Thanks for your serious questions about the idea, I try to answer all of them, hope to convince you and the others may read these posts and are interested in.
"people are people". That’s the point. People supposed to be people, with all their greed, passion, bias, good wills, morals and taboo, and if a solution supposed to work, has to work with the “people” literally.
someone needs to create the code, right? Same was with the laws. They were created by humans for humans to limit the ones who are not creators of the code/law.
This methodology follows old model of civilization where the elite (or who has power, or religious authority) makes the rules and the normal people had to obey. We have internet and useful tools (mainly cryptography and blockchain and many other handy tools).
What about if we change the social order and make a system in which middle class people makes the rule and put it in practice and follow their own rules. They do not need the elite decide for them. Let alone the fact that nowadays even an average Joe can analyze and decide as good as a president if he has the enough unbiased sources. I mentioned this off-topic average Joe discourses by purpose, and later we probably will come back to him!
Going back to our discussion about the “code is law” and “who” and “how” decides about that “law”? The answer is the “system population”. The middle class people, the average Joe, the worker and the professors as well are decider about rules.
Lets re-explain the system. We prepare a “template” software. The software which is working and has too many parameters to configure it arbitrarily. Everyone (preferably non technical people) can download the software, tweak it, shape it, re-define some parts or cut the other parts or add new parts to it, and finally run it. Now s/he established a new realm which governs by her/his customized rules. s/he is the first population of this new territory. Obviously s/he starts to inviting others to her/his territory -As we know from our civilization history the more population means more powerful community-. Here are big differences between our new societies and the “early societies in human history”.
In early societies the “cost of disobedience” was too high, indeed it is still too high in our current real world. Meanwhile in our new territory it is almost zero cost.
Our hunter ancestors had to be a part of society to be survived. They had no choice. The alone man would die because of outside dangers or because of not having food to eat, or both. The necessity for being a part of a society was underlying on lowest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, whereas in our new societies people will join to a society because of their “believes”. Please do not misunderstood the word “believer” for its religious common usage.
I will join to community in which they respect my opinions (whatever they are), and you will do the same. So everybody join to community or society which has much respect for her/his opinion. The people with same mindset forming a society in which there is no discrimination for sex, race, nationality or Geo-location – unless the community rules was being racist rules -.
And what is the outcome of these different systems (aka communities, societies, networks, friends cycles depends on the population number and the rules they set)?
I sent another short essay and explained more details about idea from another perspective. You can find it here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0
overtime the systems, due to their nature…
Absolutely true. That’s why we have to have many different systems (like many different version or distribution of Linux) with slightly difference in rules, monetary, etc. As long as we follow our principles we join some groups or leave the other ones. For example for me the maximum decentralization is important, so I support the community with high level of decentralization and as a member of a community, I strive for more and more decentralization. Each system supports (or tolerates) a level of decentralization due to its rules, and I always select the societies with better rules. Once our human natures be freed from old fears and refreshed by new mindset, we will not the slave of our old fears and stresses, that day we already established the best society on top of this software infrastructure. It takes time and too many systems will be born and be destroyed before that day (like too many civilization we have had before, but too accelerated in sense of time). Finally there will be systems which are good for human prosperity and will survive for ever. We may or may not see that days but we have to move on. What I am pretty sure is “we are making the world a little better place and it worth to fight”.
Until the gov sees the thread and shuts down the internet?
That day will be too late to shoutdown the internet. As I told before no one take us serious, and actually it is good. We will have time to prove our ideologies and governing models and…
IMHO the government is nothing but a group of frightened people. Some of them are corrupted person as well. But the main point is the “fear”. One of our mission -in different societies and by different strategies- is “wipe out the fear”. It is a long story and I’ll explain it in another post. But for now let imagine there is no fear. If governments do not afraid about these networks why they should stop them? Obviously in short term there are “conflict of interest” and our mission is “resist the networks against all kind of adversaries”. It is about technical issues rather than philosophical matter. Every step of development (either the software itself or the societies around the software) has proper threats and solutions too, and As a technical I guarantee we can resist against all potential threats. Until the day no adversary exist “And the world will live as one”.
wouldn't it be same as now but on a bigger scale? Like we won't have USA, China, Russia, UK, etc., but would have one global country / community where bad systems failed, the good one remained; where still will be left governors / (code developers in our case?)
I think I already answered these, at the end of the day there will be “just some rules”. No government and no governors. Only people and their rules. Maybe only one society remains or a few societies, but I predict ALL of them will have same rules slightly different. BTW the rule maker will not same as what we have now. They are literally all. There will no monopoly for “Ruling class”. The “police authorities” most probably will exist just for immediate intervention in emergency cases for defense citizen rights and not for people suppression.
The “ local sub-systems of the global system” and this kind of hierarchical structures will be substituted by a kind of flat distribution of power. It will be like different two dimensional shapes that have something in common or some are totally separated islands. BTW non of these communities has superiority on the others. Of course some of them are more excellence than the other one, and since it has no cost for people to join or leave one community in favor of the other community (unlike current national borders, political regimes, communities or even ideologies), people will immigrate to most excellent community ASAP.
If the designed system is really that good and powerful and is able to change the world and status quo of the current elites, politicians, etc., they definitely wouldn't want to give up all what they got and start from 0 by earning credits for good actions... and with the resources they already have now, in materialistic world, I think they would have pretty good chance to stop it fairly quickly if they need to. While trying to take them and benefit them too in the new system, would gain create inequality as it is now, but in a different form.
True, so we need a thought-out schedule. They definitely wouldn't want to give up all unless they "have to" or "convinced to". We just need to keep alive the system till the point the adversaries be convince to join or give up (depends on their wisdom). We can maintain the system without compromising our ideals. We do not need billionaires at all. We are establishing communities that have their monies which worth absolutely nothing and represents only the owner will of making world better place. Over time -if the community survive – they can get some materialistic benefits of those coins too. We will run our nodes on cheap laptops. We do not need funds, super servers, advertisements, etc, etc. No, all we need is minded people and their will for making a better world.
Let me know if I missed some parts or some answers are insufficient. Meanwhile I'll prepare more stuff to share.
"people are people". That’s the point. People supposed to be people, with all their greed, passion, bias, good wills, morals and taboo, and if a solution supposed to work, has to work with the “people” literally.
someone needs to create the code, right? Same was with the laws. They were created by humans for humans to limit the ones who are not creators of the code/law.
This methodology follows old model of civilization where the elite (or who has power, or religious authority) makes the rules and the normal people had to obey. We have internet and useful tools (mainly cryptography and blockchain and many other handy tools).
What about if we change the social order and make a system in which middle class people makes the rule and put it in practice and follow their own rules. They do not need the elite decide for them. Let alone the fact that nowadays even an average Joe can analyze and decide as good as a president if he has the enough unbiased sources. I mentioned this off-topic average Joe discourses by purpose, and later we probably will come back to him!
Going back to our discussion about the “code is law” and “who” and “how” decides about that “law”? The answer is the “system population”. The middle class people, the average Joe, the worker and the professors as well are decider about rules.
Lets re-explain the system. We prepare a “template” software. The software which is working and has too many parameters to configure it arbitrarily. Everyone (preferably non technical people) can download the software, tweak it, shape it, re-define some parts or cut the other parts or add new parts to it, and finally run it. Now s/he established a new realm which governs by her/his customized rules. s/he is the first population of this new territory. Obviously s/he starts to inviting others to her/his territory -As we know from our civilization history the more population means more powerful community-. Here are big differences between our new societies and the “early societies in human history”.
In early societies the “cost of disobedience” was too high, indeed it is still too high in our current real world. Meanwhile in our new territory it is almost zero cost.
Our hunter ancestors had to be a part of society to be survived. They had no choice. The alone man would die because of outside dangers or because of not having food to eat, or both. The necessity for being a part of a society was underlying on lowest level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, whereas in our new societies people will join to a society because of their “believes”. Please do not misunderstood the word “believer” for its religious common usage.
I will join to community in which they respect my opinions (whatever they are), and you will do the same. So everybody join to community or society which has much respect for her/his opinion. The people with same mindset forming a society in which there is no discrimination for sex, race, nationality or Geo-location – unless the community rules was being racist rules -.
And what is the outcome of these different systems (aka communities, societies, networks, friends cycles depends on the population number and the rules they set)?
I sent another short essay and explained more details about idea from another perspective. You can find it here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5303276.0
overtime the systems, due to their nature…
Absolutely true. That’s why we have to have many different systems (like many different version or distribution of Linux) with slightly difference in rules, monetary, etc. As long as we follow our principles we join some groups or leave the other ones. For example for me the maximum decentralization is important, so I support the community with high level of decentralization and as a member of a community, I strive for more and more decentralization. Each system supports (or tolerates) a level of decentralization due to its rules, and I always select the societies with better rules. Once our human natures be freed from old fears and refreshed by new mindset, we will not the slave of our old fears and stresses, that day we already established the best society on top of this software infrastructure. It takes time and too many systems will be born and be destroyed before that day (like too many civilization we have had before, but too accelerated in sense of time). Finally there will be systems which are good for human prosperity and will survive for ever. We may or may not see that days but we have to move on. What I am pretty sure is “we are making the world a little better place and it worth to fight”.
Until the gov sees the thread and shuts down the internet?
That day will be too late to shoutdown the internet. As I told before no one take us serious, and actually it is good. We will have time to prove our ideologies and governing models and…
IMHO the government is nothing but a group of frightened people. Some of them are corrupted person as well. But the main point is the “fear”. One of our mission -in different societies and by different strategies- is “wipe out the fear”. It is a long story and I’ll explain it in another post. But for now let imagine there is no fear. If governments do not afraid about these networks why they should stop them? Obviously in short term there are “conflict of interest” and our mission is “resist the networks against all kind of adversaries”. It is about technical issues rather than philosophical matter. Every step of development (either the software itself or the societies around the software) has proper threats and solutions too, and As a technical I guarantee we can resist against all potential threats. Until the day no adversary exist “And the world will live as one”.
wouldn't it be same as now but on a bigger scale? Like we won't have USA, China, Russia, UK, etc., but would have one global country / community where bad systems failed, the good one remained; where still will be left governors / (code developers in our case?)
I think I already answered these, at the end of the day there will be “just some rules”. No government and no governors. Only people and their rules. Maybe only one society remains or a few societies, but I predict ALL of them will have same rules slightly different. BTW the rule maker will not same as what we have now. They are literally all. There will no monopoly for “Ruling class”. The “police authorities” most probably will exist just for immediate intervention in emergency cases for defense citizen rights and not for people suppression.
The “ local sub-systems of the global system” and this kind of hierarchical structures will be substituted by a kind of flat distribution of power. It will be like different two dimensional shapes that have something in common or some are totally separated islands. BTW non of these communities has superiority on the others. Of course some of them are more excellence than the other one, and since it has no cost for people to join or leave one community in favor of the other community (unlike current national borders, political regimes, communities or even ideologies), people will immigrate to most excellent community ASAP.
If the designed system is really that good and powerful and is able to change the world and status quo of the current elites, politicians, etc., they definitely wouldn't want to give up all what they got and start from 0 by earning credits for good actions... and with the resources they already have now, in materialistic world, I think they would have pretty good chance to stop it fairly quickly if they need to. While trying to take them and benefit them too in the new system, would gain create inequality as it is now, but in a different form.
True, so we need a thought-out schedule. They definitely wouldn't want to give up all unless they "have to" or "convinced to". We just need to keep alive the system till the point the adversaries be convince to join or give up (depends on their wisdom). We can maintain the system without compromising our ideals. We do not need billionaires at all. We are establishing communities that have their monies which worth absolutely nothing and represents only the owner will of making world better place. Over time -if the community survive – they can get some materialistic benefits of those coins too. We will run our nodes on cheap laptops. We do not need funds, super servers, advertisements, etc, etc. No, all we need is minded people and their will for making a better world.
Let me know if I missed some parts or some answers are insufficient. Meanwhile I'll prepare more stuff to share.
I believe our long-essay replies might have scared rest of community members
Addressing your points:
As you correctly noted that people will forever be people with their fears, biases, etc. I think we can directly conclude that they will make any system, no matter how perfect it is, biased again, so again we will come to the point where we started.
Giving the right and ability to the "average Joe" to make important decisions might be not the most optimal solution, as myself forexample being non-expert in BioTech, I shouldn't be making any decisions there, but if given chance - I will (who knows?) then depending on "who scream louder" the rest of the crowd will follow the wrong source. Or, alternatively, if the society is smart enough, they will abandon the "average Joe's" proposition, and will naturally concentrate power around the ones with real knowledge and expertise (say in BioTech for example) and those, being humans by nature, will start to abuse the system again via the use of their new power.
I personally think that experts should make decisions on the area they are better than others, but if you let others make those decisions (including laws or codes) - it will be pretty. inefficient. Like if in simple terms - letting average person who knows nothing about tech and only cares about drinking beer in front of TV in the evening, decide about complex systems with consideration of advanced subjects from game theory, might be not the most optimal decision for the system population overall. That's partially related to off-topic discussion USA vs. China. In the US nearly every opinion was respected, while in China - not at all. And as a consequence, because too many people got their own opinion and scream very loud in the US, we have what we have, while in China government just silence the ones who disturb public order, and now it's on the way to become #1 economy in the world. Isn't that illustrative, that every opinion around the world, should not be respected and tolerated. Of course freedom of speech and self-expression is a basic human right and must be available to anyone, but not in the cases where it represents threat to the public order and social wellbeing.
And based on the proposed software, it's will be same with current KOLs inviting their followers to other communities. Like IG KOL inviting all followers to follow them on YouTube, vs. "average Joe" inviting his FB friends to join his TG channel. The result with the new software will be same - effortless joining/leaving the community, and nearly same powers as they have in the current conditions.
I wrote another longer essay on your thread, and was going to reply there, but since you mentioned will continue here
About having many different systems / sub-systems where everyone can join/rejoin/leave any at any time, how would that be different from the current world? The strongest countries will make obstacles for you to leave them / join new ones (citizenship of USA vs. citizenship of Cyprus for example), while we have all these social networks and apps that are born and die nearly every year, where people make sub-communities and micro-communities based on interests and anyone can join or leave any at no cost? The only difference I see here is creation of token/coin/currency within those sub-communities (which is not that necessary after all), but the rest is pretty same.
And about the gov shutting everything down - it's well possible any moment when needed. In the world there are only few trans-national cables that host the entire WWW, and governments have control over flow and can cut it off if really needed, though it's pretty extreme measure, but we have seen countries doing so in the past few years.
As for the last point about running nodes from cheap computers, that again comes to the same issue with BTC. Yes, you can allow just anyone from anywhere to run a node. But if I have right now $1,000,000, and you have only $100 - I can buy 10,000 cheap PCs, and you can buy only 1, so I will be more powerful again - same as without the new system, but with old fiat / asset way. Yes, you can say that it's possible to limit somehow number of PCs or computing power per user, which might be possible to implement (I don't know how actually, but let's assume it's possible), I can ask all my friends and relatives to let me use their identity or computing power for my own needs (since they might be not so tech savvy they won't care about what they give to me), and then I could pay to other people to get their computing powers & IDs. So again - who got the deepest pockets will control the majority of network.