bitcoin as a global medium of exchange (was Re: Interesting take on Sanjuro's Assassination Market)

[Jim Bell]

From: Guido Witmond <guido at witmond.nl>

On 11/26/13 08:51, Jim Bell wrote:

>> We can certainly agree on that!  The new currency should be as anonymous
>> as Zerocoin.  (I can think of an application that will require robust
>> anonymity.)
>>              Jim Bell

>     But even if my worst fears are realized, that is still a whole lot
>     better than what we have now.>Since Money == Power,  and Unaccounted Power == Corruption,
>the problem lies with unaccounted use of Power.

>If a politician takes a bribe, that is done without accountability to
>the public.
>With accountable transactions, the briber cannot give some anonymous
>Money, they have do more visible things, like offering a (no-show) job
>after the politician went through the revolving door. This makes a
>single bribe much longer visible.

Look what has happened to Bill Clinton after leaving office.  It's said he's worth $100 million  (In USD, presumably).  Mostly this comes in the form of 'speaking fees':  As much as $700 in Nigeria. This is not-so-thinly-disguised bribery. One solution that would slow him down would be a 95% tax rate on an ex-president's income, at least that above $400,000 per year.  


>I prefer to have all my wielding of Power (money transactions) visible
>if it means that I can equally monitor those wielding other Power
>(politicians, government officials in duty).

I prefer that politicians not exist.  Ideally, deter them from becoming politicians in the first place, of if that doesn't work, reward others for taking them out of office.

>Currently, with our fiat-money, I can't monitor my politicians while
>they are monitoring mine.
>Accountability (responsibility) is the other side of the coin of Freedom
>(pun intended). You can't have one without the other.

>On the assassination market ideas, I find it evil. Killing politicians
>for unaccounted wielding of power (corruption) doesn't deter. It makes
>it worse as, after the first bribe, the politician has nothing more to
>lose.

Your statement makes no sense.  "Killing politicians for unaccounted wielding of power doesn't deter"?  It's hard to imagine that it WOULDN'T deter that!  It would certainly prevent that, at least future such exercises of power, by the target...er...person in question.
You also seem to disregard the idea that such a system would deter people from entering politics, at least those with the intention of being corrupt.  
(Full disclosure:  I view 'politics' as being _inherently_ 'corrupt', being a libertarian.)

>Instead of killing, we give them a fair trial and jail that politician
>and the bribing jail owner in their own jail for a long time. That's
>sweet revenge!
>Guido Witmond.

How often does that actually work?   The people in power, the ones actually making the rules, have every incentive to try to make prosecutions of that kind as rare as possible.  And there are countries in which prosecution of the political opposition is virtually a national sport, such as Russia.  I think your proposed 'solution' simply isn't a solution at all.  At least, it hasn't worked yet, and there is no prospect for it working in the future, anywhere.
       Jim Bell
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4698 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20131126/13ef95d6/attachment-0001.txt>