Nxt Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Latest Nxt Client 1.11.5 - NEW RELEASE: Ardor 2.0.3e TestNet IS LAUNCHED!

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Decentralized governments built on NXT.  (Read 2457 times)

colin012

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 851
  • NXTOrganization Marketing
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +65/-17
Decentralized governments built on NXT.
July 14, 2014, 11:49:35 pm

I think that we could create decentralized governments based on NXT. Each government would function and have its own laws that it can enforce on citizens. Basically, a NXT user would register their account to a government and by doing that, they are protected by the government's laws and it can be enforced by the government structure. I think this would be a good solution the the judgment system. While NXT is only a tool, it is a powerful tool that can be used to create governments and enforce laws.

Someone does not have to belong to a government if they don't like it's laws but if they choose, they can register to be a citizen to gain protection.

How will citizens be protected from the government itself? People can always change governments if they don't like the laws of a particular government. What is to stop people from breaking the law and then changing governments before the consequences can be enforced? Each government can assign a "drop-out" period which would prevent a NXT account from leaving the government for a period of time after they make the decision. This would allow the government time to enforce the laws.

Some functions a government may have:

Freeze accounts of citizens
Transfer a citizens NXT/asset to someone else
Use "smart laws" to assign laws to the blockchain through votes/vetos/executive order/anything the founder(s) decide in advance.
Tax citizens
Make smart treaties with other governments
Anything else you guys can think of!

Although, it may be a good idea to build this as a separate platform that can interface with NXT so other crypto currencies can be incorporated.

What do you guys think?
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄  ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬●  nimirum  ●▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬ ◖ENDING CENSORSHIP ONLINE◗  ◖ ICO OPEN NOW◗ ▬▬▬

Daedelus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3281
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +230/-12

How would it work practically?

If you had two neighbours, Alice subscribes to a government that outlaws racist abuse, Bob subscribes to one that doesn't.

On dark evening when Alice is out, Bob smashes Alice's windows and graffiti's "GO HOME, you [insert racial slur] !" on the front of the house in big letters.

Bob would have to be 'extradited' into Alice's jurisdiction for something that isn't a crime in his jurisdiction (like being extradited to a country where blasphemy is a crime from a moderate country that sees it as free speech).

The extradition authority (Police? Border control?) would have to enforce all laws and know which were in place when the crime was committed. Bob and Alice could have the same government but Bob switches to the hard line one, smashes Alice's windows and switches back. When he did the 'crime', it wasn't as the laws in force at the time permitted it.

It would be easier to set up a neo-nazi state (just get all neo nazis to move to the same neighbourhood and declare they support "Naziland" laws and promote it to neo-nazis worldwide) so this would require oversight to allow some governments nd not others? A centralsied authority?

Which laws apply in public areas?

Am I interpretting this correctly?  ;D
NXT: NXT-4CS7-S4N5-PTH5-A8R2Q

colin012

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 851
  • NXTOrganization Marketing
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +65/-17

How would it work practically?

If you had two neighbours, Alice subscribes to a government that outlaws racist abuse, Bob subscribes to one that doesn't.

On dark evening when Alice is out, Bob smashes Alice's windows and graffiti's "GO HOME, you [insert racial slur] !" on the front of the house in big letters.

Bob would have to be 'extradited' into Alice's jurisdiction for something that isn't a crime in his jurisdiction (like being extradited to a country where blasphemy is a crime from a moderate country that sees it as free speech).

The extradition authority (Police? Border control?) would have to enforce all laws and know which were in place when the crime was committed. Bob and Alice could have the same government but Bob switches to the hard line one, smashes Alice's windows and switches back. When he did the 'crime', it wasn't as the laws in force at the time permitted it.

It would be easier to set up a neo-nazi state (just get all neo nazis to move to the same neighbourhood and declare they support "Naziland" laws and promote it to neo-nazis worldwide) so this would require oversight to allow some governments nd not others? A centralsied authority?

Which laws apply in public areas?

Am I interpretting this correctly?  ;D

All good questions. I don't see it as full fledged government per-say, at least in the beginning. It would be all laws related to the market. What you could or couldn't buy with your digital currency, certain requirements in business dealings, and outlawing of things like multilevel marketing and ponzi schemes, laws related to false-advertising. Things like that.

If the decentralized governments get big enough that they can own locations and buildings and can pay for physical law enforcement/investigation on their turf then fine but the voting process would still be automated.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄  ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬●  nimirum  ●▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬ ◖ENDING CENSORSHIP ONLINE◗  ◖ ICO OPEN NOW◗ ▬▬▬

ChuckOne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3438
  • ☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +291/-17

Short question, short answer:

What is the purpose of such governments?

colin012

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 851
  • NXTOrganization Marketing
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +65/-17

Short question, short answer:

What is the purpose of such governments?

Offer additional security to those willing to give up a small amount of freedom. Any kind of authority restricts freedom in some way, but it also offers safety. If an escrow is part of government that requires escrows to actually pay out and the government has to power to enforce that, then the escrow is a little more trustworthy.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄  ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬●  nimirum  ●▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬ ◖ENDING CENSORSHIP ONLINE◗  ◖ ICO OPEN NOW◗ ▬▬▬

Come-from-Beyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4014
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +793/-670

Offer additional security to those willing to give up a small amount of freedom.

Quote
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2679
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +162/-24

Offer additional security to those willing to give up a small amount of freedom.

Quote
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin

that is really funny  :D
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 11:22:47 pm by Sebastien256 »
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).

colin012

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 851
  • NXTOrganization Marketing
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +65/-17

Offer additional security to those willing to give up a small amount of freedom.

Quote
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin

I am familiar with that one. The key is ESSENTIAL liberty. Not all liberties are essential: for example the liberty to kill people without reason. The point of the structure would be to take away the liberty to take away other people's liberties and to take away the liberty to cheat people. Those two liberties I consider non-essential.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬  ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄  ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬●  nimirum  ●▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬ ◖ENDING CENSORSHIP ONLINE◗  ◖ ICO OPEN NOW◗ ▬▬▬

hologram

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +1/-0

I am familiar with that one. The key is ESSENTIAL liberty. Not all liberties are essential: for example the liberty to kill people without reason. The point of the structure would be to take away the liberty to take away other people's liberties and to take away the liberty to cheat people. Those two liberties I consider non-essential.

Stupid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

aronmu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +21/-3

While looking for a thread to report about* government's seizure of bank accounts in Nepal which could have been prevented by crypto currencies, I landed here. This discussion prompts me to ask (paraphrasing George Carlin): Isn't the notion of 'Decentralized Government' like 'screwing for virginity'?


* http://cointelegraph.com/news/114158/nepali-state-to-seize-all-relief-funds-from-bank-accounts

kwilliams

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
  • NXT-FG7F-2W46-M7DE-EHPV5
    • View Profile
  • Karma: +28/-3

    This whole thing needs to be approached very carefully. Even if just for the sake of establishing good object names. Central to the notion of Judging is the notion of Dispute. A dispute does not imply prior agreement between the 2 parties. For example 2 strangers discover the same gold coin. Disputes tend to cause (violent) Conflicts. So Judging is a violence avoidance technique. The Dispute is brought to a 3rd party where is it resolved with minimal violence.

    A Judge has to balance between the interest of the two parties and the interest of the Jurisdiction.  For example if Bob mauls Alice and she only asks 100 NXT in compensations, the Judge can still impose larger penalties to Bob (and make them publicly known) to discourage public mauling (the preventive effect). Which ultimately leads to a situation where Jurisdictions (and their associated legal codes) are usually accepted beforehand, with constituents having “bona fide” in the applicability of the law. Now the game theory:

    A viable jurisdiction is a formation of {J} Judges and {C} Constituents that results in a stable or growing number of total participants T=N{J}+N{C}. For that to happen, both {J} and {C} should have a mechanism of weeding out the bad apples from the opposite set:
    • {J} does that by penalizing “bad” members of {C}, thus attracting even more “good” members into {C}.
    • {C} does that by rewarding {J} based on their merit and voting them out when they screw up.  {C} also has the option to vote with their feet by going to another Jurisdiction.

    In order for {C} to make informed decisions on {J}, several key elements may be needed:
    • Public trials, including a public body of evidence
    • Office terms for Judges
    • Judicial peer reviews (by other Judges who have a stake at the stability of the Jurisdiction)

    Once enough collaboration tools are built into NXT, above processes may start appearing spontaneously, and the need for a Judicial system (as a well defined system entity) may naturally disappear.

    Also important is the concept of Extradition. This is where Jurisdictions X and Z have an agreement which allows Judges in X to pass sentences on Constituents from Z, provided they are re-affirmed by the Judicial body in Z.  Extradition agreements will probably appear spontaneously as well and be maintained by the Judges themselves.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 05:43:15 am by kwilliams »
Pages: [1]