that’s why it’s a voting mechanism and not based on artificial intelligence. only humans can acknowledge other humans. in the original paper is referred to as “attention mining”.
the manifesto in the README is from 1996, a classic cryptonarchist text. that said: the main thing you want to battle in politics is corruption, and we had plenty of experience facing that when we started the Partido de la Red. In that respect, blockchains can play a huge role enabling not only more transparent administration of organizations but also, opening up new institutional arrangements only possible on the internet itself.
hi hackernews, i'm the founder of http://democracy.earth and lead coder of http://sovereign.software. happy to answer any questions and doubts regarding this project (and past ones we started like the partido de la red and democracyos).
absolutely right.. actually we could've gone with a GPL license, yet we want to make sure the greatest degree of freedom is embedded in the rights to use this software and MIT's simple licensing looks like the most fit for that purpose.
GPL provides greater rights to users, MIT provides greater rights to developers. If your purpose was to have the greatest degree of freedom for usage rights, you probably should have gone with GPL.
i remember first time i was pointed to it. classic cryptoanarchist manifesto in silicon valley written by grateful dead lyricist. has that san francisco spirit in it.
yes, i'm aware it can sound funny at a first read.. but 'first they laugh at you, etc..'
Hey folks, I'm lead developer of Sovereign (and YC alumni, winter batch 2015) and also original creator of DemocracyOS.
In the light of recent events, we released the source code of Sovereign, a new app for decentralized governance where we are working on a liquid democracy model that can operate with a blockchain.
Happy to answer any questions and get feedback regarding this.
A great challenge we face is precisely this. Today DemocracyOS is strong at a local city-level. We don't believe we are ready for Federal level yet as we must understand how checks and balances work at this scale.
More than willing to figure out the ways of doing consensus. Yet any enforcement on the need to consent some perceive it as a dangerous dictatorial pattern.
