Just had an idea about this. Could someone verify?

How easy is it to include a small chunk of text with a transaction? I am thinking it may be possible to send such a transaction to create the small chunk of text in a block, then after waiting a certain number of blocks, create a PGP key pair, sign the original chunk of text with the private key, and include the signature in a transaction in the second block. This would create proof that your PGP key pair was created between the time of the first and second blocks, right?
Now the question is, how can you ensure that the random bit of text embedded in the first block was created by the same person creating the PGP key pair, and isn't just someone scanning prior block history for such texts and creating a new key on the spot.
Just thought maybe you could do this with three blocks. Block (X) has some data in it, even if it was there previously, Block (X+1) has a copy of the signed text (maybe even with a unique mining fee amount), and finally Block (X+Y) has a copy of the Block (X) signature signed again. Of course it's easy enough to just register your PGP key with a third party and just wait a while to prove that your key is old enough, so maybe this isn't even needed other than for decentralization purposes...

The reason I'm trying to figure this out is because I would like to create difficult to generate PGP-type keys that rely more on time than hashing power. For example, BitMessage has an option to generate a private key that will shorten your BM address, using extra processing power to come up with a few extra 0's in the address. Same idea works in bitcoin mining. And I'm sure the same idea could be applied to PGP addresses, as well, where the PGP address could require to have some number of repeating characters at the beginning, to show that it took some brute-forcing to generate. Such a key would have some value to it, if only because of the difficulty in generating it (scarcity + used up resources). Problem is, those with more powerful hardware will be able to generate such keys much easier, and as processing power increases, what used to be difficult to generate keys will become simple to make. So I am trying to figure out how to pigyback onto the Bitcoin blockchain's computing power, which is already automatically adjusted for changes in hashing power, and create PGP keys that are based on Proof-of-Time spent generating them, as opposed to simple Proof-of-Work. This time to generate a key could be anywhere from 24 hours to a few months or years.

The idea is to have verifiable PGP keys that prove that whoever generated them put a lot of resources into it, such as "time spent waiting to create it." This would let others easily distinguish valued key-based identities from instantly created sockpuppet types.

It is possible to generate a PGP key pair, where the private key is generated from hashes of two separate Bitcoin blocks and a private nonce, and still have it be possible for a third party to verify that the public key is indeed generated from those two block hashes without needing to know the private key?

I believe dominance should be determined by how independent the employees are - having transferable skills, not being dependent on a single job, being able to ask for increased job compensation without fear of being laid off, and if they are laid off, being able to find another job or resort to starting a business themselves - and that it should NOT be determined by how much power and force the employee can exhert over the employer, either through threats of union strikes, or legal controls and regulations.
I feel completely comfortable with my employees working on side projects, learning new things, and ask them to update their resumes at least once a year with whatever new skills and tasks they have picked up recently. I WANT them to feel like they don't depend on me, because them not feeling tied to me and their job actually keeps us on friendlier, more open, and more even terms, and keeps the business more productive and innovative. If my employees were in a union, or had some sort of control over keeping their job against my will, the work environment would have been a lot more stressful, with "me vs you" tensions rising often.

Forums don't typically charge $10 just to post. It's especially ironic coming from a forum where the users complain about libertarians on this forum not allowing "free speech." And if they absolutely must charge $10 to survive, they can do what Torrent providers, VPNs, and NTTP access providers, who had the same credit card issues, did: they can switch to Bitcoin. Thus the wonderful irony 

Pay based on company performance could definitely work, and is already done with stock options today, however, co-op management and your example likely won't. Employees often don't have management skills, and can't see the whole of business operations from the top, and thus can't make business changing decisions like where to concentrate resources or whom to hire.


And employees are free to leave and find a job elsewhere. The job isn't the employee's, it's given to them by the business owners.


The employee can decide to decline a wage decrease, and the owners will just fire them. Especially if the business doesn't make enough money to afford them any more. The power is still will the one who owns the business, and gives the jobs.

Really? I think that would be a fabulously fun thing to do ;) Just think of the resulting chaos and irony!

Can you elaborate a bit on that idea of using stolen credit cards to register a bunch of accounts to shut down their processor, and what protections they may have against it?

Mmmm, no, not by a long shot. There are people with Youtube videos about bitcoin WAY more ignorant than him. Like for example that bald dude that someone has an avatar on here of, with an alien thingy stuck to his head. You'll find even more ignorance in the comments section of /. articles on bitcoin, too. Some of those posts are just painful to read.

Why not treat it like apartment leases, where every 6 to 12 months both parties can come together, discuss their situation (tougher times for the company v.s. have been an excellent employee performing all duties well), and renegotiate the pay? That way good employees can defend their income, the company can readjust expenses if something happens, and bad employees can be slowly gotten rid of as they quit due to lower pay.

Your only way of getting things right is by your words and deeds, not with money. Stick around, talk, help out, and show people you've changed (or that you haven't). I don't think "buying" your reputation back is right.

Woah, how did I miss this thread?! This is cool!

Regarding OP:

About 1% of the population has a huge portion of all the government cash in the world. Does that stop you from accepting EUR/USD/Whatever for your salary, or as change at the supermarket, or using it to buy groceries in the first place? Most people don't care who owns how much of what money. They only care how much they themselves own, and how much they can buy with it.

By saying "Capitalism is not that smart," you are actually saying "I am not that smart," since what capitalism does is determined by what YOU buy.


If there is a monopoly, chances are it will charge more than trains, and people will pick trains, or even invest some other mode of travel. Monopolies never last, because when pushed hard enough, someone always comes up with alternatives.
Otherwise, if roads are cheaper and more efficient... what's the problem?

Explain please.

Those proposing AnCap are of two camps:
1) Establish an AnCap society somewhere else, such as by SeaSteading. In that case, the people you feel compassionate about will be left with their safety nets, and you don't have to worry about them. The only people who do end up in the AnCap society will be the ones who voluntarily move there, knowing all the risks.
2) Society and government as a whole are slowly devolving into AnCap, thanks to globalization and technologies like the Internet, Bitcoin, Tor, 3D Printing, file sharing, etc, which will make the government lose more and more power due to not being able to regulate the things it used to. In this scenario, AnCap is pretty much the inevitable end, so arguing about why it's good or bad for us is irrelevant, and we should instead focus on what it could entail and how to be ready for it.

As for those outwardly "wealthy" and "moneyd" types, a lot of their wealth is actually owned by their bank in the form of loans and credit cards. All they own is a bunch of junk that they're only losing money on. Your real wealth, or net worth, is determined by how productive you are in a society, which I believe should be encouraged. If you simply won the lottery, or inherited a large sum, you likely won't keep that money for long, either.

Agreed. Kids can't make choices about their lives. Though how that education is actually provided for is what's debatable.


I'd rather travel by train, flying car, or work over the internet. Why is it that I have to pay for a car, car insurance, maintenance, gasoline, and taxes to support it all in US, when I can pay a much cheaper fare and travel conveniently by train on a profitable railroad in Europe or Japan?
Though the sprawl in US, with everything and everyone being so far apart, is a symptom of the road systems that would be an issue if AnCap was to take over here.


There would be no "posts" in AnCap. People will be hired based on their skills, and services will be "voted" on by purchases. Don't like the person at some "post?" Pay someone else.

Switzerland doesn't have one. Every citizen owns a rifle and is trained to fight. That's a big reason Hitler didn't want to attack it.


Free clinics for those who need them, and hard lessons learned from not taking care of one's health, not knowing some basic health information, and not owning health insurance. Even if you are poor, if it's something as important as your life, I would hope people would be compelled to spend money on health rather than a new TV or video game (they don't, now, because they know if they get sick, they'll just go to the emergency room, and get treated using someone else's money). I'm actually very glad ObamaCare passed for this reason, even if a legal mandate isn't as "educational" as a hard life example.


Private power (already exists), private water (already exists), private rail (already exists), private roads and bridges (already exist), etc. Infrastructure actually hurts us in some way, by forcing us to stick with old technologies that new things can't compete against. Part of the reason the rail system in US sucks is because it can't compete with subsidized highways.


Private schools (especially if funded with "war" money)


Many prisons in US are already privately owned


won't exist or be needed


private collections by hobbyists (you should see mine), or museums funded by visitors


You are projecting your own selfishness on others. Also, people who are selfish and irresponsible will quite literally die off in AnCap society, where you NEED to build relationships and communities to survive. You can't just work 9-5 for a crappy wage, have your money taken to pay for things you yourself should be responsible for, and spend all your time sitting at home playing videogames without giving a crap about anyone else. Well, you could, but at the first bit of trouble you'd be royally screwed.

+1
If there's one thing that WILL bug people about being in an AnCap state is that it will be a rather brutal existence for irresponsible idiots. The sight of someone dying of starvation because they failed to secure their own lives and are unwilling to do anything about it may be somewhat common 

It doesn't have to be the state. If there are issues with lawlessness, people can obtain their own security to counter it without needing a state (personal weapons, security systems, private security, private military, etc).

You are the only one claiming it will prevent chaos. There will still be chaos, as there is now under government rule, because there will always be assholes trying to commit crimes.


"Empirical evidence?" The NAP isn't going to do diffuse conflict scenarios, it will either prevent or eliminate them. To say otherwise is to claim that things like the threat of punishment or being actually killed by police will not prevent someone from committing crimes or stop them from being able to commit them in the future. The enforcement method is the same.


The opposite of NAP throwing that first punch is the government throwing the first punch by laying down the law and telling people that they MUST use aggression and violence against others. That's the opposite of NAP.