Democracy the Open Source way

A refreshing approach to decentralising power, real democracy, that employs “hacker logic” and open source methods. Bloody marvellous :smile:

I’m finding about lessons for SAFE from these ideas, for marketing for instance, helping to spawn PODs.

Also for what a SAFE voting system would need to do in order to sort movements like Podemos.

I’ll leave this uncategorised for now.

The Hacker Logic of Podemos


Really interesting, to me though, neither Safe, nor Podemos de-centralise Power. I would say Podemos de-centralises consensus or Democracy though, whereas Safe currently doesn’t, but it does have the potential to by incorporating a voting system.
I think “Power” comes from being able to make the decisions and more importantly, decide where any available funds are spent - the power is in being able to have access to funds in the first place in order to effect change on the ground, in the real world. Podemos have this funding problem and will only have any real power if and when they are elected; without funding, then any Manifesto is really just a wish list I think.
I have some slight concerns about all the policies invariably becoming a bit “populist” too, which could lead to some form of demagoguery in the future……possibly
A Safe system with the voting and access to a de-centralised Foundation would serve a similar function – The Foundation becoming the Podemos system within the Safe Net world, consensus being de-centralised to the users.
I would however prefer a voting system that resulted in direct action on the ground , rather than voting on narrow populist issues which also limit choice. I think that being given the freedom to direct allocated funds to specific charities/projects would be a better way to harness the “Power” and cause Society to move in the direction it wants to quicker, rather than trying to “get elected.” I can see both systems working together though as they are attacking things in different ways and on different fronts to effect the change we want.
It’s great to see all these people having similar ideas and how all this crypto mullarkey really is going to radically shake things up.

I also worry that if crypto/Bitcoin/Safecoin etc are successful, then this will effectively reduce Govt tax income. When Govts have to make cuts, it tends to be the weak and vulnerable that suffer with cuts to MH services, Dementia care etc – they usually pick on those with no voice – the defenceless.
Do we not have a moral obligation to consider what unintended consequences this technology may bring with it and think of ways to provide Societal Safety nets where possible….just asking?


Ou can ask/consider it, but it will happen in regardless of any conclusions reached.

A better question is how can society adapt to this future reality?

I would say that’s a completely different question, rather than a better one, but what would your answer be to the better question then and why is it a better question?

Why discuss how to stop something which is inevitable? It is a waste of time and energy.

Discussing how to help the poor when it is difficult to use traditional taxation methods is interesting and useful in alleviating fears.

1 Like

Statism is a religion wherein the deity is Authority and the worshipers are those that have faith in it, that it is acceptable, nessasary or in any way moral to force another to conform to your will. It doesn’t matter if one person is doing it or a million. It doesn’t matter if it’s a single lump sum or if it’s decentralized and crowdfunded. Government of any kind is still force and coercion and based on the religion of Authority.

This explains it far better than I just did. Watch if you will.

1 Like

That’s why I don’t do it…there is no inevitability about how crypto in general will pan out in the future, or what the final implementation of Safe Net will be as far as I’m concerned.

That’s why I do it and why it is not pointless.
If you think the discussion is pointless, either don’t partake, start a thread about how pointless discussing the future of crypto development and its implications for society is, or lobby the mods to move to off topic, whatever.
The future is not inevitable, it is what we decide to make it and I will continue to discuss ways to replace mechanisms for crypto development to provide for the weak/vulnerable.
Crypto in general is going to change the world of finance/data and replace a number of Govt functions, de-centralising power/democracy etc, This being the case, I think we better start thinking about replacing the societal safety net too and replacing the tax system that provides for this.
I do not believe relying on Charity is suffice, though I get that you do - this does not give you the right to keep jumping in to say how pointless discussing this aspect is - that is the pointless/non- constructive part - I say either argue against it, state why providing a societal safety net is not any kind of moral consideration (for all crypto communities/developers/inventors) or don’t.
I get that you think I’m asking for core to be changed and that this is an annoyance, however if you followed my other “Quick Question” thread, you would have realised that there may be alternative mechanisms without changing the core. I believe de-centralising the Foundation at some future point along with a voting system would do the job.
I would not have come to think about ways to do things without affecting the core, without first having the idea the core needed changing - one idea/discussion/solution leads to another. I don’t believe any discussion in this area is pointless, it creates debate, which then gives Maidsafe both sides of arguments, from which they can make their decisions.
I will continue to discuss whatever I want to, as long as there’s someone willing to discuss it with me - I will never be told what I can or can’t say…however pointless others may think it.
D.Irvine recently stated that he thought of coding languages as “tools”, when discussing the benefits/ rewards of transposing to “Rust”. The decision to be made was based on weighing the benefit of using a “sharper” tool against the negative of maybe slowing progress – it is a balancing act for Maidsafe to decide before Launch.
What I’m saying is along similar lines:
In answer to your “better question”, Society will view Safe-Net as a Tool to enable the functioning of an equitable Society. If some “component/mechanism” is “missing” or some other way of adapting the tool to provide the function is not part of the tool, another tool will be found, or old tools that did the job in a half-arsed way will be still used. (ie Govt/Charity). I do not believe this to be a desirable outcome, but if we are talking about inevitable futures, then this would be the inevitable future consequences of your inevitable future, I think.

1 Like

Interesting. I never mentioned pointless and I merely suggested, in a short post, that dealing with technology progressing was more constructive than dwelling on the supposed harm it will do.

I haven’t suggested you are censored or that your opinions are of no value. I just asserted that technological progress in the area of safe net and distributed crypto technologies in general was inevitable.

If you can suggest great ways for people to help the poor, reach consensus, etc with these technologies in place, then that is splendid! That was the whole point of my post.

Ok great, we can agree I came up with a splendid idea then? :smile:

Ha! It is only splendid if it is feasible and works! :wink:

I think that regardless of the voting system the SAFE Network has the ability to remove political power by removing government propaganda through federated news sites that can’t be shut off.


I agree but I still can’t wait for a legitimately useful platform for decentralized global crypto voting. Preeeettyyyyy excited about it. Hope that’s a feature that is available asap after launch. But I know there’s a lot to be done. Also excited about the semantic web integration, something that I just recently had learned about. So many things to be excited for I think my head is spinning


No point in having a vote if there has not been a quality debate…and it’s hard to have quality in our debates if the loudest voices (news cartels/propaganda news) always get to frame the debate their way, a lot of the time, by using fear. Maybe we need to modernise the investagitive process (secure communications and storage) and the distribution of information/news (federated news sites) 1st, enjoy having informed debates, and then vote.


Excellent and progressively more obvious point. I agree and add in good fact checking such as

Hmmm…I’d say it removes Govt power to influence the Electorate to an extent, which should lead to a better informed Electorate/Society, so yes in that respect. It should also help do the same thing for Corporation propaganda, so definitely helps on the Education/information front. I’d say a federated News service removes the power to propagandise, by Govt or anyone else.
I don’t really see it as de-centralising Political Power per se…as the political power remains centralised until such a time as the powers/funds/consensus the Govt has are de-centralised…I don’t think this is possible without a voting system or access to funds.

Democracy is no panacea. Democratically appointed tyranny can be just as tyrannical as tyranny of any other source…

So says the post-war south anyway…

The key is to remove power from governments where governments need not have power – not make governments more effective / efficient / or even more representative. As an efficient tyranny isn’t a very good goal.


I second less representative. Although I’ve heard some good stuff on being able to in real time with crypto tokens to vote in or out those who don’t hold up their end of the representative bargain. That’s some decent incentive to actually represent what you say you will before and after the initial voting process. In essence if you talk the talk you better walk the walk cause at any time of you don’t you get the boot

1 Like

I agree with that.

WATCH Pablo Iglesias of Podemos: "Hope is Changing Sides: Understanding Spain’s Political Change

Ok Pablo is a Marxist

The way to understand these movements is to read their policies, like this chap did with Syriza

“Many times here we have discussed how Hegelian principles will be used to implement each transition point of the multilateral financial system. This latest Greek drama is a perfect example of that process. The political representatives of the country package and sell the necessary policy adjustments through a script which serves the emotions and impulses of the disorganized masses”


Meanwhile… Martin Armstrong reports (and he’s not a conspiracy theorist) :

The Swiss have now introduced the Enlightenment Intelligence Agencies Act which expands the powers of government to secretly track citizens, tap phones, and to do so even if the person is not actually charged with a crime. One by one, every country seems to be turning to Stalinist type tactics and are obsessed with what are their citicens thinking.

Connecting the dots, what is starting to emerge is a bleak picture that those in bureaucratic government know the financial system will collapse thanks to socialism they cannot maintain. Between promises to the people and pensions that are unfunded, the day of reckoning seems to be understood quietly behind the curtain. There is just no other reason to track the movement of every car and every person storing every phone call, text message, and email. What are they so paranoid about? It is always one thing – losing power.

It appears that those deep in the bowels of government are preparing to take society as a whole into authoritarianism all the way to maintain power by force. Europe has already dismissed democratic elections. Brussels has told Greece pay up, they do not care about what the Greek people want. The same in Spain. They rigged the elections in Italy and Scotland. Everywhere we look there is something wrong and it appears they are tightening the shutters getting ready for the economic storm to hit.

What the future holds with government is becoming dark and sinister for it is all about them sustaining control. This seems to be the classic battle between government maintaining power and the people demanding freedom. This is the real battle of history. This can go either way. But it appears we will reach that crossroads all because of greed, corruption, and a financial system that nobody in their right mind would have designed.

1 Like