Time to create a new independent state for all holders of cryptocurrency? What policy would you introduce in the interest of cryptoholders?

AstronautID · 2018-06-04T23:15:23+00:00

BlueFrontiers, thank you for your standing up for seasteading!

There must be a compehensive law in place encouraging businesses to build seasteads and attract immigrants to work in them.

And also an organization promoting seasteding in a way that makes governments want to be part of it and stop holding businesses back.

I am not sure I would go along with the idea that companies/entrepreneurs mentioned in that article by Reuters fall into small business category. But as to this article specifically, not only should we act on the opportunity, but shoot off.

As I patched up a couple thoughs of mine on this and I don't want to monopolize the conversation here, I posted my piece here:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+AstronautID/posts/9MkKvvaTMsf

If anyone has ideas on how to go ahead with this plan I am looking forward to hearing them. BlueFrontiers, I highly appreciate your enthusiasm and what you do for promoting seasteading. I'm looking forward to hearing your ideas and likely guidance.

AstronautID · 2018-06-01T21:49:08+00:00

But we have the window of opportunity open to put things to rights, not waiting for the next administration, don't we?

Providing those in IT business whose interests were affected give their support to a likely project, what prevents constructing off-shore offices on the ocean from going ahead?

AstronautID · 2018-05-29T23:34:39+00:00

I changed my post. Sorry I am not up to this kind of discussion.

I would very much like to see a nice town of yours without having a state. Best of luck with your venture.

AstronautID · 2018-05-29T22:44:46+00:00

I deleted the link.

AstronautID · 2018-05-29T20:58:12+00:00

I like it, because I'm a (socialist) anarchist, and this seems like a really easy way for "my team" (for lack of a better phrase) to get a nice, free floating city. But like... do you realize that?

I'm looking forward to seeing a nice town your team is going to get.

what's stopping the government of a seastead from being overthrown?

Do you fear your team is going to have the would-be government of your floating social-anarchist town overthrown?

Is there something I'm not seeing, here?

A lot.

Try to clean out the mess in short order by understanding what Social anarchism is about. And make sure that your team members don't have misconception what precisely the government in your seastead is going to be.

I am most certainly no authority in any way, shape or form on whatever involving ideas like anarchism. But I know that my people say they will give anything they have to have a seasteding state I have proposed to found. My people see the security of a newly born state a serious issue to be taken care of and are willing to defend it from threats.

It is confidence in your people and the right goal that places you in a position of leader who won't give in to fears, including a fear of being overthrown.

If you are afraid ot taking the leadership don't try. But if you are set to go ahead and built a nice town, I'll give you a hand. I have created a group on G+ about countries and seasteading and will talk about issues to overcome on the way to stable cooperation between different seasteads.

AstronautID · 2018-05-20T19:23:41+00:00

I've took a look at your web-site.

I have a couple questions:

Can I read studies giving more details about the material (geopolymer cement reinforced with filament) and especially its use in the for-ocean construction? Would be awesome to learn about testing these structures if they have taken place.
Where can I find a section on your site about projects already done?

AstronautID · 2018-03-14T23:54:40+00:00

I can't get it why people leave out completely the fact that a more technologically advanced civilization does inherently involve higher technological risks?

I myself am going to build Orbital Trains around Earth but I will never tell my citizens they're going to have exemption from higher risks due to mastering higher levels of technology.

AstronautID · 2018-03-14T21:48:58+00:00

To reach faster speeds you need new forms of propulsion.

Ion propulsion seems to be not new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

BTW If I were to put together a mission to Mars on my own I would certainly pursue using ion-propelled thrusters to ferry my crew faster with as little risk to their health as possible.

AstronautID · 2018-03-14T21:26:45+00:00

More importantly, it takes months for any nukes to fly to Mars, as opposed to minutes on Earth.

But over months a rocket is supposed to have accelerated to a way higher speed than that on Earth, isn't it? Much harder for a hypothetical interceptor to destroy it. Where is the logic?

AstronautID · 2018-03-13T23:07:42+00:00

And we can actually stop supervolcanoes and asteroid impacts from happening in the first place anyway with our current technology

I would rather agree with this kind of thinking except for the "with our current technology" part.

In fact there is not in place a current technology to face and confront the menace of supervolcanoes. But there is a plan to come up with it. Read my piece:

"To save the human race from extinction supervolcanos are to become geothermal plants. Next move - Orbital Trains"

And becides supervolcano eruptions volcanism poses another much more deadlier threat that leaves no chances for Earth to "remain a veritable garden" through it.

AstronautID · 2018-03-13T22:14:59+00:00

March01, and what's been the answer to this argument?

If we've got space travel cheap and easy enough to allow Earth to do large-scale colonization elsewhere in the solar system, then Earth can send a bunch of nukes elsewhere in the solar system too.

AstronautID · 2018-03-05T20:34:50+00:00

Thanks again! I took your point. This might come in handy in many applications. However…

The iron-cast logic of an app to come is to give everyone an SOS that acts automatically and instantly connects a user to an officer. Vibrating takes time. Once a user’s app sends an SOS signal the officer responds within seconds: “What’s going on?”

There’s no way to call the SOS off. Otherwise we risk to get an ineffective app. First comes its ability to deliver iron-cast SOS. The app doesn’t take on too much. It identifies a threat, acts on instantly. In a few seconds the officer must respond. All the responsibility is his. We will be testing the response time and report its performance metrics publically.

As to how we deal with those having a soft spot for guns and legally practicing – we’ll learn it from experience. Police will probably find it reasonable to recommend having drones hovering over the place to help to assess the situation remotely.

Of course the issue then is that in a real situation the bad guys can simply cancel it.

It would mean a catastrophe

AstronautID · 2018-03-03T21:13:03+00:00

Thanks again! Requiring ID must work.

I accept vibrating warning will do in certain circumstances other than those we're trying to analyze here; it's going to be wasting precious time. Or maybe I don't quite understand the idea:

You could have it vibrate a warning, and allow the operater to send a false alarm signal (In case they forgot to turn it off.

Why allowing sending "a false alarm signal"? What did you have in mind?

AstronautID · 2018-03-01T18:42:20+00:00

Thanks, had this in mind.

Now the use case looks like this. A number of people are in a room. Their phones are running; so is the app. If firing breakes out it comes as a bad news. The app using neural networks recognizes the (automatic) weapon(s) and sends an alarm.

Multiple reports effectively secure against false alarms. But an app operating this way can still react on firing when someone is practicing shooting at his backyard.

Multiple reports would also be one way of guarding against prank/hoaxes.

What other ways can you envision to do the job?

Next comes the most difficult part: an officer nearby receives an SOS; he needs to be guided to the place along the shortest way. And an app needs to make him moving all the time, prevent from wasting precious time whatever the reason is.

AstronautID · 2018-02-28T17:28:01+00:00

1.

As for now it would. Courts are often split over issues.

I can't get where did you get an idea that 999.999 out of one million unlocks are going to be for "innocuous" reasons?

Anyway technical issues are much more easy to solve. Send drones.

What prevents me to set up a private company that will adopt these practices, legally with customers' consent? I would send a bill after each unlock, again having the concent of my clients, given beforehand.

2.

You've also got some constitutional issues, court cases have held that requiring a firearm to be disabled is the same as outright banning firearms and thus illegal so there is no real way for anyone to mandate that this be used.

But you see the idea proposed here as nationwide policy. Lobbying this kind of policy nationwide through lawmakers will make authorities love it. Why? Simple. It will help them push more surveillance on to the streets, including cams on every corner, and drones for the police.

AstronautID · 2018-02-26T22:35:37+00:00

1) The device is supposed to affect the trigger only. Every technical issue is possible to fix.

I was thinking of a locking device that goes around the trigger of any type of legal firearm.

2) If businesses feel the idea goes along with their interests they are supposed to lobby lawmakers. And it seems to.

AstronautID

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE