Objection in the model of the web of trust of Ucoin

[Galuel]

@demo

Because the decision about the c value appears as a result of the acceptance of those 4 principles. So those principles have to be accepted-voted before we decide what to do with c.

Yes anybody who agree to, join then a free money. People who don’t agree don’t join. This is a choice to use an object, like 100 people working in the same office choose to have a same type of chair because they all agree with those 4 principles :

• I want to sit sometimes
• I want 4 chair legs not only 3, neither 5. Not 2 or 1 because it doesn’t work (it’s not a question of vote)
• I want it in my office and I don’t want to ask anytime I need it
• I want it in wood and not in steel

So people in or out those 100 people working in the same office, who don’t want a chair like this one choose another chair, or don’t choose chair at all. This is compatible with “democracy”.

Anyway it could appear a man who say “we must vote about what is chair and what is not, because it depends on 4 principles, and we can not be ok to those 4 principles”.

Those who know about the chair they want won’t vote, and won’t listen to your vote. Only people who have a consensus about the rules will choose the same type of chair.

So you can start your “voting process” somewhere, and perhaps you will have some people interested in the theory description of what you want to do (which is unclear), a demo-democracy, perhaps a demo-money, a demo-wtf you want to describe.

[demo]

@Galuel

@demo

Because the decision about the c value appears as a result of the acceptance of those 4 principles. So those principles have to be accepted-voted before we decide what to do with c.

Yes anybody who agree to, join then a free money. People who don’t agree don’t join. This is a choice to use an object, like 100 people working in the same office choose to have a same type of chair because they all agree with those 4 principles :

• I want to sit sometimes
• I want 4 chair legs not only 3, neither 5. Not 2 or 1 because it doesn’t work (it’s not a question of vote)
• I want it in my office and I don’t want to ask anytime I need it
• I want it in wood and not in steel

So people in or out those 100 people working in the same office, who don’t want a chair like this one choose another chair, or don’t choose chair at all. This is compatible with “democracy”.

Anyway it could appear a man who say “we must vote about what is chair and what is not, because it depends on 4 principles, and we can not be ok to those 4 principles”.

Those who know about the chair they want won’t vote, and won’t listen to your vote. Only people who have a consensus about the rules will choose the same type of chair.

So you can start your “voting process” somewhere, and perhaps you will have some people interested in the theory description of what you want to do (which is unclear), a demo-democracy, perhaps a demo-money, a demo-wtf you want to describe.

If you initialize a community according to their belief (whatever this belief may be) this is not democracy, this is fascism. This is the very reason why deamons are here on earth, and they live in the same community with the angels.

In democracy the only allowed rule in order to form a community is “each person must have the same number of votes”. This rule is fuflillled during the procedure of the cryptoparty assembly, a procedure that takes place before digital democracy.

[demo]

@Moul

You could calcul growth with 40 or 120 years life span.
Do this growth is very different than growth with 80 years life span?

Is it?
I dont know.
Can you help me calculate that growth?

[cgeek]

@demo, could you enlight me about this “belief”.

I mean, you said that for example “unanimity” is a belief:

@demo

If you initialize people according to their belief, whether this is belief is unanimity, or skin color, or shoes color, or ucoin fans, or whatever, then you are not a democracy. DEMOCRACY IS NOT INITIALIZED ACCORDING TO BELIEFS.

As you have seen in my example, the people are not initialized according to their beliefs, but according to the rule “1 person-1 public key”

So, you say that “1 person-1 public key” is not a belief. Why that?

[demo]

@cgeek

@demo, could you enlight me about this “belief”.

I mean, you said that for example “unanimity” is a belief:

@demo

If you initialize people according to their belief, whether this is belief is unanimity, or skin color, or shoes color, or ucoin fans, or whatever, then you are not a democracy. DEMOCRACY IS NOT INITIALIZED ACCORDING TO BELIEFS.

As you have seen in my example, the people are not initialized according to their beliefs, but according to the rule “1 person-1 public key”

So, you say that “1 person-1 public key” is not a belief. Why that?

“1 person-1public key” (or better each person, same number of votes) is a belief of course.
It is the only belief required, in order to form a democratic community.
It is a logical belief, because if we do not follow this belief, democracy collapses.
So (if you want to remain democratic) in case of a logical draw democracy wins, .

[cgeek]

So why do you say democracy is not initialized according to beliefs? Obviously this is wrong.

[demo]

@cgeek

So why do you say democracy is not initialized according to beliefs? Obviously this is wrong.

Yes I am wrong. The correct is:
Democracy is not initialized according to beliefs, whith one single exception, the belief in the rule (each person, same number of votes).

We are obliged to follow that rule, because if we dont, we have no democracy.

[cgeek]

So here you admit democracy is actually initialized by a belief. Why this particular one? Why has this belief more legitimacy than another?

I mean, I prefer the “unanimity” belief for example.

[demo]

@cgeek

So here you admit democracy is actually initialized by a belief. Why this particular one? Why has this belief more legitimacy than another?

I mean, I prefer the “unanimity” belief for example.

Because if we reject unanimity, Democracy can live.
If we reject the rule (each person, same number of votes) Democracy collapses.

This is the reason.

[Inso]

So you place Democracy above Individuals ?

[cgeek]

@demo

Because if we reject unanimity, Democracy can live.

You said 1 pubkey-1 vote. So if some people initialize such a system where

• rule(0) says “these pubkeys are the members”
• rule(1) says “new rules require unanimity”

That would still be a democracy isn’t it?

[demo]

@Inso

So you place Democracy above Individuals ?

Democracy first and only rule contains individuals.
“Each person ,must have the same number of votes”
So Democracy respects individuals, because if you kill the person, then he/she has no vote at all!

[demo]

@cgeek

@demo

Because if we reject unanimity, Democracy can live.

You said 1 pubkey-1 vote. So if some people initialize such a system where

• rule(0) says “these pubkeys are the members”
• rule(1) says “new rules require unanimity”

That would still be a democracy isn’t it?

If new members do not arrive, then it remains a democracy, as long as all the members continue to agree in unamimity.

[Inso]

Well, if I decide “I accept the 4 freedoms” and then the “democracy” I am member of decides that “People accepting the 4 freedoms should kill themselves”, what should I do ? Can I leave this democracy and create a new one with people accepting the 4 freedoms ? Or should I kill myself ?

[demo]

@Inso

Well, if I decide “I accept the 4 freedoms” and then the “democracy” I am member of decides that “People accepting the 4 freedoms should kill themselves”, what should I do ? Can I leave this democracy and create a new one with people accepting the 4 freedoms ? Or should I kill myself ?

If you require people to accept the 4 freedoms, in that case you are not a pure democracy.
You are a constitutional democracy. Pure democracy has no constitution.

[cgeek]

@demo

If new members do not arrive, then it remains a democracy, as long as all the members continue to agree in unamimity.

Ok let’s add a third rule:

• rule(2) says “a new rule can be voted every 80 years”

Is it still a democracy?

[Inso]

And the democracy who asks to kill myself because they voted so, what is it then ?

[demo]

@Inso

And the democracy who asks to kill myself because they voted so, what is it then ?

you can kill yourself in democracy, but others are not allowed to kill you, because in that case they force you to have 0 votes.

[Inso]

And so, should I respect the choice of this democracy ?

[demo]

@cgeek

@demo

If new members do not arrive, then it remains a democracy, as long as all the members continue to agree in unamimity.

Ok let’s add a third rule:

• rule(2) says “a new rule can be voted every 80 years”

Is it still a democracy?

Again this rule must be supported by everyone, all the time. It there is one who removes his vote from this rule, then unanimity is invalid, so the rule dissapears.
You have to understand that voting is dynamic, people are allowed to change their vote whenever they like.