Hello,

ben wrote:
> 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?

I think the comment that "without a state backing up..." (etc.)
describes some of the fundamental problems that we face as a species.
Many people are unable or unwilling to perceive possible change until
it smashes down upon them. Comments I've seen which bandy about
opinions on fungibility and scaling in an effort to discount the
viability of large-scale use of decentralized systems or in attempts
to discout or dismiss the possibility of large scale massively
distributed social goods not managed by centralized systems, are
representative of largely uninformed thinking (and may also reveal the
inability of some persons to integrate mathematical and logical
knowledge into the development of their ideas).

I'd rather build the change I'd like to see happen, and then build and
rebuild some more wherever obstacles or problems are encountered,
rather than spend time yakking about how it can't happen (or how it
should). With these kinds of efforts, a lot of time can easily be
wasted by wallowing in pessimism. One must simple move forward.

With that said, a first step to this idea of "decentralization and
expansion of a giving economy and a new social good" is presenting
some test cases, e.g. through plugin or wallet and showing that the
issues relating to aggregation, fees, and various other issues can be
overcome, while also showing that it's viable within the context of
certain business transactions that people might normally engage in.

It isn't my objective personally to build a DDSVDI, but I think that
it could be built down the road and would like to see it happen.
Things like the DDSVDI concept are just going to be vapor until
certain prerequisites are tested and built, namely, the sort of
currency system modifications (or wallet-based solutions) that would
enable someone to actually give more readily to anyone you desire as
part of any transaction. Our current systems simply don't allow that
to easily happen, to oput it mildly.

With that in mind, I've gone ahead to work with a business on ABIS
related matters that is willing to test some of its concepts a little
further down the road, I may soon have a wallet which implements it in
at least one currency system (with two others under review also) and I
anticipate next year there may be plugins available that allow it to
happen as well. Also probably next year I'll be examining the idea of
multi-currency wallets more seriously as candidates for getting code
developed re. ABIS (I'm not thrilled with the current models and
examples of multi-currency wallets). Once there is a proof of the
concept, tested rigorously enough in at least one currency system (as
well as examined within the context of a time bank system used where I
live), progress will be a bit easier on finding ways to get ABIS
concepts integrated into other systems.

Ciao

>
> -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
>>
>
>

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