And thanks for the article link Aaron :)

2014-10-21 12:13 GMT+02.00, ben <colypse@???>:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/2jvgxf/a_cryptographic_way_to_ubi/
>
> 2014-10-21 12:06 GMT+02.00, ben <colypse@???>:
>> Hey Odinn. I posted your idea in the basic incom reddit section to get
>> some new thoughts into it. This is the first comment:
>>
>> Basic income only works if it is fungible. Without a state backing up
>> a given currency as a medium of exchange, no cryptocurrency can be
>> considered to be fungible in a universal sense.
>> This is good work, though. I'm really impressed by the effort. (end of
>> comment)
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I dont have the knowledge to understand the technical stuff you wrote.
>> But to me, this only shows the limitation of the persons way of
>> thinking, the governments powerstructure and the need to free them
>> from the "backing" making them obsolete so they are left behind or
>> implement it as a new paradigm.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> -ben
>>
>> 2014-10-21 10:16 GMT+02.00, ben <colypse@???>:
>>> Thanks for the answer and the ideas Odinn :D
>>>
>>> 2014-10-21 9:20 GMT+02.00, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd@???>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2014 10:37 AM, odinn wrote:
>>>>> (Ruminations)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't consider myself a libertarian, and dislike boxes, but I'm
>>>>
>>>> Of course, there is a conflict of needs.. on the one hand we need some
>>>> kind of words to communicate but whatever words we choose will be
>>>> misinterpreted either intentionally or unintentionally by others, fwiw
>>>> I understand that nothing quite fits.
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> I think we should be careful of immortalizing a `right' because it's
>>>> something people have historically fought for. People in history have
>>>> fought for ``the right'' to do some pretty gruesome things, at least
>>>> gruesome by today's standards... At the time it was considered normal
>>>> and right.
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> I would not have written you back without reading it first, tired
>>>> as I was having just gotten up I may not have caught every nuance.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I saw it, what then is the objective of a stateless society, or
>>>> really any political endevor, if not to create a utopia or at least
>>>> something better than what we have today ?
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I respect your position here, personally I feel that the opportunity
>>>> of anonymity is limited and will eventually pail in comparison to
>>>> decentralized states which compete for the individual's voluntary
>>>> association.
>>>>
>>>> The reason why I don't expect the anonymous cryptoanarchy to scale
>>>> is because The Darknet, as it were, is the Jungle. One mistake, one
>>>> too many details in an IRC story, one day too late to update your
>>>> system...
>>>> () {:;}; you're lunch.
>>>> It is not exactly a society without rulers; it is a society ruled,
>>>> in a very personal one-on-one way, by whoever has the most blackmail
>>>> and 0days.
>>>>
>>>> In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is
>>>> getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is
>>>> stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Caleb
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Caleb James DeLisle
>>>> XWiki SAS
>>>> calebjamesdelisle@???
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mvh Ben Johansen
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mvh Ben Johansen
>>
>
>
> --
> Mvh Ben Johansen
>


--
Mvh Ben Johansen