Quote from: dennisn on January 23, 2014, 03:01:04 PM

This is trivial to accomplish, and morally[1] justified. The real question is how successful would a competition of MoralCoins be. I think it actually might even be possible to algorithmically program moral rules into the technology -- whereby there simply needs to be a near-consensus of client-provided factual input, and the algorithms handle the rest. This would alleviate the ubiquitous fears of slippery slopes and emotional mobs.

For example, nobody can deny that the coins were taken from DPR without his consent. Someone might try to "argue" (in MoralCoin's programmable logic language) that DPR was bound by a so-called Social Contract, but that will be invalid since a contract requires informed consent. And so on.

[1] Morality is universal. (And thus rational / logical.)

Bitcoin has already implemented your "algorithmically programed moral rules into the technology -- whereby there simply needs to be a near-consensus".

The current behavior is the initial state of the system.

If a "near-consensus" agrees on a new behavior of the system, then open-source developers modify the code, and people indicate their agreement with the near-consensus by upgrading their wallets.

What is clear is that there is nothing even close to a "near-consensus" for most of these silly ideas.