wealth redistribution is not about paying alms
>>>>>> to the poor but about making sure that nobody amasses
>>>>>> such power as to threaten society as a whole.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> tl;dr wealth and power are interchangeable, wealth/power
>>>>>> pools up in certain lucky and industrious individuals,
>>>>>> without redistributing it, democracies devolve into
>>>>>> oligarchies and then eventually into monarchy or chaos.
>>>>>> The US is in the oligarchy phase.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>>>
>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>> list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>
>

- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn