Sovereign Property
I have just illustrated in my previous article how humans are becoming more and more enslaved by the day. However this is not even surprising, humans were never free, and this is just the progression of slavery, as slavery gets more sophisticated.
However one new thing that is a total wonder, and it's a pushback against slavery, is the concept of sovereign property. In the past only Kings and Queens were sovereign, not because of a "divine right to rule", but because they had massive armies to crush anyone who tried to steal away that property.
Currently this is reserved to governments, as all their property is reinforced by tanks and nukes, but you don't get any of that. All your property is secondary, even your body, and everything is owned by the government.
However cryptography has enabled everyday citizens to have sovereign property as well, in the form of secret private keys. Since they don't need a huge army to defend their Bitcoins, they just need to memorize the private key.
Now of course it can still be coerced away, like how the 5$ wrench method is more efficient than quantum computers cracking your password.
However that is indirect control, and not direct control. That is like how 2 sovereign nations go to war, and the stronger one wins. Sure if you have a purse full of money and you walk down a dangerous alley, and somebody attacks you, if you are weak, he will defeat you and steal away your money. But he can't teleport that money out from your home, he has to physically attack you in order to do that.
So a Bitcoin based wealth, or any other cryptocurrency wealth, can be stolen, but if the hacking attempts are made impossible, then only physical coercion can be used for theft. However if the money is anonymous, then not even that is feasible.
Like if somebody has tons of Monero, and all his coins are in his brain, and nobody knows who has that Monero since Monero is usually anonymous, then that is sovereign wealth.
It's worth a thought though (cryptographic private key + anonymity = sovereignty).
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
@d3m0t3x
Dash via CC BY-SA 4.0
Well with DASH, you are at the mercy of a federation of supernodes.
I have talked about this, that the social experiment between BTC and Dash is very interesting. It can literally determine the future of the structure of a DAO system.
While Bitcoin is a 0 cost entry system, DASH is a 1000 DASH cost entry system (however its usually more costly to run a BTC node, since DASH nodes actually make money).
So it's really an oligarchy vs direct democracy experiment.
Ehh kinda... DASH has the issues with its early days that influence my opinion clearly.
The costs with locking up masternode deposits has implications far beyond what you write here. I have detailed elsewhere how this artificially reduces the liquid supply and allows the price to be quickly pumped. The masternode setup is ripe for Sybil attacks. Most nodes are owned by single actors anyways...
The oligarchy and direct democracy comparison does not work in my opinion.
The social experiment between a legitimate project with widespread support and the shakey game theory of DASh sure is interesting.
What do you think of everyone having their own coin and token to issue as debt, like coupons for their services and products rather than relying on a single currency?
Interesting. Kinda like the Token card model with TKN. There are many complex economics that can be coded into smart contracts to solve these problems.
Everyone will be their own bank. We will need systems to guide reputations of each person-bank. These rep systems also need to be cooperatively democratically owned and operated.
Just reviewed the white paper for TKN. Looks like I should learn more. What is required is an easy way to register any kind of object, [or promise of some service] as a token that can be exchanged. I would also like to control who can buy or sell my token [say I don't want to serve a certain kind of business such as criminal organization].
This would enable me to sell/exchange an object in my house such as a gram of gold [share of a solar panel] without actually having to physically transfer the object to them at the PoS, like checks.
Ehh, this is why we need private transactions. You don't want token spends to be KYC/YML regulated. That's how you lose the crypto appeal of digital cash.
Not reeally, the Masternode setup is cheaper than Bitcoin.
For bitcoin you need to invest now at least 10,000-20,000$ to buy a node, which limits access heavily.
In dash anyone can setup a node, since they get paid for it,so it's a for profit scheme, while bitcoin is based on altruism.
So this is more like a profit vs altruism test, we shall see how it will turn out.
Um no. This is not true today with 1MB blocks, or tomorrow with bigger ones. I have a 150$ NUC and another 100$ disk drive that could store 8MB blocks for the next 10 years. Access to Bitcoin node hardware is not a limit in any way shape or form.
In DASH, not everyone can setup a node - you need 1000 DASH. Bitcoin's nodes are hardly altruistic, there are many economic forces that keep incentives for Bitcoin nodes. Just because the network does not explicitly reward them with tokens, does not mean there is no incentive to run one.
The DASH network does not realize the actual incentives needed for node decentralization all while preventing Sybil attacks*.
What I was saying that buyin 1000 Dash is cheaper than buying and ASIC rig.You either way have to spend money, but at least in Dash you get subsidized for serving the network.
In bitcoin you don't, and apart from a few exchanges and merchants, hardly anyone will run full nodes in the future.
Wait, 1000 Dash is actually quite expensive. Yeah maybe it should be lowered to 5-10 Dash though.
The dash subsidy is really unnecessary in my opinion. There are many other economic forces that allow for appropriate users to run full nodes.
Well SPV security is very, very strong. Running nodes will be much less expensive than you make it out to be.
As an old fart, I am not much of a participant in crypto currency but I get your drift and anything that aids in taking back power from those who have exceeded their authority I'm all for.
I have been examining sovereignty for a few years now. Who/or what is sovereign as you suggest comes from a position of power. Sovereignty also has to do with contracts and jurisdiction. I've got a lot of concepts bubbling in my mind and a few of them involve the Holy Roman Church, The British Crown and the US Federal Government. Foremost is that the People of The united States of America defeated the Sovereign British Crown (the King ceded sovereignty) and were supposed to have seized sovereignty for themselves. To mucky the waters, the American People have largely given up their sovereignty to government through sloth and contract fraud. Going back much further, the Holy Roman Church declared itself trustees of the earth and everything on it to hold in trust for Jesus until his return and as Trustees they think they get to manage (or farm) everything. Much more on these concepts from me later on my blog but it is all in the mind.
Well it's a pretty simple definition: "exclusive omnipotence over an item". And that power could be challenged but it can't be taken away without it.
By default sovereignty is only achievable if proper defenses can be mounted to defend against thiefs. In a State, it's not the contract that secures the property, but the tanks and the nukes. Internally of course a State has internal laws to treat it's subjects, but this means that the subjects can't be sovereign, so an individual can't own property, since he would need an army to defend it.
However cryptographic property doesn't need an army to defend it. It's already secured by the laws of physics, the supreme law sort to speak. And that is by default more preferable than to have large masses of people being organized for your defense.
So I believe with privacy enhancing technology and cryptographic property, the individual can regain it's sovereignty.
You are on to something and I hope you are correct about cryptography being an aid. As an old timer I have a problem with electrons using 1s and 0s as islands of proof, storage and safety. Good luck to all of us. We're going to need it.
It's easier to hide electrons than bars of gold.
So true. I was thinking today with the mark of the beast coming upon us (so it seems and here already) this crypto currency is taking the monopoly that would have prevailed in a cashless society away from the biggest criminal organisation in mans known his-story . Well they may still take it all out, time will tell.
excellent observation. resteemed and posted to twitter.
The wealth of BTC and most of these faith-based currencies seem to me to not actually be owned by the common users or holders of the wealth but actually by the "cabal" or those who own most of it. I don't think we should depend on any wealth management system that can be manipulated by elites. We simply need to not worry about hoarding lots of wealth as that is never healthy for society in long term, but we need a system to facilitate exchanges of services and goods, Simbi barter system is closer but still pushes too much on their own simbi coin, which not even secured cryptographically so is very faith based. We need faithless exchange systems.
Bitcoin has a questionable setup, since the miners have too much power, and the nodes are not incentivized to run servers.
So its largely altruism based, and the cost of entry is increasing. Bitcoin will guaranteed become an oligarchy, that is not even debatable.
The quesiton is whether an oligarchy is more preferable vs a democracy? We shall see that.
Yes what are some good examples where democratic systems and communities [organizations, corporations, cooperatives, intentional communities and villages] work better than oligarchic systems?
I see how some democratic voluntary communes work much better than more oligarchal communities, like Twin Oaks.
In small sizes maybe, but I don't think it's that much scaleable, so either you keep the size small or you try somethng else.
I don't know, it needs to be tested.
The limit for these communes is about 100-200 members before things become dysfunctional. But I can imagine this model scaling in holocratic way, like the federated tribes before America was colonized. I think people get blinded in the hope for a global order, but societies can function like hives with no central authority.
Exactly, however if the system is decentralized, then you won't need laws at all to keep order. You will have private property and voluntary ethics in everyday relations, and maybe perhaps some decentralized dispute resolution, while having a larger DAO to vote on more basic laws.
Perhaps the DAO system will show us how to organize people on all scales.
I must note the incidence of direct brain interfaces that appear to promise that thoughts themselves will soon be, insofar as they are not already, both ascertainable and deliverable, via technological means. See Neuralink, et alia.
Insofar as this interface remains unobtainium, your point is valid. However, in the case that human thoughts are actually affectable, then sovereignty simply doesn't exist.
As unpleasant as it may be to contemplate, this is real, and is already possible to certain parties, albeit in limited extent. To what degree it is possible is both debatable, and dependent on technological prowess.
Given our nascent understanding of the brain, such prowess is most likely limited, at present, to state actors. It is certain, however, that such prowess will promulgate, and it may be quite soon that apps that provide such capability could be available.
Whether anyone able to directly impact people's thoughts will make that technology available is both unlikely, and, perhaps, the best possible outcome.
Food for thought.
I think for now they can only correlate the thoughts with the impulses on the brain in certain sectors.
So that to me looks like just metadata. You think of a car, some neurons fire up on one side of your brain.
And the brain changes every second as synapses are changing, so it's pretty hard to "read thoughts" this way.
I don't think they will be able to connect things to your brain any time soon.
The artificial prosthetics are easy, since they are connected to your nerves, which are specifically delivering those impulses to your arm or leg.
However decyphering thoughts is a whole other area. At least I hope mind reading technology is impossible.
Because if it's possible, then we are really really fucked. Orwellian slavery will then be the norm.
While such direct brain interface might enable a slavery that would make Orwell look like a basket of puppies, I tend to optimism in that regard. Elon Musk is on it, and I am strongly convinced of his personal altruism. He walks his talk.
He also succeeds at seemingly impossible tasks.
Neither is he alone in his pursuit of a functional neural interface, and I believe the majority of people after that goal aren't doing so to achieve some nefarious purpose. There are certainly some that are, though, and nothing is guaranteed.
Once the post market economy has rendered obsolete all forms of money, the need for exchange, and non-point source production has become ubiquitous, there will simply be no need for power over people. While psychopaths and AI might do evil, most people aren't psychopaths, and given some form of neural interface, people will have the capacity of AI personally.
I suspect, in the end, the few, the proud, the malignant, will just be utterly outnumbered by all the rest of us, and AI is unlikely to become superintelligent prior to superior neural interfacing enabling people to make AI obsolete.
It's not something that could be stopped anyway.
I wish us all luck =)
This will not happen. :D
Exchanges will always happen, and using money is always more efficient than bartering, so techno-communism will not happen.
Well, as I said, first they have to make ordinary computers malware proof. If they can't do that simple task, then messing up neural implants could cause a lot more damage than some silly ransomware malware.
I'm not referring to communism, but the complete lack of any need for a market. Given continued development of personal manufacturing (3d printing, all the rest), nanotechnology (foraging nanobots, for example), and brain computer interface (allowing access to the resources on the internet directly to our brains, rather than through screens), and the software to coordinate all these things (which will grow as the tech develops), why will we need to market our labor, or surpluses we produce? We won't need any resources we don't possess. Food, power, water, air, clothes, all of these and the rest of the products we need can be produced by the ecosystem of devices we own.
I fail to see any product or service necessary to be marketed, and bought and sold, given time and engineering development of the technology presently available.
Can you point to any specific things or ideas that aren't able to be manufactured by the personal devices we will have in a few decades? Srsly, I'm not being dogmatic, and would like to consider any specifics you might think relevant.
As to malware, I couldn't agree more. Perhaps, when our brains are directly interfaced with hard and software, the intrusion of some malware would be felt just as we feel the bite of a flea today.
Either we will solve the malware problem, or it will eventually solve us, I am sure. The present chaos is simply too counterproductive to remain part of a functional system, although I might be too cynical, and neglecting the biological models of the development of the eukaryotic cell, and how viral DNA is incorporated into our own.
Perhaps there is a level of malware that is tolerable, after all.
I dunno.
Thanks for your reply =)
I would like to be more private, but my laptop does not allow other OS than windows, since it has some sort of secure boot feature. I tried to get around it and my computer was disabled and had to send it back to manufacturer to reset, Vizio laptop. What hardware should I use? You did not mention that in your privacy guide besides phones. I thought that they can surveil through the hardwares' firmwares even use speakers to turn into mics.
That is a really big scam. I have heard of that system, it basically markets itself to protect the BIOS from cold boot attacks, however in reality this is just a mandatory access control that is out of your hands.
So it looks like you don't even own your laptop, since the laptop locks you out if you try to tweak it. It's truly horrible how scumbags these manufacturers are.
But hey, this is what the dumb customers want usually, they just want more trendy stuff, while not realizing how many side-effects these things are.
I am not talking about you, obviously many people are victims of this. But most people actually like this, so they are to blame.
What laptop or computer systems should I use that are open sourced, no closed source firmware?
There aren't any, that are fully open source. There is always some kind of binary blob there that is from the manufacturer and closed source.
But there are already endeavours to make them, via FPGA and other technologies.
Unfortunately these are still 5-10 years away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware