Tututut ! La June n’est pas “donnée” ou “gagnée”, elle est créée, de façon inconditionnelle. Il n’y a pas à “payer le prix”. (nb : inconditionnelle dans la société humaine, pas dans le logiciel)
Il y a à se faire reconnaître comme être humain par un logiciel, et ça demande un investissement. “le prix de la liberté” diront certain.e.s. Et c’est souhaitable que cet investissement devienne négligeable, pour que toustes aient accès à la monnaie.
Sur ce, on tourne en rond, non ?
Les irresponsables et les fraudeurs ne devraient pas gagner de l’argent.
Si quelqu’un refuse de venir à un moment donné/voté et de suivre une procédure minimale, il ne devrait pas avoir d’argent.
Si quelqu’un est malade, il peut aller a l hopital et voter la bas. L’ hopital est une salle fermee aussi.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 NIV: “Celui qui ne veut pas travailler ne doit pas manger.”
“Celui qui ne veut pas travailler ne doit pas manger.”
Bon, j’arrête de poser des questions. Là tu lances une digression. La June est créée par dividende universel (ça veut dire : pour toutes et tous, pour tout le monde, pour chacun), et si ta proposition remet ce principe en cause, alors elle n’a rien à faire dans une monnaie libre.
D’autre part, le procédé réthorique est un hareng fumé :
“Le but de ce stratagème est de vous amener à traiter d’un autre sujet que celui qui est discuté, bref, de faire en sorte que vous partiez sur une nouvelle piste en oubliant celle que vous poursuiviez”
(Petit cours d’autodéfense intellectuelle, N.Baillargeon)
Fraternellement.
C est universel seulement pour ceux qui veulent participer et qui respectent les règles communément acceptées. La même chose arrive dans ma proposition.
Pas fraternellement, pour les irresponsables et les fraudeurs et pour ceux qui ne suivent pas des règles communément acceptées.
please, stop editing what I cited. I cited :
“Celui qui ne veut pas travailler ne doit pas manger.”
And you, please stop cutting my speech into pieces and please give in your talk the references of where I said what you claim I said.
Then, tell that my quotation is only a part of what you wrote (it is true, I just quote what seems relevant to my speech), and it does not affect what I think : irresponsible persons and frauders should also receive edit : create one UD per person.
So, we have to find which system allows them to get only one UD per person. And I think that the Duniter WoT and license as it is now is more appropriate than your proposal, and more simple in the everyday life.
By the way, your proposal needs to rewrite the conditions of the Duniter WoT. For now, we have to wait 5 days between 2 certifications. As a consequence, we cannot make closed certification-parties like you say. You should not modify only the license, but also the whole identification algorythm.
I really dont understand your reasoning. The irresponsibles and the fraudsters and all those who do not follow some kind of commonly accepted rules, they obviously don’t want to participate in your UD system. Why do you want to include them?
How do you plan, with this system, to write the list of accepted keys in the software ?
It needs procedures and it needs code, not everything is on paper.
The QR codes can be scanned with a handy scanner, and the list of the final valid keys can be boradcasted as a file so that all the participants can check that their public key is into the final list and the final list contains as many keys as the participents.
I think the code that scans QR code already exists.
Yes, the valid list can be broadcasted, but to whom ? It needs to be sent to a Duniter node, and for that you need new code (to ensure the lists are securely transferred, with no errors, than nobody can modify it, etc…)
It should be broadcasted to the attendees of the meeting, and only if all the attendees agree, and there is no objection, the list is valid.
After the end of the meeting, all attendees hold the valid list, and nobody can deny that.
That is for the human part, but who will be in charge of writing it in the blockchain ?
“irresponsible people” are… Not responsible for what they do. That is the definition. Children, insane people, etc. They are still human, and participate to the economic community, at least because they have needs. So, it is a benefit for the community th have them create money.
“fraudsters” obvously want to create more money. What for ? For using it. So yes, they want to participate. I like when someone has money to give to me 
. But I don’t want them to create more money than I do. So I have to find a system where they can’t produce more.
And some “fraudsters” might want to make the money worthless. they have to make a big fraud. Thanks to the actual WoT, a big fraud is not possible. The more people are in the WoT, the less possible is a big fraud is.
Finally, we get to what is a “gvaleur” (gvalue) : you can’t know if what a human do is, or will be, useful, or not. Be it a fraud, madness, or whatever. edit : humans get the UD for equality reasons, not because of what they do, or don’t do.
Before the doors open, anybody among the attendees, or even all of them, can write it in the blockchain and check and confirm it is correctly written there.
the biggest inequality is to equalize persons who are unequals - Aristotle.
Humans should get the UD because they deserve it.
Are you more equal than I am ? Are you more equal than a fraudster ? Or less equal ? What is equality between humans ?
A honest man is not equal to a fraudster, neither a responsible is equal to an irresponsible.
Sorry, writing in a blockchain connot be done this way, “by hand”, especially if every group need to write it’s own part and the certification of the other groups.
It is doable, but you need a software, cross-checking, etc…
What kind of blockchain do you have in duniter/g1?
In bitcoin everyone can write in its blockchain.
So you can write the attendees of the duniter/g1 meeting in the blockchain of bitcoin, and use this blockchain as your reference.