https://steemit.com/steemit/@jaklassen/steemit-wealthy-greed-what-is-steemit-for-you-steemit-auf-dem-kopf-46c5ed3b75c16

This reminds me of The Prime Law.

(The Fundamental of Protection)

Preamble

The purpose of human life is to prosper and live happily.

The function of government is to provide the conditions that let individuals fulfill that purpose.

The Prime Law guarantees those conditions by forbidding the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual, property, or contract.

Article 1

No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual’s self, property, or contract.

Article 2

Force is morally-and-legally justified only for protection from those who violate Article 1.

Article 3

No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

Wow my brain was trying to wrap itself around this idea the other day and I have having major trouble... You really nailed it. Blockchain voting is a great idea. You have a blockchain but instead of currency it stores the people in your government. So much harder to rig an election and still manages to maintain voter privacy. With your private key you can always check to make sure your vote was not tampered with. Also, a blockchain government could evolve exponentially faster than the traditional ones we see today.

My question is: In a perfect world would you weight votes based on how active the person was in the political community? This is practically how Steemit works and it seems great so far. In my opinion a brainwashed purchased vote shouldn't count as much as an educated one, but at the same time you'd have to do everything to avoid corrupting this idea with racism and discrimination. Although I think the transparency of the blockchain would effectively combat this on its own.

Very good work. I like it!!
But what is the reason for the "Termination of Agreement " ? Then if I not use my money during 3 years I will lost it? What about if it is very much?
Just thinking. But I very like the idea of the Constitution

The idea of creating informal Constitution of Blockchains looks pretty significant. You have done a wonderful job creating it. It would be great if all Blockchain projects would treat your idea with respect follow the indications you mentioned.

"We also agree that precedent of prior rulings shall not be used as the basis of future rulings."

This clause is a problem. This means that questionable issues can never be clarified by arbitration. Every time a case comes up the legal question is reviewed denovo. Users need to know what the rules are. It would be better to allow precedents, but allow precedents to be challenged with an appeal board.

I very much like this effort, and would like to contribute this thought: Example, as it represents the power to vote, should be issued such that each signatory has exactly one Example.

Each vote requires the possession of one Example, and costs no Example. Upon using your Example to vote, your Example is used, and you no longer have the Example require to vote again.

While no signatory may possess more, or less, than one Example, a signatory may be assigned authority by another to vote on a given item by being assigned proxy, which is limited per the instructions of the assignor, and may be assigned per vote, per issue, or as a blanket which covers all votes, or any conceivable manner between these extremes. The assignor can re-assign their proxy at any time, at their sole recognizance.

Each signatory receives one Example upon signing, and can never lose or spend that example as long as they live, except by terminating their participation, whereupon that Example is eliminated.

This makes the pool of Example exactly the number of signatories, and provides a means of ensuring that votes are limited to only such signatories as vote, and that each signatory is equal in power over their own person.

Also, in the first line in the Preamble, it is stated that this agreement 'grants' rights. Rights cannot be granted. Rights can be recognized. It is only because we have rights inherently that we can enter into agreements.

Please do change 'grant' to 'recognize'.

I haven't finished reading this, and have to go to work, but expect to have more comments when I get the chance to finish reading it.

I'd like to hear what y'all think of the concept of limiting Example to one per signatory, and allowing at will proxy.

Thanks!

This is an amazing age and its only going to get better. After reading this I realized its not just an interesting topic to geek out about but something that we will actually need. I also like the voting system you proposed, that could be the way...

Dropped by to tell you I really appreciate what you guys started and do here.
Best,
Hive account@velimir

Hi Dan, I have to ask, why are payouts declined for your post?

While this sounds great, I only wish that a country like India doesn't declare cryptocurrencies illegal.
The central banking institution asks people to stay away, and we don't have a regulatory body as such till the government decides what to do. Sigh!

I'm not completely convinced a Constitution would be necessary, or desirable. Though, I have suggestions if implemented

1. Use modern day language. No need for nostalgia style writing.
2. Dump everything regarding "life" and "liberty". This is a blockchain, not a governing body. It can secure property, but beyond that it really doesn't have authority or power.
3. The Document seems a little long. “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.” - Albert Einstein

Great work! Thank you for sharing!

Interesting, very reasonable. Good thing you thought about this aspect on blockchain...

I'm going to take the opposite position and say that I think this is pretty unnecessary, though a great touchstone for debate. You say in some comments (to paraphrase) that it is meant to facilitate a common understanding between people. I do not believe it would do that.

For one thing, we would have to rely on honest and competent smart contract writers to write contracts, and equally importantly honest and competent non-writing parties to a contract (counter parties in the terminology). What I mean is that it is up to smart contract writers and users to know how to go by the terms of a constitution, and how to implement this in code.

Far better would be something that is more in line with the code = law approach, which is to say, anything possible is legal. The kinds of things this constitution purports to provide would be translatable to code, though not easily - it's a hard problem. At a minimum we'd be looking at a common set of patterns or even libraries for constitutionally legal code. This would make several of the more ambiguous parts of the constitution irrelevant, parts which have holes and I believe are ripe for abuse in any case.

For example, how is one to show that assets have been appropriated unfairly? Who is the Arbitrator and how are they selected? And the emergency blockchain fork powers are also open for abuse. To invoke Goodwin's law, think of Nazi Germany, or more recently the state of emergency in France that is still ongoing since November 2015.

I would propose polymorphism with a mandatory root level parent object, like the Object object in Java, which every object must inherit and which restricts possible uses to the kinds of use cases which are permitted.

You could couple this with a number of other measures, such as

1. minimum counter signing per contract, both in absolute number of members and stake (to enforce some kind of peer review),
2. use formal proofs to insure code runs as intended with high probability
3. even go as far as restricting the smart contract language to be non Turing complete, particularly in the sense of looping

Another problem with the constitution as it is written is that it is much closer to a top level legal contract. Severability for example would never be found on a constitution but always on a contract. So clearly this is a hybrid. That is a big problem because it crosses the domain of practical responsibility to moral responsibility. I actually think that this is something which would be popular here, but I suggest that it is a step in the direction of cult building.

Hive account@krnel if you haven't seen this I think you would like it a lot.

I am ready to sign on the dotted line! X

Brilliant!!! I think this is an amazing foundation for a new society .. EOS can stand for Evolution Of Society. I couldn't be in any more agreement with the philosophical principles of this Constitution.

It would be great to get more information about the Rules of Dispute Resolution, Arbitrator and the arbitration process.

We further agree that software development is an imperfect art and will occasionally fail to faithfully mediate Rights among Members; therefore, it is necessary to establish processes for community governance.

Ahhh, the sweet sound of wisdom.

Dan, this is excellent.

Sometimes it seems in our desire to escape human folly through more perfect code, we sacrifice our human wisdom by delegating it away to software, thus leading us back to folly. I feel it's imperative we hold the perspective which sees the blockchain as fundamentally subservient to human concerns, that is, the needs of the participants, and their mutually agreed upon rights.

We are imperfect, and we build (increasingly less) imperfect systems. I'm glad to see at the leading edge of blockchain development, there is still a great deal of heart at work.

I like it! I can see why this would be controversial in anarchy circles, but I see it as a mature approach that combines decentralization with the benefits of governance. You get to participate in a free market, but have some protection for your rights.

Does mean that Producers and Arbitrators have much greater responsibility than in previous dPoS solutions. With scale, there could be thousands of contract disputes to resolve everyday. Eagerly awaiting to learn about EOS' solution.

This is amazing … definitely getting a resteem

Hive account@shayne

https://steemit.com/steemit/@digicrypt/escape-the-social-media-ghetto

I'm so blown away, I'm gonna tweet about it!

https://twitter.com/jacobts/status/864677705190711297

- jacobts

Would it be better to just allow this to develop organically. It already comes with bias from deep within the creators themselves. If it succeeds, good!!! if it fails, good!!!

Something new and better will unfold.

The Constitution of the United States of America was one of the greatest experiments of all time. Witness all around you how this treasure is unfolding.

We the people fail miserable at "keeping" it, much less something new.
Allow the free market to write the rules, that will prove much more valuable.

I have some ideas and a whitepaper I'm working on which will focus exactly on this topic. I was intending to develop on a platform such as Tauchain but in general one of the concepts at the center of it all is the concept of a constitution. It appears you've arrived independently at the same ideas so I'm going to share your post around.

The first Blockchain constitution is here. It's an honor to vote and sign-up for this constitution and I hope other Blockchain projects could follow the same and get their community members agree on some basic principles that would govern their work.

Wouldn't it be more practical to allow members create their own constitutions within their own smart contracts? I believe it will be inefficient to just have a general constitution for a single currency. It is self-limiting.

This is a DAO city/community/region that I would voluntarily support.

Just so I understand it correctly, the economy of the DAO under this voluntary constitution would bind the currency to EXAMPLE for the businesses as well? I am imagining this constitution as being able to live alongside others so i'm curious about the cross economies and the disenfranchised.

I'm curious because I wonder how the free market security DAO's, under this constitution, might handle the issue.

I feel like a community that would live under this constitution would probably have solid charity organizations that could at least offer shelter and opportunities to join the community. But how far do/should security service DAO's take it?

I'm hoping to get involved Dan, there is so much on the go, everywhere and IRL for me.

Sommer says she will be seeing you guys in NYC soon for conference/Concensys (sp?) -- I will wish you the best til I can get more involved my friend.

Have a good week and good run up to NYC.

Growing up in a country without a constitution like the US has, where every citizen quotes various points and amendments, this seems foreign to me. Shouldn't we be moving away from the restrictions of such agreements? Isn't that what's great about a decentralised platform like this? Now I'm not up to date on legal studies, and have little interest in such, and I don't mean to offend, simply questioning the need.

One possible outcome: Blockchain Fiction: Warner to be Executed

Love it, I hope this becomes a new standard for crypto constitutions. Resteemed

This was well done! I wish every contract was this clear and easy to understand. Most contracts are dilled with jargen to throw people off. Who really reads a whole contract anyway? Not many people. I sold cars for a short period of time and nobody read the contract. If this short and easy to read less people would get into bad deals.

Hi dantheman.
Exactly, what you write is very clear about the definition of the constitution of blockchain. Great work..

Resteemed! Everyone needs to read this!

Noted and printed out.I will love to memorize the Constitution.